Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 12

< December 11	December 13 >

Guide to deletion

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 Speedy Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Brake

neologisms

like this. Delete.

Delete: The article says "I call it 'snake brake'". This, along with its relative lack of Google hits makes me think this is
something made up in school one day. Heimstern Läufer 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Also
WP:NFT, in addition to above. --Sable232 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. "The reason I call it a Snake Break"? Come on. —EdGl 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A1, but at least it's an amusing one. Deltopia 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1. FWIW, this is known in CB slang as a "brake check". --Dennisthe2 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not a dictionary. --JudahBlaze 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense dictdef. MER-C 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-
per nom. --Dakota 01:24, 12 December 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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. -

Mailer Diablo 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Jugging

unsourced. At the very least, it is a dicdef and should be transwikied to the Wiktionary (once the correct definition is ascertained). While this appears to be a word (and possibly a sport), I haven't found anything to support the current content. Agent 86 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Possibly speedy delete with A1? Non-notable neologism, if it's anything. Holy cows. That is a quick and wonderful transformation to an encyclopedic article. Keep! Deltopia 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki agree with nomination. To wiktionary! -
~~Review Me!) 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply
]
- Ok, the rewrite looks good. Keep then. -
  Review Me!) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - I'm British and I've never heard of this word. Readro 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm British and I have heard of this word, in the meat preservation context anyway[1] (jugged hare was a widely-known recipe until relatively recently - even Mrs Beeton covers it[2]). That part at least should be merged to food preservation and a redirect kept. The hugging/boobs definition seems rather spurious though. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to transwiki such non-sense. TSO1D 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concerns with factuality and per nom but no need for tranwiki.—
Seadog 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Is this just a definition? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous protologism on the level of
Danny Lilithborne 05:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Changing my vote to Keep since Uncle G worked on it. I did read the whole article before, but I figured the opening paragraphs were just an excuse to work that last paragraph in. Good job.
Danny Lilithborne 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Partial merge~~ Keep per ~~Matticus78~~ Uncle G, below. Sentences 1 and 2 were fine (I, too, have heard of this culinary method), but sentence 3 is, to be brutally frank, a load of
Bubba hot ep 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - OK, fair enough. My culinary knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp. But the last bit falls under
WP:BOLLOCKS Readro 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - my culinary knowledge can be written on the back of a slightly larger stamp, you know, the type seen as limited edition Christmas specials? However, I do have a few cook books propping up table legs in the dining room!
Bubba hot ep 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Transwiki - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Transwiki A fine definition can be found here if this is going to be the solution.
Bubba hot ep 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

TransWiki; per nominator's suggestion. --Mhking 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, it's a stub, and there's scope for expansion to things like Jugged Steak, for example. Some editors above appear to have read no further than the silliness about women with large breasts that was appended to the article by 157.203.43.103 (talk · contribs). The solution to that was to simply edit the article to remove the unsourced silliness. It didn't require an administrator to hit the delete button. Keep. Uncle G 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re: Uncle G's fine work (again) - it should be moved to Jugged, maybe? As all the refs I find are the state of being "jugged" rather than the act of "jugging"?
Bubba hot ep 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say "Jugged" is the more common noun form. "Jugging" redirect?
Bubba hot ep 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"jugged" is a past participle. Our article on cooking is not entitled "cooked". ☺ Uncle G 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but if an article were called "cooked meat", it wouldn't be called "cooking meat", would it? Ah, never mind, I am in deference. :) The redirect you did has much the same effect anyway.
Bubba hot ep 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep Well sourced article, more info than a dicdef, not a recipe, not a neologism. Edison 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well-sourced article since Uncle G got his hands on it! And I have changed my opinion to keep for it.
Bubba hot ep 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've reviewed the edits by UncleG and concur that it is now a verifiable, sourced article, so I'm willing to withdraw the AfD nom. That said, please
assume good faith. I made it clear in the nomination that the article, in its then state, was unsourced and unverified, and that I was unable to find either. It was the entire article that I had problems with, not just the final line, as it was all unsourced and unverified. Based on the edits, it appears the term to search for ought to have been "jugged", but that was not apparent at the time. Agent 86 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would be the first to jump to your defence, Agent86. I think you were right to bring it here, and it has become a better article for it. No harm, no foul. :)
Bubba hot ep 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed, it wasn't apparent to someone who didn't already know the subject. (One of the things that I came across in my search for sources was a 2006 study in the U.K. that revealed that only 1.6% of people under 25 actually recognized the name "jugged hare".) I was referring, however, to the editors above who thought that "jugging" was yet another nonsense sex protologism. (I understand that one might have thought that the cooking definition was simply there to make the article seem legitimate. But this is in fact a case of a silly sex protologism being tacked onto an unsourced stub.) Uncle G 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than just a definition, has sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - dunno how bad it was when nominated but its starting to get too long and too referenced for an article about cooking now... Ga rr ie 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a factual article! Readro 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have been more explicit: this AfD can be closed as I'm withdrawing the nom. The article is nothing like the state it was in when first nominated. Agent 86 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - excellent job on the rewrite, Uncle G, so I change my stance from partial merge to strong keep. I've also added a brief paragraph to the article on food preservation (where I originally suggested the merge to) and a link to this revised article therein. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this article has been drastically rewritten and is very good now Yuckfoo 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very nice work to make this a good entry now to Wikipedia. --
RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:06, 14 December 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 was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

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

This is unencyclopediac and unsourced. Speculative POV, anti-American bias! TheOnlyChoice 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXPAND: To include
State terrorism in Sri Lanka. All or nothing; all are invalid. Allegations are not appropriate. American article, especially. TheOnlyChoice 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thus, AfD for all three:

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

State sponsored terrorism by Syria

State terrorism in Sri Lanka

Comment
few or no other edits, 18 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds, bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. Travb (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You've tried this tactic against this user once before, and were embarassed by the attempt. Going for 0 for 2?
Morton devonshire 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Nice violation of WP:AGF. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNo it is not, it is a reasonable request by any concerned Wikipedian. Here I was not involved with any edit wars with most of you and I can say that the above account looks very suspicious. Infact I thought about opening a Suspected Sock puppet case against that account but later decided against it. Closing Admin should do a checkuser of the above account with the most probable candidate in these discussions.RaveenS 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job vilating WP:AGF, nice blanket accusation. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete all. WP is not the place for "allegations." --Sable232 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support all three for deletion? If not please detail why you are not. Please confirm!! TheOnlyChoice 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it is the place for notable unproven claims, just like it is the place for notable hoaxes, so long as both are (a) notable and (b) attributable to reliable sources. You may be referring to
WP:SOAP, but reporting claims that the US, Syria, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, North Korea, the UK, etc, etc were/are state sponsors of terrorism isn't soapboxing. The claims exist, with varying degrees of evidentiary support. But we're not here to determine the validity of claims (that's original research), only to report that they have been made, without giving undue weight to any part of the arguments. One thing that Wikipedia certainly is not, which may be of relevance here, is censored. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete Agree with sable, accusations are inappropriate, we do not have allegations of XYZ against person A, so we should not slander entire countries either. Allegations is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support all three for deletion? If not please detail why you are not. Please confirm!! TheOnlyChoice 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and they should at least be renamed as it seems the term state terrorism is not consistent in all sources in all articles, meaning there is self defining going on by editors which is the very proccess of WP:OR. The very idea that you can define "State terrorism" when the term "terrorism" does not even have an international definition is quite absurd and as such the term should not appear in article titles either. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia does not have "Allegations against XYZ person" because of very real concerns with violating libel law, at least that's how I perceive why there are more strict codes regarding bios. That said, allegations with merit do have a place in Wikipedia, even in bios. In the case of various countries' foreign policies, allegation might be the only appropriate word, given the nature of the deliberate concealment that is performed by all governments in undertaking actions that might damage their reputation. --
Jackhorkheimer 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
That is exactly my point, if we know its wrong to accuse people we should avoid accusing entire nations. The problem with these articles that even goes beyond naming and basic idea is that the sections within them are usually sourced to limited articles and not presented with counter claims. Wikipedia is not a place to promote Chomsky's definition of what "terrorism" is, however it gets its own section in the US article ... Your personal opinion of some countries "foreign policy" is not appropriate terminology to define state terrorism. As noted above State terrorism does not have an definition so its the editors defining the term to match the article, which is also a violation of WP:OR. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record I do not think you have the ability to state people have to choose all or nothing. I also do not find it to be "anti-american" I just find it to be in bad taste as Wikipedia is being used to prop up the very minority world view by fringe professors and disputed authors and researchers. To see an article like this and have the only semi respectable person in it be Chomsky, is quite sad as we all know how level headed and fair minded Chomsky is. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is most definitely
Wikipedia is not censored. Sections like "Attempts at defining terrorism" definitely need to go. However, encyclopaedic articles, listing occasions when the countries in question have been specifically accused of "terrorism" by notable figures, organisations and governments, are definitely maintainable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per IslaySolomon. --
Woot? contribs 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article has valid content and is well-sourced. If the name is a problem or if a POV dispute exists, than those problems can be taken care of separately but a deletion is not warranted. TSO1D 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Bad faith nom. --Hemlock Martinis 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a mass of badly sourced pottage, despite the long list of citations; again and again it makes unsourced allegations and then sources various statements about how awful the atrocities were. I don't see this article ever being more than a battleground of ideologies or a platform for anti-Americanism; the various subsections are probably better off having individual articles (and I suspect most of them have individual articles already). I think a category Accusations of state terrorism would be neutral and useful. --Brianyoumans 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to the other articles: I think the Syrian article could be merged with Foreign relations of Syria, since the accusations of terrorism have been a major issue in their foreign relations. --Brianyoumans 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, then -- by that measure, we should merge the Allegations...U.S.A page with the
U.S. Department of State page. Stone put to sky 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

...and the Sri Lankan article... perhaps this could be merged into some sort of timeline of the Sri Lankan civil war? Most of the accusations fall short of state terrorism, to my mind, since it is probably that they were not ordered by the state (although it tolerated the military that committed them). At the least, I would change the title to eliminate the phrase "state terrorism". --Brianyoumans 04:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Gabi S. 07:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would definitely suggest either renaming the article (as per my suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism) or merging legitimate content into the proper article(s). metaspheres 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We have attempted to rename the article several times, to no avail. Travb (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An entirely appropriate article with many international newspapers, official documents and other credible sources. Deleting this article would only reinforce the impression of the English Wikipedia being an American Wikipedia, but obviously some cannot accept the fact that there have been terrorist acts carried out by the United States. Also, compare this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_extremist_terrorism. If this article is oh so POV, make the required changes instead of a bad faith nomination like this. Furthermore I'd like to point out that the only purpose of the account User:TheOnlyChoice seems to be to nominate articles for deletion. See Special:Contributions/TheOnlyChoice --Nyp 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do no think you have read the sources of the people actually making allegations, they come from Granma (Cuba State newspaper), FreeRepublic, GlobalResearch (blog), Radio Habana Cuba (Cuba State Radio), Cuba Solidarity (More Cuba State Media), Chomsky ( ... ), Workers World Newsletter, Emperor-Clothes.Com (Who knows?), Counter-Punch.Org (NewsLetter). Lots of sources are legit, but those just back that events happened, they are not the sources that make the accusations. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just where exactly do you think officially, properly sourced accusations of terrorism against the United States comes from, if not from foreign governments, the organizations which represent them and neutral human rights groups? Regardless, your list of sources is woefully misrepresentative of the actual diversity on the page. Stone put to sky 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes right, what was I thinking, Cuba is entirely impartial, lets get more sources, maybe if we write a letter to North Korea they can help, maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government, I mean where else would we expect such truth to come from if not a government right? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All articles are cited using
WP:POINT here because we just now went through CAT:State Terrorism XFD witht the same arguments. RaveenS 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment No we didn't. The category arguments were completely different. They were related to an asumption of guilt as applied by the category - without citation or attribution - to articles detailing violent acts. The category tacitly inferred that an allegation was fact. This article is very different and is in line with numerous other legitimate articles that detail notable claims.--Zleitzen 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Either allegations from notable groups or individuals exist. Or they don't. In this case they exist. NuclearUmpf's statement above doesn't hold water. A government statement in a state newspaper, or a government's statement to the UN is a perfectly legitimate source to carry allegations on this page. The BBC is state media, controlled by a director general appointed by the British government. Would you suggest that the BBC is not a legitimate source? Allegations made by one government are as valid as allegations made by any other. As wikipedia carries many allegations made by the United States government about other nations and individuals, taken straight from US government websites, it seems perfectly reasonable on this page to also detail allegations made by other governments about the United States.--Zleitzen 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Should be kept until consensus is reached on how to handle all these. It's no good wanting the ones that fit your POV removed ("anti-Amierican bias!" !) as others have noted. The politcally correct "Allegations of" should be applied to all or none at the same time. Akihabara 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as above, this is the second vote for deletion. Definetly bad faith nomination. How can an article be "unsourced" with 90 sources? Travb (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is already an article on State Terrorism generally, and this is a daughter article, as are the ones on Syria, etc. I don't like the 'Allegations' title but this is the result of a very very long discussion with the right wingers. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As evidenced by the post above, these pages serve mostly for political bullshit and warring than anything else. There is one side who will not rest until all of Wikipedia shows America to be the guiding light of the world, and there is another side who will not rest until they successfully perpetrate their belief that America is the Great Satan. Pages like these are POV by nature. Just something to think about. --Sable232 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read the article you will be surprised by its balance. It needs improvement, but we are being constantly distracted by Afd's ArbCom's RfC's etc. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe its fully sourced, its surely not biased. Most sections do not contain a counter claim. Further last time I tried to add a coutner point, it was reverted constantly. The article only reads as an attack and any attempt to add anything otherwise has been met with hostility and accusations, not from you I would like to point out. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
disagreements with editors of an article are no reason to delete the article, there are other means of resolving conflict.Bouke 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there are so few counter-arguments is because NuclearZero/NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults has generally gone out of his way to remove them. A quick perusal of the diffs is all that's needed for verification. Stone put to sky 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right so I am removing the allegations cause I do not agree with them and at the same time removing the counter arguements, which if you were right, would be removing my own defense ... good job, any more silly accusations that you cannot provide difs for? Still waiting on that apology. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Bad faith nomination. Take for instance the Nicaragua case: factual information is well documented, by reputable sources, and the allegation is made explicit. It is not unsourced, the encyclopedic-ness is ok in my eyes, it is not speculative, but it could use some balancing POV: a defense of US policy should be included if it exists. In short, no reason for deletion. Bouke 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The
State terrorism in Sri Lanka which violates major wikipedia guidlines and is being used by groups with vested interests to push their own POV.Kerr avon 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

While you may not like the points made or the sources used, these sources are notable and acceptable under
WP:RS. Among the sources are also the ICRC, Amnesty International and the BBC. These sources are certainly acceptable. Further, I don't believe it is legally possible to libel a government. Libel law is reserved for individuals, not governments.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but who says they are "State terrorism"? Human rights violations happen everywhere. Who makes the dicision to label them "state terrorism"? Wikipedia editors? Thats totally against a number of Wikipedia policies. In most cases regading to Sri Lanka the organizations such as AI and ICRC state they have got reports that the said incident happened. From who? Its anybodies guess. Has anything been proved? No. Wikipedia is a not a place gossip or unconfirmed reports. Including such totally unproven allegations in Wikipedia simply dilutes the credibility of Wikipedia. We should stick to the facts only. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The http://www.tamilnation.org http://www.tamilnet.com , http://www.tamilweek.com cannot be considered as reliable sources as
WP:RS
specifically mentions that "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution."

Some of these sites are extremist
WP:RS
clause "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources", one can argue against the inclusion of the links from sites which are front ends of the LTTE.

Wikipedia is a place for facts and not for allegations. All the
LTTE sympathizers can use to continue their disinformation campaign against our country.Kerr avon 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The LTTE is a reliable source of their own allegations ... I'm not sure anyone can reasonably dispute this. WilyD 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ All three. Validly sourced. What does it matter if a given source is controlled by a government agency? We routinely will source to the United States and British governments and (very, very, very incorrectly withtout "checking" them as some seem to want to do wit these sources). Those governments are no more reputable than any other. So, the US does not honor the Cuban government? The rest of the world does. Irrelevant argument, this is not the us.wikipedia.org. The American viewpoint is a minority viewpoint. RE: the others, the sourcing appears valid. · XP · 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User is banned from editing Wikipedia. Sock puppet of rootology. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep of
State terrorism in Sri Lanka to "Allegations of...". Definite reasons to keep all three as mentioned, but should keep a NPOV naming convention for all such articles. -Markeer 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — Hasn't this been through here before? It's as good a place as any to handle such counter-accusations. The article is both encyclopedic and sourced, so criteria for delete is invalid. The text appears to read as neutral, but the neutrality tag at the top will probably help keep it that way. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Original nomination says: "This is unencyclopediac and unsourced. Speculative POV, anti-American bias!". Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It is most definitely encyclopaedic, it is sourced and, if the nominator thinks there's an anti-American bias I'm going to lay money the nominator is American! Emeraude 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article covers an important factor in international politicals, whilst it may be difficult to keep unbias i do feel that as a persistant but rarely addressed allegation the page is relevant to help readers fully understand the motivations of involved nations. LordFenix 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the purpose of merging the information into relevant articles (e.g. the Cuban information into
Cuba-United States relations). If it weren't for the well-referenced material, I'd argue for deletion. This article pulls disparate information together in a way that promotes some (albeit weak) conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is "The United States has allegedly committed terrorism". The entire article serves to promote this insipid thesis. It skirts the boundary of original research by presenting unrelated incidents in the form of a discrete encyclopedia topic. Academics make their living from this sort of clerical work. Furthermore, this article has a misleadingly bland title. The word 'allegedly' is the only preventative against an extraordinary conclusion (consider Lies allegedly told by George W. Bush or Alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger). Presenting an extraordinary assertion in the form of a seemingly innocuous and trivial assertion is pathologically sinister. In general, we should avoid turning propositions into encyclopedia articles. Such articles are trojan horses for POV warring and original research. shotwell 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This appears to be a content dispute put forward as an AfD. Per the article, the US and Britain use the "State Terrorism" term to refer to actions of other states as a major reason for foreign policy and military actions against rogue states or members of the Axis of Evil. If there are reliable and verifiable sources reporting that other countries allege the U.S. to have done similar actions, then a case is made for having such an article. Rather than deleting the article, edit boldly and remove any non-reliable sources such as partisan blogs, and correct any POV pushing. Edison 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this article is extremely well sourced. That it's "anti-American" isn't a valid reason to delete; Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not a place to make allegations, but notable rifts in foreign policy between several nations, referencing many print newspapers, seems like a very worthy article for Wikipedia, in fact, the ability to cover current affairs is part of what makes Wikipedia so much more valuable than a print encyclopedia. Also, as pointed out above, User:TheOnlyChoice's history seems very much like a sock puppet. DigitalEnthusiast 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three per IslaySolomon. — coelacan talk — 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per IslaySoloman and others. As for the assertion that Wiki doesn't document allegations or accusations, please see
Do_as_I_Say_(Not_as_I_Do):_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy which repeats the following allegations and accusations, with no documentation. "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider", and Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss" - F.A.A.F.A. 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that the article
Do_as_I_Say_(Not_as_I_Do):_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy is about a book, and the quotes you give are just summaries of what is in the book. --Brianyoumans 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Unsourced? Seems very well sourced to me, and to pretty good sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three. While I believe that many of the allegations against the U.S. are either spurious or legalistic hair-splitting for propaganda effect, the allegations are real, and have significant currency worldwide, and are therefore notable enough for an article. The existing article has some POV problems, but it's not bad compared to some of the left-wing drivel on Wikipedia, and is eminently curable. Argyriou (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is intergral in American History, I don't think anyone who truely cares about the United States can deny it's history so as to deny future generations lessons to improve the union. With that said, the article follows most - all of the wikipedia guidelines as generally follows a NPOV stance throughout. Strong Keep --Sharz 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Though the allegations are nonsense, I dont' see why we wouldn't have an article about them. They're just allegations, after all. Milto LOL pia 05:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - This is ridiculous! To say that the Allegations of Terrorism by U.S.A. article is poorly sourced or references improperly biased material is patently and utterly false! It includes:

Citations by a leading international Military, Security and Terrorism researchers

Citations by several international organizations who routinely advise the United Nations

Citations from reports issued by several International Law organizations

Citations from leading Human Rights organizations

Citations from leading political and social scientists

Quotations from the Geneva Conventions, both first and second.

Nearly all of these sources i mention involve specific mention of "state terrorism" as a phrase (some do involve commentary on the concept of "terrorism" in general). They amount to clear demonstration of an international legal and academic consensus on the use and meaning of the phrase "state terrorism"; moreover, on the page we have gone out of our way to give every opportunity for objections and contrary evidence to be provided.
Unfortunately, it has become clear that several "editors" are intent only upon seeing the information provided there deleted from the Wikipedia record. Among others, these include "Morton Devonshire" and "NuclearZero" or "NuclearUmpf" or "Zerofaults".
In the Charges & Evidence section, we have in each case mentioned clear citations from widely available media and journalistic sources which clearly describe defined, limited conditions (as proof) and/or use the words "state terrorism" (accusations).
These are not articles making unprovable, skewed observations about negligible issues! This is not a "Brittney's Black Babies", "American Racism", or "American Evil" article.
These constant AfD's about "State Terrorism" articles are really silly. I have no idea if the Sri Lankan and Syrian articles adhere to the same rigor as we have worked to bring the U.S.A. article in line with, but obviously i think that insofar as they can, they should. Similarly, though, insofar as they cannot, they should not. Stone put to sky 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Geneva Conventions do not mention international terrorism, the only political scientist is Chomsky, the Human Rights orgs are not the major ones like Red Cross etc. they are actually ones I never heard of, though I am sure they are real. There is 1 citations from an international group, wouldnt call it a law org, they write about how you cannot define terrorism, they use state terrorism in the article but not in a real way, they are saying you cannot define it because terrorism lacks a definition. The leading military expert is Ganser, which I wouldnt call a military expert after that document was proven to be a forgery. SO while I am sure this will be a keep, it would be nice if you actually looked over the sources fully and researched them. There is a political scientist being used as a source because he runs a human rights group, oddly enough the web page for that group has nothing on it ... it looks like a home page. The actual "allegations" come from Cuba State News, Chomsky, obscure french human rights groups, World Workers Party etc. And next time you accus eme of something I will start going to admins, I am tired of your baseless accusations, you still never apologized for accusing me of "deleting" those other section even though I proved they were just moved down a section, woops, egg on your face. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 10:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone please witness: this is the sort of nonsense i must put up with on this page (and more than likely the author of this RfD, as well). This person has already seen that the Geneva Conventions are -- as cited repeatedly on the page in question -- the basis for most (but not all) of the official (i.e. -- legal, political, and NGO) definitions of both "terrorism" as well as "state terrorism". Similarly, there are more than a mere few political scientists quoted on the page...and no 'egg on my face'. Peace -- Stone put to sky 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what the Geneva Convention defines as terrorism or state terrorism please? Of course you cannot because it doesn't give a definition, your WP:OR is annoying, so Stone, try not to address me since every time I prove you wrong, you refuse to apologize for your accusations. Enjoy your
eggs. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This has grown very tired Zerofaults. Most of the allegations made by various people in the Cuban government (reported in "Cuba state news" rather than made by Cuba state news) - have actually been admitted to by the perpetrators. And substantiated by US declassified documents. Should we also delete any reference to the fact that the
Bay of Pigs invasion was a CIA organised attack as well? --Zleitzen 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure what you are talking about, who said anything about deleting references? If you participated on the page you would see I never had a problem with it, while the source is bias, WP:RS doesnt say we cannot have bias sources. Also the people who have admitted to wrong doing have not admitted to commiting terrorism. So the actual allegations of terrorism come from only bias sources and not government admissions. This is part of the problem, the US gets accused of commiting "unlawful warfare" from a non bias source, however the source alleging terrorism is Chomsky, by stating all instances of "unlawful warfare" is terrorism, hence making a redefining a legal definition when he does not have a legal degree. My only gripe has been WP:RS sources and Seabhcan provided those. My bigger gripe will never be resolved because some people do not mind an article filled with state run papers as sources, and I do not either since educated people reading the article will see the blatant bias in it.

--Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The people who have admitted to wrong doing have not admitted to commiting terrorism." No. They admitted to killing children, teenagers, other civilians, to publicly further their political aims. Everyone else calls it terrorism. Your "article filled with state run papers" argument is false and futile. By the way, if you don't like "state run papers". Go take that up with the BBC.--Zleitzen 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what subject you are refering to anymore in your insinuations, also the article as agreed on by editors requires an actual accusation, hence why they all come from fringe sources like Cuba state papers etc. You stating that my arguement is futile, is off topic, while I do not like a bias article I have already stated its going to stay bias cause the sources used. You are arguing in circles, I also already stated while they are run by the Cuban government, they pass WP:RS. Maybe you should try not to be so hostile and stop arguing in circles about things I already admitted will not change. Less hostility please, this isn't a high school class room, or a football field. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear, if Cuban state publications are inadmissible because they may be biased or unreliable, why is a US state publication admissible as evidence that the FM is fake [4] ? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily provide another source, will you then provide non governmental sources for your allegations? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either the sources pass WP:RS and this page should stay - or they don't, meaning this page should be deleted. You write "[the sources] pass WP:RS". So is that the end of the matter? Will we still find you discussing the issue of these sources in the future? Even though you admit here that the sources meet WP:RS? If you think that a Cuban ambassador to the UN's statement on terrorism against Cuba is a "fringe source" - then that is merely your view. To most people, it is no more fringe than Colin Powell's statement to the UN in 2003. But as you now admit that this meets reliable source guidelines, then why is there a need for you to keep bringing this issue up? Perhaps our confusion about why you repeatedly mention these reliable sources whilst calling for a deletion of a page, may explain why you are reading what you term "circular arguments". --Zleitzen 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources pass WP:RS, the articles focus is not encyclopedic, dealing with fringe groups accusations and government propaganda agencies as its sources is a blight to Wikipedia. I have never stated the article failed WP:RS after Seabhcan added his sources, do you even read the talk page? you seem to have me confused with someone else. My deletion reasoning above also doesnt mention WP:RS, if you need help finding the person you are suppose to be addressing I can help you find them possibly. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the US gets accused of commiting "unlawful warfare" from a non bias source, however the source alleging terrorism is Chomsky, by stating all instances of "unlawful warfare" is terrorism" Chomsky is using the Americans' own definition of "terrorism". Any illegal and violent act is terrorism according to the US. Then again, so is defending yourself from an illegal occupation. The US has killed unarmed and innocent civilians in cold blood (with many of the responsible Marines loving every second of it) as well as killed/beaten children. Lovely. Coconuteire 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely and off topic, if you want to discuss the article please use its talk page. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic. Khoi khoi 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close Now per
WP:POINT. BCoates 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard got a snowball keep and it had less people wanting to keep: 18 keep 6 delete, versus 28 keeps here and 8 deletes. I will ask for it again. Travb (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Long a source of
Morton devonshire 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's possible for any controversial article to do the same. The article isn't about "state terrorism by the US", it's about allegations. Informative writing about allegations is easily possible in a neutral way, as long as those allegations are not given a value, right? It's not POV to say a suspicion/viewpoint/allegation exists, only to give it some "worth" one way or another. Milto LOL pia 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will never be a stable page in its present form, or under this title. Consider other pages case by case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hah! So now if you want to delete a page all you have to do is to make it unstable!? Great. Morton is in heaven. SalvNaut 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This afd has been included in User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. --Striver 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is POV pushing, it is constantly being updated with unreliable sources, it has caused edit wars, it is a POV collection of info (factual or not) to make a POV statement against the United States. It is not encyclopedic material. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is also a discussion about
State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Do youhave any thoughts about those articles?--Zleitzen 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Check them against
WP:RS. If they are not properly written, conduct an AfD on those as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is an afd on those articles as well. See top of page.--Zleitzen 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know you could combine articles at the same time for deletion (this is my first). The only thing I needed to see was the AfD for Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. Good, burn it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If Newt Gingrich's mother says to Connie Chung that Newt Gingrich thinks that Hillary Clinton is a (female dog), do we need to create an article, Allegations that Hillary Clinton is a female dog? Interestingly, that topic gets 442,000 g-hits [5]. Just because two or more people string the same two words together in a sentence doesn't mean that we need a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia could do without a lot of the articles that really serve no purpose other than to provide a forum for a political argument. This is not an encyclopedic topic - it's a Sunday talk show topic. It's a talk radio topic. It's not an encyclopedia topic. BigDT 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is always someone in an AfD who has a completly irrelevant example. Congratulation BigDT, your example has absolutly nothing to do with this AfD. Travb (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nevermind, Zer0faults just beat you out with this statment: "maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government" Travb (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief ... I thought that
WP:NPOV#undue weight. Songs called the worst ever ... Movies called the worst ever ... Allegations of Israeli Apartheid ... we don't need that kind of thing. Wikipedia is not a polling service whose job is to archive world, national, or local opinion on any given subject. BigDT 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government" ... Actually we do have precisely that, and no one is suggesting it's not worth keeping here on Wikipedia, it's properly sourced, and it's a useful notation of modern history. The article isn't suggesting that it's true, either, it's just an allegation. See The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Iran. — coelacan talk — 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a polling service whose job is to archive world, national, or local opinion on any given subject." - why then do we have articles such as Criticism of Hugo Chávez ? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If the United States does something that fits a definition of "terrorism", including their own definition, then it is state terrorism! And they have committed many, many such acts. End of story. Coconuteire 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum to decide whether those allegations are true. It's for deciding whether or not to have a reference about them. "Them" being the allegations, not the supposed acts. Milto LOL pia 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as somebody said, WP is not the place for "allegations." Chaldean 00:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article could be stronger since there are many many credible sources of information regarding the extensive use of and support for terrorist activities perpetrated by the USA. 'The Trial of Henri Kissinger" by Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. But, this article is of much higher quality than many on Wikipedia and has over sixty sources, many of which are extremely credible, ie the Guardian Newspaper in Britian (Englands third largest paper). Furthermore, there has been very little counter evidence on this forum, nor any actual discredidation of the used sources. I am annoyed at the petiness of this debate. Calling people anit-american because they are critical of a countries human rights abuses is a terrible rhetorical tactic. Much like calling anyone who crticises Israeli policy and marginalization of Palestinians anti-semetic including academics like Prof. Finklestien, who had two parents survive Nazi concentration camps. Many of the most committed American citizens including numerous members of the National Public Radio have presented evidence of US terroism. I will stop here. Please do not delete this article, make it better, or atleast come up with some credible accusations either against the sources used or disproving the facts cited. If we only count as credible those institutions and academics who are lauded by mainstream discourses then they will be free to dupe us at every turn.--—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Mahakaya (talk • contribs
) 01:47, 14 December 2006 UTC.

Strong KeepWe are not judging the merit of the accusations against a country. The accusations exist, they are well known world-wide, they are the subject of legal and political action. This is part of history, and will remain so, regardless of the final verdict of the civilized world. We do not pretend to moral or legal judgment. We record what is notable and documented. What could be more notable? What could be better documented than the existence of these allegations? DGG 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator gave no good reasons. "anti-American bias" is a completely POV statements and makes it sound like the AFD was to push POV, like how many conspiracy articles get AFD'd by people who don't believe in the conspiracy theories. Anomo 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia if it supplies documented, non-obvious, non-source-text information about a notable phenomenon from a neutral perspective and in a summary format. Colorable accusations by other states of US complicity in state terrorism meet at least all but the NPOV and summary criteria to the extent that the accusations can be verified from reliable sources and are not mere reproductions of formal government remonstrances.

The concern that this article is an instance of content-forking is not misplaced; but because the article treats allegations, and as such, could include official US Government responses to the charges, the article is not necessarily POV.

I am worried that the article is beginning to "plead evidence" rather than confine itself to an overview treatment. Wikipedia should report controversies but not resolve them, no matter how dispassionately that resolution is attempted. External links and references can direct readers to sources that attempt to analyze and resolve the controversy. Accordingly, some of the lengthier block-quotes and more detailed statements of accusations should be summarized at a level more appropriate for reporting rather than analysis.

Pop Secret 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Islay Solomon, renaming as appropriate, rewriting and referencing as necessary. Article(s) on countries which have sponsored terrorism, or are prominently accused of sponsoring terrorism, are perfectly encyclopedic topics. No
WP:V issues here that cannot be resolved by cooperative editing and requested moves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all per Sable.--John Lake 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: users interested in this AfD should also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces — coelacan talk — 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this proto, and buy the nominator a drink. What are we, Uncyclopedia? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter, 75 sources aren't enough for you? — coelacan talk — 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have not read the page, its 75 sources for events having happened, not 75 sources of allegations. I can write that an article "allegations of aliens plotting world domination during WW2" then cite 102 sources of events that actually happened during WW2 and source them, then get 3 fringe people as sources for the allegations, and bingo I have 105 sources in an article and only 3 are actually of allegations. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He, he, this is funny:
"allegations of aliens plotting world domination during WW2"

"How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government,

Allegations that Hillary Clinton is a female dog do you have anymore Nuclear :) ? Travb (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably come up with some more just for you, but the Hilary Clinton one wasn't mine. Care to address the point of there being less then 10% of the total sources actually containing the accusations or are not denynig that counting 75 sources as proof is kind of misleading when only 7 have accusations. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that Nuclear and others define "fringe" any person or group who makes these allegations. Thus even governments of large important countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, become "fringe" as soon as they mention US terrorism. Whole universities become "fringe", however selectively. ETH Zurich is now a "Fringe" university for the purposes of discrediting this view, however, when one of their faculty published the Theory of Relativity, they are not "fringe". I don't see Nuclear putting
Einstein on AfD because he worked at a "Fringe" university. There's no way to win against this kind of logic - they want it both ways. Its called censorship. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the government of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are not the most neutral of observers. I have no problem with ETH Zurich either, not sure where I said I did. If you watch the news you would see how the Iranian president hosted a "serious conference" on if the Holocaust happened, so serious he got the best researchers, like David Duke, and did not permit anyone with an Israeli citizenship present. So while you may find the president of Iran to be neutral on certain issues, I surely wouldnt consider them neutral on issues related to the US or Jews. I also did not put Ganser up for AfD, so not sure why you would assume I would put Einstein up either. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find this misleading as well because I never stated Ganser was not a reputable source either, simply that if you wanted to avoid the talk page drama with others, you may want to bolster your sources with non Ganser material. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chavez and Castro may not be neutral, but Bush is no better - I'd put them all in the same salt jar - an the US is certainly not neutral in their denial of terrorism. (I'd didn't mean you alone, but you are certainly on the more reasonable end of the same spectrum). My point is that the label "fringe" is used to dismiss things witch conflict with a predefined notion of reality. I have a Chinese friend who doesn't believe the Tiananmen massacre really happened. If it had it would have been reported in the People's Daily. The western sources which claim it happened are anti-Chinese. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Business Plot is an excellent example of something that most people think is a hoax, but a Congressional committee confirmed everything.

What troubles me about some of the comments here, is
that a couple of users (those who have actively attempted to delete this article for month) say that government x is an unreliable source, and doesn't meet
WP:NOR
. These same editors will actively use US government documents as reliable. I have no problem with these editors listing US government documents as reliable, but I find it disingeous that these editors refuse to accept documents from enemies of the US.

That to many of these conservative editors, fringe = delete. I have no problem with a web page like
WP:Civil prevent editors like myself from stating the elephant in the room: Politically motivated AfD's
.

User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, User:Morton devonshire/conspiracy theory, User:Morton devonshire/dubioussources should and, if I have anything to say about it, will be deleted. There is something terrible troubling that a small group of like minded editors constintently destroy well referenced articles simply because they don't meet their own POV. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard has already been put up for deletion, and was dubiously stopped early, as soon as I determine the various wikipolicy it violates, and I have a solid case, it will go up for deletion too, along with the other two pages.

2 caveats:
If I somehow offended someone, and they are of the opinion that I violated
WP:NPA
on wikipedia since my last comments on a AfD got me booted for less than a half hour.

I actually agree with many of these conservative editors position, that most of these conspiracy theories are bullshit. That includes 100% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and probably
Flat Earth Society
article be deleted too? What is the difference? I simply disagree with the heavy handed, vicious tactics of this small minority or editors This AfD is yet another symptom of these continued tactics.

I will make these editors a deal:

I will become the most active protector of
9/11 and WTC if these AfDs stop. That means I will go against many of the editors on these pages who have to this point been allies with me, including Seabhcan, Salvnut, RaveenS etc. Many of you have seen how effective my arguments are, i think I will be a great ally. Travb (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What do governments as sources have to do with WP:NOR? The more you attempt to summarize the more you seem like you really do not get the point. Allegations is not encyclopedic. There are NOR problems that arrise, however none currently in this allegations article, but come up because people want to assume that a source stating "US violated human rights" is equal to "US commited terrorism" because in their opinion all violations of human rights are terrorist acts ... The real problem is an article on accusations is not encyclopedic. I think I will start one if this is permitted to stay soon on "Allegations of terrorism by Taiwan" and cite China's claim that they attempted to create missles that would reach the Great Dam. Then soon after another one on "Allegations the Democractic Party of America is aiding terrorism" and source it with Republican far right commentators. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to these articles because they violate Wikipedia policies, primarily
Morton devonshire 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your comments gentlemen, I said what I felt needed to be said. Have a good evening. Travb (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep reliable sources, factual information (about allegations, there were no trials, no independent investigations, how would you expect a strong proof here?). NPOV issues should be resolved by adding opposite views, not by deleting well sourced material. It's difficult to watch how some people cannot stand this article... it only presents different worldview that they happen to have. If you feel it's innacurate, please add reliable sources of your own. SalvNaut 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're going to talk about several "allegations / conspiracy theory" pages at once, we need to set a common standard, especially since a precedent here could affect pages like
Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories
. First, let's get the definitions straight:

Allegation: X did Y

Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as... (list sources)

Wikipedia cannot make the claim, "X did Y", but it can publish verifiable facts, like the one listed above. We can simply report this fact (the fact that such allegations have been widely discussed in notable sources), or we can write an article which discusses this allegation. This is where POV comes into the picture. Any in-depth article about an allegation or conspiracy theory must cover both points of view, without slipping into OR. I'd have no problem with an article in this format:

1: Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as...

(mention a couple sources which summarize the allegation itself, but in a NPOV tone)

2: Verifiable fact: In the book ("They Did Bad"), Bob discusses...

(summary of all the published sources which support the allegation, no extra OR)

3: Verifiable fact: However, an alternate explanation was put forward by the "Real Beef Research Institute" ...

(summary of all the published sources which refute the allegation, no extra OR)

4: List all references fully at the end.

Oh, btw, "Hillary Clinton acts like a bitch" will always be a matter of personal opinion and judgement. Conspiracies and allegations deal with matters of fact - "It is alleged that, on this date, this happened...". People might hold opinions about it with varying degrees of confidence, but a simple allegation of fact (X did Y) is either right or it is wrong. Quack 688 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting points. But I'm not quite sure how events on this page affect various conspiracy articles. In the area of the article I am concerned with, the allegations are made by the Cuban government that perpetrators of terrorists acts were employed by the CIA. The alternative explanation comes from the perpetrators, who say that yes they were employed by the CIA, and admit to the acts. Its fairly straightforward. There are no opposing points of view, and it is all recorded in declassified files anyway. Just as there is no opposing view that the CIA initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion, conducted assassination attempts on Cuban leaders, tracked down Che Guevara in Bolivia and oversaw his execution etc etc. These events aren't conspiracy theories or wild allegations.--Zleitzen 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(leaving space for more replies on a common standard - Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Zleitzen, Re: US article - I haven't looked that closely at any of the articles yet, which is why I wanted to setup some ground rules above. Still, here's a couple random thoughts about the United States article:

1) The title itself is a matter of opinion - what exactly is an act of terror? Does rigging an election count? What if someone says they're freedom fighters? I really don't want do get into that debate, so I'll simply suggest that
covert operations
might be a more NPOV term to use. Any claims that act X was a (terrorist act / liberation) need to be made when discussing that specific act.

2) I'm concerned about the "Other allegations of American terrorism" section. This section simply takes a historical event (e.g. war in Iraq), and lists a single source which puts forward the opinion that it was terrorism. First, a Saddam spokesman is hardly a neutral source. Instead of putting these quotes here, they might better be used on a "war in Iraq" page, as an example of the "pro-Saddam POV'. Secondly, if you want to find some independent evidence of the US sponsoring acts of terror in places like Iraq, be my guest. But note that "a group of soldiers comitting a criminal offence", and "an act of terrorism ordered and sponsored by the US government" are two very different things. If the only evidence that such terrorism occured is that a Saddam supporter said "what the US is doing is terrorism", this should be treated as propoganda and dismissed. Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Manual definition of terrorism: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". — coelacan talk — 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points.

1) We have been arguing about a title for months, with several informal and formal straw polls, changing the title is like
WP:NOR
? )...

1) Several editors have attempted to define what is terrorism, using US terms for terrorism. I think it is a good idea, similar to the short definition at American Empire another controversial page. The definition section has been deleted repeatedly (in fact, every single one of these sections has been deleted by a small core group of wikipedians, opposed to this page)

2) The "Other allegations of American terrorism" section was supposed to be deleted, at least that was the result of the straw poll, along with the Operation Gladio section.

I noticed someone put these all back in. I will remove the sections now.

If you are intersted in the 5 archives, the entire soap opera is there. Travb (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Passes every relevent policy with flying colours. Biased accusations and false accusations are definitely appropriate, see Holocaust denial for instance. WilyD 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All: Except Syria other two governments are democratically elected, well recognized countries and there is no any allegation that was confirmed by another recognized country that un-alleged for human rights violations or any human rights courts such as European Court of Human Rights, etc; And I also like to support Kerr avon's points too. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such allegations have existed since at least the late 60s – early 70s. Calling this anti-American is nothing but misleading. --Ezeu 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting it would be pro-American bias. This is a free encyclopedia, not a puppet organisation. Lots of people know ans believe in these allegations, and it is sourced - • The Giant Puffin • 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, verifiable and sourced content, no real reason for deletion. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:44, 17 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JC Williams

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

Found while clearing out
ask me for help) 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. First line states he's a wrestler for Irish Whip Wrestling, which, based on the article we have on them, appears to be notable. Sportsmen for notable organizations are notable themselves. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to
Chondrite 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per his myspace page, [[6]], he considers himself a trainee wrestler. He reports having had about 40 matches to date. He's only 20; he may be heavyweight champeen of the world someday, but for now, non-notable. Deltopia 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:BIO states that a sportsman (among other criteria) must have competed at the highest level of his sport, and this wrestler is not even close. -- Kicking222 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete COI article mostly written by User:Jc williams. NawlinWiki 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears not notable. (It's not true that competitors for notable sports organizations are themselves notable. The standard for football teams is that they be from the top 10 levels of the English game, but players must have played in the top four divisions.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trainee and/or part-time wrestler who is not notable. --
RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No independent sources found equals no encyclopedic notability. (See
GRBerry 01:59, 16 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Katie Taylor

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

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant - only holds local title and has not even competed at the state pageant yet. The only instance where a contestant who has competed in but not won a state level pageant has been considered notable is
Cassandra Whitehead, who competed and placed in the Miss Texas Teen USA and Miss Texas USA
pageants over a number of years. However, she was also a contestant on ANTM and was the first to quit that show. The article was kept after an AFD.
There is no other claim to notability here other than that Taylor won a local pageant. The other pageant that she has competed in is not notable, althought the Miss Missouri pageant is.
I prodded the article on 8 December and it was endorsed by User:RockMFR on 10 December.
Delete as nom --
talk | contribs | esperanza 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom, nn notable, she may be someday but isn't yet.--Dakota 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,
crystal balling. MER-C 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mer-C —
Seadog 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can be restored if she wins Miss Missouri next year. NawlinWiki 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 13 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop artists

List of J-pop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Also, all related articles here

There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a Category:J-pop artists. Delete as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Keep, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways. gren グレン 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category. Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at Wikipedia when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.--T. Anthony 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete it. gren グレン 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link does nothing but spam up Wikipedia when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician. Axem Titanium 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found List of jazz pianists and List of Brazilian musicians useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on George Cables got started.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that, but the article gives this website as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis. Axem Titanium 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there is no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide category. ColourBurst 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
indiscriminate listcruft, no threshhold for inclusion. MER-C 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". --Brianyoumans 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article - appears to be just a list? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomm. Saganaki- 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be properly fed and looked after: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan. --Kunzite 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not invalid... just hasn't been done yet. There is a big difference. Someday this will be the best of featured lists... no doubt... gren グレン 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by Category:Japanese musicians and Category:Japanese musical groups. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -rydia 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guess what? This is EN Wikipedia, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per User:Kunzite, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia. ColenFace 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way to be
civil. As User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links like this. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above. Recury 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete this way better than category.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
No reasoning behind this? I guess not. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Same here, huh? Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use. —The preceding
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. — coelacan talk — 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! Not a single purpose account! Anyway, as User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links than this page. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan (who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --Stzr3 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in Category:Japanese musicians and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how Category:Wives of Brigham Young is a sub-category of Category:Polygamists. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 74.101.255.108 (talk) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "Save the List! They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating Bilaber (talk • contribs). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. --Iamunknown 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful. Neier 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 26 sub lists though. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title of the article is what appears in the listing, regardless of what you type in the catsort section of the category on the article page. The text entered in the catsort section is used only for sorting within the category, and nothing else. ···
joe 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for Wikipedia? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in
WP:MOS-JA where Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I added that addendum because User:T. Anthony explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where articles should be requested and that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is the proper place to do that. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.

2-Often made by people interested in the subject.

That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.--T. Anthony 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category. Keep, but make the list more useful. Dekkappai 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with stipulations (Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include
List of violinists has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the Japanese musical artists we have on Wikipedia who fall into the genres covered by this list. --Lim e tom 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose? Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user. If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a very abbreviated list, see List of metalcore bands and Category:Metalcore musical groups, List of death metal bands and Category:Death metal musical groups, List of jazz musicians and Category:Lists of jazz musicians, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. --Lim e tom 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from Most Precious Blood to Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm no. When I first started here lists were easier for me. I'd heard of listing things well before I came here and Encyclopedias themselves have index. In addition to that type
Jazz pianists and you get redirected to List of jazz pianists. Or if you prefer type in "heavy metal bands" and you will get redirected to List of heavy metal bands. Now if I'm thinking "who is that jazz pianist whose obituary I saw in 2001?", how is a category going to help me? I mean assuming I don't want to go through the entire category to find out when each one died.--T. Anthony 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think all those lists fail to grasp what it means to actually be a list, by Wikipedia's standards. Now, let's take a look at a list that isn't redundant with its category: List of HIV-positive people. While Category:HIV-positive people exists and is useful, this list goes beyond simply listing the name for the sake of having that person's name there. It provides a substantial amount of useful information that can't be achieved with a category and is also well-referenced. In its current state, this and all the other list articles that have been mentioned fail to justify their existence by including such information that a list would be required at all. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it? Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this mere list, eg. The
Blkeddie! 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well. Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to
WP:MOS-JA naming conventions. --Lim e tom 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd say keep There's a lot of good that can be derived from an exhaustive list of J-Pop artists. I think it can really help promote modern popular Japanese music and give people a better look at all the various artists. So that people know there's more to the modern music than Gackt and Malice Mizer. Maikeru Go 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is
not an advertisement. We are not here to "promote" anything, only document existing notable things. This "keep" is based entirely on false premises. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A lot of Japanese artists may not be notable enough to have their own articles, but they’re worth being mentioned anyway, in case someone wants to do research about them or look up a name. Categories only list artists that have their own articles – that is, only the “notable” ones – while omitting a lot of names. ～
Michelle 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would disagree. If they're not notable enough for their own article, why should their name be mentioned at all in a professional encyclopedia? There are enough fansites that can do that. Also, what kind of research would you be able to do here if all that's mentioned is a name? If we were to go by your criteria, then the list would be nearly endless since there are literally thousands of non-notable J-pop artists. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as completely unmanageable. There are literally tens of thousands of J-pop artists, and more are coming out daily. A category is much better suited for keeping track of them. For any that need articles, they can be listed (along with the kanji/kana for their names and any supporting links) on the
joe 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, if this page had anything more to it than just names I'd be in favor of keeping it, but without any context for the names it really isn't very useful. YankeeDoodle14 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split and cleanup.
Monni 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Uhhhh... what? I'm not sure how that could be done. Please explain. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists serve purposes that categories don't. Most importantly, they can be checked and monitored for thoroughness, which is critical to Wikipedia's mission of building a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Splitting might be a good idea, but I'm really not sure how this list would be split. -- Visviva 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category. List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category: Category:HIV-positive people. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about instead of senselessly arguing for 4 more days about how little relevant information is contained in this list you go through ever artist and put in a table a brief summary on each artist. You know just because it isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to the other whatever million people that use this encyclopedia.ColenFace 08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists, particularly item 3: "Development." I'm not saying this list couldn't be done better, but it is already a useful resource for development, and could readily be made even more valuable in that regard (for example, by adding entries from other (reliable) online J-pop lists). -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is roughly the point I tried to make above. A list doesn't magically begin in the best format. It has been established that lists can be done well, and just because this list is not done well, it is not suitable grounds for deletion either. Grounds for improvement, yes. I'd prefer to encourage the development of the article, not removing it because it is not up to the standards of some other lists. Neier 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it. Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good summary of the arguments. The list in unmanageable in scope. There are lots of J-pop artists and even if the article were cleaned up or expanded beyond a mere list of artists, it would be unmanageable, out of date, or a red link farm inviting people to submit articles for artists who really aren't notable. There are a lot of
"I like it" style arguments here with people expressing a desire to keep because they find it easier to edit or keep track of a list. Those are not reasons to keep as you can easily do the same thing with a category. --Kunzite 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If I had to hazard a guess, I think that the number of J-Pop artists is significantly LOWER than the number of HIV infected people. I don't like making that comparison, but, since that list has been pointed to above, seems to be a good example of a list, and also seems to be managed well, claiming that the J-Pop list is unmanageable is a flawed argument. Neier 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do the same thing with a category. The reason for this is simple: a category is not a list; aside from the intro text and cat tags, a category is simply the result of a live database query. Thus, a category cannot be reliable monitored, because it is impossible to track when articles have been removed from a category, and for what reasons. See also Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this list is worth keeping as it stands now. It could be done better, but that applies to everything on WP. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. And all this time, I've been trying to convince them as to why this article is redundant when their reason for keeping doesn't even hold a candle up to the official deletion policy. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the list. Also, what is wrong with people creating articles for artists that "aren't notable"? Who decides who is notable and who isn't? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tuxedo Mark (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
Ummm... I think we do. Seriously, we have stuff like
WP:MUSIC to prevent a bazillion articles about random nobodies from being created. There are 5 billion people on this planet. Not every one of them deserves an article. If you want to have an article about you on Wikipedia, go do something special and earn it. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

They're called notability guidelines. This isn't a vote, BTW. Saying "Keep" or "Delete" without providing some rationale to back it up. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --Kunzite 04:33, 17 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem Ahsan

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

Non Notable Pakistani journalist. Very few google hits. I have personally read his articles in Urdu newspapers' IT sections which are usually translations from English articles but thats what journalists do: write articles in newspapers. Claims are unverifiable from internet as no. of GHits suggest voldemortuet 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if we include into notability to help underdeveloped areas to obtain basic computer literacy it could be notable, but I don't find any evidence of that. Anybody else knows more? Alf photoman 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we consider the subject notable, the article is short of
WP:V. voldemortuet 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any real notability Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Bubba hot ep 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
DrKiernan 12:23, 19 December 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 was Merge. Cbrown1023 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lover

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

Found while clearing out
ask me for help) 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
High Voltage (Australian album).--Dakota 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with High Voltage. It was never a single and it isn't an album track of particular note. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or include the salient detail in the album article under "trivia", maybe. My understanding of worthiness for articles is (it's quite simple): album, EP, or single, yes - not individual songs, regardless of notability thereof.
Bubba hot ep 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge -- into
High Voltage (Australian album). Was never released as a single. - Longhair\^talk 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge, song isn't really notable on its own.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Exploder

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

Was not released as a single and is an otherwise non notable song. Joltman 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The crowd reaction part is not of encyclopedic value. Infested-jerk 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pick of Destiny, which someone has already done. --Light of Shadow 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The song is of note because it is oft cited by critics and fans alike as the best scene in the movie.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn song. --
Woot? contribs 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for similar reasons I have stated for the AfD above this one, except with more determination.
Bubba hot ep 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete delete it as unencyclopedic non single release.--John Lake 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep One of the best songs on the film. It IS notable —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Slogankid (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep Although the song has not been released as a single, it was performed by the band in its entirety in the film. That is an unofficial music video, which has leaked onto the internet. I do agree, however, that the "What's different" section is pointless, but I do believe that this song has enough notability to have its own article. Milchama 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that having a music video automatically makes a song notable. Joltman 13:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The movie is sometimes billed as a musical. In that case, I believe that all songs in a nationally distributed musical qualify for their own articles. If it was just a song on an album, then it would be questionable. Milchama 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The movie's possible status as a musical makes the song's context, as revealed throught the article, significant. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Ellissound (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 December 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 was keep.
T · C ] 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Twelve project

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

Found while clearing out
Six By Seven
). Surely this article should have been put up for discussion under the articles for deletion section. The reason that I am saying this is that
ask me for help) 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I feel this article should not be deleted. As I said on Eagle's talk page, this band is notable in that it features more than one person who is a member of another notable band. 2 official albums have been released. Twelve is an essential piece of the
Six By Seven timeline (along with Fuck me USA
) - also up for discussion).

The article will probably need some tidying up, but thats what Wikipedia is all about....other people can lend a hand! :-) --Olliemorr 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the
WP:MUSIC criteria of having members that belong to an otherwise notable group. --Bobblehead 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:
WP:MUSIC criterion 6 says 'Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.' So there should certainly be something there, but it's not obvious to me that it needs to be a separate article. Is there any reason not to merge and redirect? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets
Bubba hot ep 13:51, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Schofield Sweeney

Non-notable regional UK law firm. Fails
WP:CORP. Not even in the top 20 commercial firms in Leeds according to the Legal 500 (and that is setting the bar pretty low - Leeds is hardly the beating heart of the UK's commerce). Legis (talk - contributions) 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - appears non-notable and possible WP:COI as well. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- article little more than a stub on which to hang an out-link. An advertisment -- Simon Cursitor 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as nn notable.--John Lake 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Afd is incomplete. There's no Afd tag on the article and none in the history to revert back to.--John Lake 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the afd tag. (I think everything else is in place already.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:40, 14 December 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 was speedily deleted by Deville. MER-C 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluechild

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

It doesn't even sound encyclopedic, its pointless, its non-notable. Discuss. David Fuchs 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They lose badly in Google to a Brit singer named Susan Bluechild who I've never heard of either. Out. --Brianyoumans 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Already tagged. MER-C 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per MER-C.--Dakota 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN and poor content Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:32, 12 December 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 was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:46Z

Hamish McLeod (Game Developer)

Lacks reliable sources to show individual notability. Appears to be a developer of games that are not notable according to
WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -
Woot? contribs 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. MER-C 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. Koweja 05:21, 12 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Division

Age of Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entirely plagerized, (see last line of article.) JudahBlaze 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Copyvios should not be put through AfD. --
Woot? contribs 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Having a single source cited, doesn't make it plagiarism, just poorly referenced. I see no evidence of a copyright violation.--Sandy Scott 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, look at the nomination. "Entirely plagerized". If the article is completely plagiarized, that is a copyvio. If the nominator has another reason for deletion, that's fine. Whether it is a copyvio or not is not to be decided through AfD.--
Woot? contribs 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

You have a mistaken view of plagiarism. Citing an article does not make one immune to copyright violations or plagiarism. ColourBurst 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wooty copy/vios should not go through AfD. Plagiarism and copy/vio are not acceptable to Wikipedia no matter how well referenced.--Dakota 06:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The original reasons for the nomination aside, this is a brief and unwikified article on a subject that is already covered by several articles of better quality, including the general
Southern and Northern Dynasties, which cover the time period this article addresses. None of those articles uses the term "Age of Divisions" to refer to that time period. - Eron ^Talk 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Poorly written, lacks
unsigned comment was added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete per above. TheRingess 20:42, 18 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Sole

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

Clearly nn sportsman Mikker ^(...) 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree, he is a relatively important footballer playing for Woking F.C. TSO1D 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TSO1D, but only if someone can effectively hide the fact that the article was written by a fan of the club... MER-C 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he plays
WP:BIO, but I might be wrong. Is he even professional? Mikker ^(...) 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have seen more noteworthy players blitzed from this here encyclo with nary a bat of the eyelid. He is relatively important... if you support Woking FC. That is all.
Bubba hot ep 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Never played in the Football League (so far at least). - fchd 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per fchd. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he is also in the
England National Game XI squad...article totally needs rewriting if it was to remain. Bigmike 00:03, 15 December 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 was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Half-Life 2 mods

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

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

Prior deletions have been overturned at
WP:DRV so discussion can start afresh here. Please consult the discussion at deletion review and all of its precendents. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am so tempted to say "Neutral per nom" right now :) --WikiSlasher 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say two things:
WP:NOT
an indiscriminate collection of information, vehicle for promotion, utilitarian, and a whole load of other things beside.

To random future participants: If your argument is going to be along the lines of "Keep, useful" or "Keep, I've played them" or "Keep, does no harm", just save yourself the bother.

By that logic:
WP:GAMES
states that the list is notable and has the potential for growth.

To those for deletion: If your argument is going to be something like "Delete, cruft" or "Delete, I haven't played them" or "Delete, unencyclopedic", don't trouble yourself.--WaltCip 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a result: Categorise or delete. Do not keep as list. Chris cheese whine 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, with categorise you mean something like what we had before, that would be originally physics mods, partial conversions, total conversions and at a later time released single player, released multiplayer, unreleased single player, unreleased multiplayer? (It's pretty obvious that unreleased mods are a no-no because of notability (with maybe one single exception), so an unreleased mods category can't be used anymore.) --Pizzahut2 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." Also "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It appears the article is both. Navou ^talk 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
In the current state, with a lot of editing being done after your delete recommendation, would you still say that "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" applies? --Pizzahut2 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.
Wikipedia is also not a directory. MER-C 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Which part of the policy does it fail? These aren't lists of loosely associated topics, which is what you seem to be arguing. How much more closely associated can you get? Each is a list of mods of a single computer game. --- RockMFR 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is neither a directory (which this seems to be), a repository of links (which this is) nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Yes, this list isn't indiscriminate but it makes Wikipedia seem that way. This is the kind of thing better suited to specialised websites. MER-C 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if this seems like lawyering, but one article being a directory != Wikipedia being a directory. And the WP definition of directory is a phone book, Internet guide, plot summary, or cookbook. This is neither. Lists aren't uncommon in WikiPedia. If Keep nom fails, though (and I don't think it will, based on the quality of the arguments I have seen - in this case, I'm judging by consensus, not straw poll), allow article time to be gamiafied to Encyclopedia Gamia. The information is notable.--WaltCip 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or categorise The fact that the article already has references and external links already proves that the article has some sort of notability. Let me also bring up the fact that
WP:SNOW was close at hand, so this whole DRV and repeat AFD hubbub shouldn't even exist.--WaltCip 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
~~Bear in mind,~~
~~WP:ILIKEIT is not a policy or guideline.~~ Navou ^talk 04:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarify please? Do you mean "I like it" is not a valid policy-based reason, or do you mean "discounting on the basis of I like it" is not policy? Chris cheese whine 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apoligies, I mis-read the above comment by WaltCip, so I feel my comment was premature, or even inappropiate.

In responses to Navou, with this in mind, the DRV should have been closed with a full overturn, since many of those who endorsed deletion cited
WP:ILIKEIT as the reasoning behind the article's deletion. I'd hate to be a Wikilawyer, but this is s.i.c.--WaltCip 04:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you clarify what you're saying here? I'm having trouble following it. Chris cheese whine 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: My original "Delete..." recommendation stands. My comment about
WP:ILIKEIT is withdrawn. Apoligies for the confusion. Navou ^talk 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "Keep, I've played the game" is not based on policy either, so if a user intends to argue based on that, their argument (because AfD is not a vote) is invalid. Catting is fine, redirecting to the cat is also fine. ColourBurst 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one has used that argument yet, but by denying people that argument, you're effectively suppressing them regardless. And AFDs have been decided on non-policy arguments before as well. See the Esperanza or the humor articles. Actually, I wouldn't mind a few of you chaps deleting those silly articles after this AFD is over.--WaltCip 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't "suppressed" them. We can't prevent them for using whatever reason they feel like, it'll just get discounted because it's not policy. Esperanza/humour pages are different because they're not in article space, thus not subject to article policies (they're not even decided in AfD, they're decided in MfD). ColourBurst 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Two basic issues at hand here- do the individual mods pass our policies? If so, should we have a list of them in addition to a category? Most, if not all, of the mods listed in these articles have received independent coverage in gaming magazines/websites. So... should we have a list of them? Lists are much more useful than categories, especially in the case of
List of Half-Life 2 mods. This article does a pretty good job of differentiating between them all. So, as I've said before, we should keep both of these. --- RockMFR 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

keep. Certainly populable with notable, verifiable material; not at all indiscriminate, and not redundant with categorization. — brighterorange (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really nothing other than a list of external links, i.e. a web directory. See
WP:NOT. If this were considered encyclopedic, then lists of links to popular YouTube videos can't be far behind. Any mods meeting article inclusion guidelines can get their own articles and be placed in appropriate categories. Quale 07:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. These articles are of a good quality (hey, I've seen a lot worse) and they're not just lists, they've had work put into them, there's images and an infobox and all the formatting is correct. All of the information in the articles is verifiable. The reason I bring up the amount of work put into it is that that means people do pay attention to it and so the wiki process will improve the articles over time. As the two users above me have stated, a list is not redundant to a category because articles allow for more content than lists, (explanations of individual mods, pictures, not just a list of articles). If I'm not mistaken it is possible for things to be notable enough to mention them somewhere in Wikipedia but not notable enough to have their own article so lists contain more information. They're not really lists per se, so maybe editors ought to consider making them more like just "Half-Life mods" and "Half-Life 2 mods" and then of course have the whole "history of modmaking" and all the rest of it (with reliable sources cited of course). Oh and there should be a brief mention of what ModDB is and how "authoritative" (for want of a better word) it is, it's referred to for a lot of them.--WikiSlasher 09:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there is encyclopedic content to be found in these. --WikiSlasher 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles have good encyclopedic content and actually serve an important function for gamers. Also, these lists are certainly not "lists of indiscriminate information," as they have incredibly clear parameters and are not/could never be infinite. -- Kicking222 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the mod community involved with these games is strong enough to generate enough verifiable info in order to list articles on individual mods. In turn, a list like this can be useful for skimming and acquiring info on each mod.

However, both lists should only contain mods with articles on WP - if it can't stand on its own two feet it shouldn't be crawling around on this list. There seems little point trying to maintain an incomplete list (even in terms of not containing every HL mod listed on WP) if the articles contained on that list aren't properly referenced and could be AFD'd at any time. I'd ask contributors interested in these articles to make sure their efforts are aimed at improving the articles already on WP and ensuring they remain.

As a side note, having websites listed after each mod name is irritating to read and smacks of advertising - they should be in the mod's article as an external link. Also, there are several mods with articles on WP which are not listed here. Hooking up articles to this list and any categories that exist will be of use to readers and encourage contributors to follow the path and improve articles/update the list - that's what it's all about. There's an opportunity here. QuagmireDog 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, having looked again, there are links provided next to most if not all of the mods, there has been some good work done here. It's a work in progress, one that I'm confident will bear fruit. QuagmireDog 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, I don't see why calling something "useful" as a reason for keeping should be discounted. Whether an article is useful to have on Wikipedia or not should in fact be at the heart of each AfD debate. Now, it is fair to ask for someone using that reasoning to expand on that, but a comment saying that shouldn't be outright disregarded. VegaDark 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WaltCip. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable article, considering the number of links to it. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Rhys42 (talk • contribs
) 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To above posters This is an attempt to reach consensus, not a straw poll. Also, to the one who "strong kept" please sign your name.--WaltCip 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've written a
to do list which, if followed, should whip the list of Half-Life mods into shape. --Pizzahut2 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for cleanup, nuff said. --MegaBurn 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The purpose of a list of Half-Life mods is mainly just that, having a list. The partitioning into categories makes sense but it shouldn't be used as a reason to keep a list.~~ A reason to keep a list would be that it offers significantly more information than a mere category (such as the
List of webcomics: Name/link to article, author, date of first public (playable) release, date of last update, and ... the link to the website. This last piece of information is arguable because WP is not a repository of links, however it's also in the web comic list, so why not here? --Pizzahut2 11:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
After reading
WP:LIST, I guess partitioning into categories counts as "grouped by theme". --Pizzahut2 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Is it not possible to rather have a wiki book or something on Half Life and transwiki the material their. I don't think that the articles on Half Life should systematically be trashed but I do question their value in an Encyclopaedia —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs
) 11:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There's the Valve developer community, the lists of Half-Life mods could be "transwikied" to there. However I wouldn't transfer all Half-Life related articles, because the main purpose is to be a resource for developers. --Pizzahut2 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the mods are notable for inclusion. QuillOmega0 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Resaon: it useful to both the user and the mod maker. It gives the user a easy place to find the mod. It helps the mod maker becaues it avertise (is that spelled right?) mod. Also the 3rd party mods are legial. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Smile5187 (talk • contribs
) 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"It helps the mod maker becaues it avertise (is that spelled right?) mod." - According to WP:NOT, this would actually be a reason to delete the articles. --Pizzahut2 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps "advertise" is the wrong word. Perhaps a better description, although somewhat elitist, would be "Wikify".--WaltCip 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Not notable on an encyclopedia, gamecruft.--Zxcvbnm 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One strong delete doesn't match several keeps, I'm afraid. Also, a strong in front of your delete without a proponent argument or policy other than "cruft" deserves no attention on the nominator's part, especially since you haven't explained why it isn't notable, other than from point-of-view. See
WP:NEO.--WaltCip 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep IF it can be restored to its former usefulness - the current edit is totally useless and ought to be deleted. Single-player mods are the 'red-headed stepchildren' of the gaming world and this article was the _only_ place where one could get a feel for the status of the community (can't do that now, of course. Looks like the thing was edited by a very non-npov person from the 'single-player mods suck!' school of thought.) Also, to the idea that a non-released mod is, by definition, non-notable, ah...hogwash. I'd to like to hear the argument that the Black Mesa mod is non-notable; that project has Valve's direct blessing, for one thing.

Gooshy 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to discuss it on the article's talk page. --WikiSlasher 13:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'll hastily tag the article with "needs cleanup" after/if the Keep falls through.--WaltCip 14:53, 17 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, a new comic

Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, a new comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is simply a soapbox screed. There is a separate article about the comic book Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, which properly cites multiple sources and is written encyclopedically. I could go into the fallacious reasoning, but this isn't an editorial dispute between two journalistic-quality researchers. This "article" is just a rant and unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Tenebrae 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personal essay, violating
WP:NOR. If there's any citable information here that isn't included in the original article, it should be incorporated into the original article. 23skidoo 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doen't seem to have much merit for inclusion here Stephen Day 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the acusation of a hoax itself appears to be the hoax. Were it legitimate, it would belong in the primary
~CS 18:30, 16 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Shepperd

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

Another non-notable writer for Nintendo Power. See
moo? 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO, precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hoffman. MER-C 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above.
Bubba hot ep 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article claims he is most famous for a video game experiment on his mother? Hardly qualifies as notable under Wiki guidelines. SteveHopson 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:BIO.--John Lake 18:44, 14 December 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 was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotron Technologies

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

~~Article does not assert notability as per~~
~~notability criteria. No sources cited, and all sources that can be found on the web are copies of press releases or company profiles on directories. dockingman^talk 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply~~
]

This is AFD, not speedy deletion. We don't go on whether articles "assert notability" here. We go by whether the subjects actually do or do not satisfy the relevant criteria, which are WP:CORP in this case. That requires everyone, you included, to do the research. You've given no indication in your rationale that you looked to see whether there were any published works about this company. Please do the research, and give a good rationale. Uncle G 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the nomination description. -- dockingman^talk 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's a much better rationale. We need more rationales like that. Uncle G 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be a case of corporate vanity, though. MER-C 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything online about them except press releases.--Brianyoumans 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article appears unable to meet
WP:CORP Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:35, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Amara's law

del totally nonnotable witticism by a nonnotable person. If exclude wikipedia, about 97 unique google links. The fact that a couple of people used it does not makes it encyclopedic. `'mikkanarxi 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Mikka. TSO1D 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur -- possibly even speedy -- Simon Cursitor 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as fully non notable.--John Lake 18:47, 14 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The deletion of this article was overturned at
WP:RM. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

See related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Keep, but move to a different title, perhaps History of the LTTE. It could use some tidying too. KazakhPol 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Please see
WP:NOTRaveenS 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but either retitle as a list or rewrite as not a list. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read
WP:NOT We dont have places for lists in Wikipedia. Thanks RaveenS

Comment What on Earth are you talking about. "There is no place for lists in Wikipedia"? PLEASE, PLEASE read the policy you're quoting before actually mentioning it. Otherwise you run the risk of the of looking really foolish by completely misquoting a guideline. You also might want to read WP:LIST.

Comment Please read
WP:NPOV. Remember we are all Wikipedians here, calling people foolish can only be counter productive.Thanks RaveenS 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the input Savidan. As it is it I agree it should be renamed as "list of..." But the article is really a shell right now and is not yet complete. I'll try to improve it when my finals are over. Pictures are a real requirement and they are on the way. Can you check back in a few days? Peace. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already there is an article called
WP:RS source. Hence thius should be deleted and salavagable contents merged with above mentioned articleRaveenS 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: So Raveen, Could you produce that one non
WP:RS source? ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It can be better cited, but it's useful to have this list besides the "notable" ones, to be complete, and it makes sense to separate the two articles as well for those readers who don't want the full list. — coelacan talk — 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see a need to have two articles on the same subject and I'm pretty much sure that's not how we give 'emphasis' to stuff here. The
Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE talks about everything and is fine, I don't see a need for the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to even exist for the very simple reason that it is a very poor mirror article. Either merge stuff to add value to the better article or just wipe this off, it doesn't serve any purpose!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Delete: Transfer the infomation that isn't already there to the Notable Attacks and then delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

Keep: Each entries are well referenced with reliable sources such as OHCHR, BBC, CNN, Hindu. And the content wise this article hold much more occurrences than
Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE article. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or merge. Merge those which are notable to
talk ^┐ 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. I have made my points many times regarding this.If I sum them up ,

1. None of the incidents in the article are disputed

2 Not a single Sri Lankan(even the LTTE in many cases) don't disputed the terror they forced on civillians

3 sources are from ever where. And GOSL source can't be dismissed outright.I asked everyone to point out disputed incidents, but none came up with any ! If you need more please read the references which I added.Those are very good books written by experts of this situation.

4 I'm strongly against the merger this with "Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE" .That article surprisingly do not mention a single massacre carried out by the LTTE in the 1980's'.I do not know how the writer missed clear LTTE massacres,such as Aranthalawa,kent and dollar farm,Vallamundal,Kokilai,Dehiwatta,Mahadivuwela, Andakulam and etc(if I write the whole,even a day or two wont be enough!!)

So its obvious that the LTTE have carried out thousands if not more, number on attacks on Sinhalese civilians and that article hardly mention any of them.So I see no point merging with that article.--Iwazaki 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Every attack listed resulted in the death of at least five or six innocent people and therefore there can be no dispute over notability. There is also nothing wrong with using government documents in Wikipedia articles. It is the right of every government to record the deaths of its nationals. In any case it states "attributed to the LTTE" not "carried out by the LTTE". Also the overwhelimg consensus among the WIkipedia community is that the words like "terrorist incident" or "terrorist attack" are acceptable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_terrorist_incidents). And many of the incidents are sourced from nutral external sources like the BBC, CNN and the Hindu.

Also the articles should not be merged. The reason is the Notable attacks article was spun off from the main
LTTE article due to article size issues. See this discussion for more info Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE. It lists only the most notable of the LTTE attacks. Merging all content from this article into that one will seriously dilute the ability of a reader to view at once the most notable attacks carried out by the LTTE. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP These attacks are against the civilized world and caused deaths of thousands of innocents men, women, and children - both sinhalese and tamils. LTTE is responsible for the blood bath in the island. Please keep this article in the hope that LTTE will stop suicide bombs and recruitment of child soldiers one day! Supermod 18:46, 28 December 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 was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribalmedia

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

Article reads like a press release, with no assertion of notability. The only article references are to the corporate web page and to a corporate press release. A search of Google several pages deep shows only advertisedments and the same press release duplicated multiple times. A prod request to improve the article resulted in removal of the prod tag by a self-declared company employee with no improvements made to the article. WVhybrid 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - corporate vanity and no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:34, 12 December 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 was keep — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} ^{L} 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic extremist terrorism

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

Fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians in an effort to be politically correct. This concept is clearly separate from the real topic it pretends to address, Islamic terrorism. The same thing applies with Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid. KazakhPol 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While some editors might suggest moving the current page to the title Islamic terrorism, there really isnt anything worth salvaging from the current, pov, uncited mess. KazakhPol 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Delete I wonder these people who claim to be philosophers and intellectuals on wikipedia. Tell me, you people really dont know the hypocrisy of news media? Did you ever hear the term 'terrorism by israel'? How many times you hear the 'christian extremist terrorism' on FOX and CNN. Does one FOX, CBC and CNN comprise all the media of the world. You Americans please come out of this Bubble created by few news channels. There is more to the world than a couple of hypocrite American channels.

Now people will think why am I criticizing in this way. My point is, there is no such thing called 'islamic terrorism' or 'islamic extremist terrorism' in under the definition which is being provided by wikipedians here. How many countries North Korea or Syria or Iran have ruined??? NONE. How many countries American regime ruined? Dozen. How many people killed by American regime? Millions. Even then there is not even a single day when the channels dont yell the self created term 'islamic terrorism'. So my point is, the same is happening on the wikipedia articles. Muslims just cant defend by correct editing because very very minor percentage of Muslims have access to the internet. Any website goes to number one in the ranke which is used by Americans , that does not comply that it is number one in the world too. Please see the www.msn.com ranking on www.alexa.com [7]. Its number second, but in non-American and non-Eu countries, nobody even thinks to visit that site. So to be fair please give value to the limited number of disagreeing people who come from technologically less developed areas. Please see this and [this refernce before reacting to my post. VirtualEye 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to
requested moves Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Uh... except that I just said I dont want to move the page. KazakhPol 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator seems to be making two arguments, that the page is uncited,
T 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at
JCAM, and HT before making such bold statements. KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If 40% is uncited, then add cite tags. Just because an article lacks citations for asserted facts does not mean that it is
T 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article is well sourced and POV issues can be addressed. TSO1D 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above and
WP:SNOW. <<-armon->> 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had. KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review this. There's also the
current talk page as well as four archives of "conversation" about it. In fact, I've renamed it myself. The problem is, you've put the article up for deletion on the basis that you object to it's title. Not a valid reason, so it won't happen. <<-armon->> 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as fictitious, which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties,
Wikipedia is not censored. --Eqdoktor 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you? KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, footnote 24 is citing a source discussing the issue. Googling "Islamic extremist terrorism " gets me a few thousand hits (not counting Wikipedia and its derivatives). This story an Islamic extremist supporting terrorism. OTH, if all it is you want is "Islamic extremist terrorism" together, your barking up the wrong tree. What you seem to object to is the words "Islamic", "extremist", "terrorist" put together in describing Islamic terrorism. I suggest a name change for the article as described below. --Eqdoktor 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is there
WP:NPOV
applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts. KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the article is supposed to be about extremist terrorism but terrorism by Islamic extremists, highlighting the fact that only a minority viewpoint within the religion have engaged in terrorism. If called Islamic terrorism it would suggest the entire religion engages in or supports terrorism. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a centralized discussion in an attempt to create a consensus for the naming of all three articles. That's what was attempted with the "...apartheid" articles, though I'm not sure how successful it was at achieving consensus.--
T 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to
Islamic political violence
. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at
T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example
Politics of Khuzestan
. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many AfD's can't reach consensus in five days and go through relisting, deletion review, mediation, etc. Anyway, it's unusual for a rename to happen at AfD, in part because the forum isn't necessary for that purpose. Just look at the numbers below "move" that you see at
T 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Please do not move comments. As I have stated, the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote. metaspheres 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In what earthly respect are you claiming I'm treating it as a vote?--
T 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. No valid reason provided for deletion. I don't see why this nominator thinks that this is a "fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians". If you don't like the title, move it. If you think it is uncited, tag it with {{fact}}, {{verify}} templates. If it is POV, tag it with {{pov}}. utcursch | talk 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well sourced article covering a sensitive and controversial topic with much skill. This is not a fictitious concept- it simply address the issue of terrorism by Muslim extremists.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and referenced. //Dirak 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enigma059 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable and referenced, it needs to be claened upRaveenS 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to
Islamist terrorism. I've been always supporting this title. It certainly has more political connotations; which what the article is set for. Islamism is not Islam. Extremism is not fanaticism nor it is radicalism. More sources and references to be added. POV can be sorted out by discussions on the talk page. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist.--Sefringle 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, rename metaspheres is right on. These articles should be kept. But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently. "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and
WP:BIAS is that they be labelled the same. Anything else is hyprocrisy. Akihabara 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on rename. If these pages are to be renamed I propose the format: "terrorism by X'" or "political violence by X". Otherwise it reads as if one can commit acts of terrorism/political violence in a Christian or Islamic manner. The religion is relevant to the cause the terrorists are attempting to advance, not the acts of terrorism per se. An act of Christian terrorism would be in substance the same as an act of Islamic terrorism, but with a different objective. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re comment Actually that was the point. However, titles like that (by X) are too heavy. I'd support Akihabara suggestion using political violence as we have a guideline (
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism). -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep, no move. Articles like this make WP superior to many other info sources, even if they're controversial and under contention. My OED (Concise, 11th Ed.) defines "Islamist" as both n. and adj. but moving pages just for a usage of similar words is trite and disruptive. I also find the grounds for deletion to be FAR from neutral. Better to work on the article to make it concise, NPOV, and well cited than to complain. Deletion would IMHO be akin to the "airplane into building" method of political discourse. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I wouldn't have a problem with this being renamed Islamic terroism, but there is no logical reason to remove this article. --Mhking 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Terrorism or Political Violence~~ Islamic Political Violence. --Strothra 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This page has been renamed several times as consensus has shifted. I suggest we decide here only to delete or not, and decide at
requested moves about what to call it this quarter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The topic is cited to multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, along with sources of less quality. It is a function of editing to sort out and remove any nonreliable sources, and to remove any POV pushing. The topic is clearly of considerable importance. Edison 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keeep The topic is scholarly and has overwhelming evidence.--Patchouli 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename. Change it to Islamic terrorism.--71.107.224.142 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename it if you want but there's no way it should be deleted. --BillyTFried 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ITAQALLAH 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and rename to Religious motivated terrorism (islam) Alf photoman 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with religious violence and political violence per my discussion on the talk page (Who are these people that just randomly came into this AFD? How come they didn't look at the talk page first?) --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Islamic extremist terrorism is a major contribution to world affairs in the modern world. It diserves an article.--Sefringle 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per svest. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hate text. Grace Note 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per utcursh and sefringle. Rename to Islamic terrorism, use less euphemistic titles for similar articles as per nom. Arrow740 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Definitely a valid topic. The politically correct at work again. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to what's happenning in the world. What hate text? The real hate is in the minds of those terrorists, there is no need to be nitpicking over this. Could be renamed to "Islamist terrorism" however. "Islamic terrorism" might not be right, however, the word "Islamist" has been used generally to refer to the earthly politics motivated by Islam. In any case, even if the content was merged with another article, the text "Islamic terrorism" deserves its own article, at least to refer to the concept and notion as referred by many in the world media. Baristarim 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, to reply to what someone said above about "western oriented blah blah". I am Turkish and I feel that it definitely deserves to be there and I never watch FOX News. I generally watch French, Turkish and American TV, and it is used quite often. My country has also suffered from Islamist terrorism, and it is definitely not Orientalistic to say that. I am an atheist, however.. Baristarim 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article is an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess that lumps in a vast array of unrelated conflicts and events, most of which are essentially political and territorial in nature. The criteria for inclusion in the article seems to be "anything violent involving a Muslim and/or Arab". --Lee Hunter 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above also applies to the
The Crusades, but with Christians (and over several hundred years ago); and yet there is no dispute over the existence of the Crusades page. I believe maintainability is not an issue as it can be controlled with present Wikipedia policies, the same with the "unencyclopedic" concern. --Eqdoktor 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentThe crusades deals with a specific historical event (actually a series of events) which is very well defined. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is whatever any editor wants to make it of it no matter how ludicrous including at various times, believe it or not, the Barbary Pirates and the PFLP (Marxist-Leninist organization). Recently there's been an endless revert war over whether to include an enormous chunk of quoted material from a US university student (reputedly a heavy stoner) who went nuts and injured some people with his car. Since the guy claims to be a Muslim and he claims that God told him to do it, therefore it's "Islamic extremist terrorism". I argued against it till I was blue in the face and finally gave up in disgust. There is NO need for this article. It's just a place for people to vent their paranoid fantasies about Islam. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid fantasies??? Well, My city was blasted in the middle four times by a bunch of Islamist terrorists, and there was nothing paranoid about that monsieur. So cut down on the politically correct please. They refer to themselves as jihadists, most of the world refers to themselves as such. It is pretty arrogant to say "oh, but they are not real muslims, a "real" muslim wouldn't do that!" That's arrogant and illogical. In that case we will never be able to use adjectives anymore in any language "oh, he is not fat, he is just overweight!" Whatever.. Islamic/Islamist terrorism exists, so just get used to it. Baristarim 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles about Al Qaeda, Istanbul bombing, as there should be. This article will never be anything but a Frankenstein monster sewn together from parts that don't belong. --Lee Hunter 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete According to VirtualEye and KazakhPol above. Mak82hyd 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid concept, well researched and documented. --Gabi S. 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is an excellent well researched article with tonnes of useful information. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion. --Matt57 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry KazakhPol, this will end up as a keep as well. --Matt57 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some work but there's no question that the subject is encyclopedic. GabrielF 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two related articles:
Islamic extremist terrorism. Because there is not much overlap between the two, I think they should remain. However, it could be better to merge them into the first one (which should be heavily edited anyway). --Gabi S. 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep Is Al Qaeda Islamic? Are they terrorists? Is 60% of world terrorism committed by Islamic groups? When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts, there will no longer be a need for this page. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Jboyler (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]
Comment When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts... Do you mean Islamists? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I won't mind renaming into
Islamist political violence (both now redirect here). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and clean up, add more references etc. to the extent necessary. I think the naming issue requires further discussion. 6SJ7 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename terrorism already implies extremism. gidonb 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, KazakhPol asked me what I prefer as an alternative title. It is a tough cut, but I think Islamist terrorism is the best pick. gidonb 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, but don't delete on the basis of one easily alterable aspect, Tewfik^Talk 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment replying to KazakhPol's question on my Talk: since 'extremist' refers to the the ideology and not the act (unless there were to be an "Islamic moderate terrorism"),
Islamist would seem to best fit for renaming, though a further discussion on its Talk would be the way to go in this regard. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Renaming isn't really an issue for AfD - editors can work that out at the page. WilyD 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to call anything terrorist. We can have sentences like "X claims that organization Y is terrorist...", but not something like "Organization Y is a terrorist group founded by Z". Terrorist is a pejorative term, and unacceptable as a classification in a encyclopedia. It would be akin to saying "Prominent niggers include: ..." in the introduction to the article on Nigger. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???? You have to do your homework better. "Terrorism" is a legally defined term by a United Nations Convention. It is not a pejorative term, it is in the same category as "murder", "rape", "theft", as defined by laws. Calling someone a murderer if he has been convicted of murder is not pejorative. There is a distinct definition of the word "terrorism" (see the relevant UN Convention) and those who commit terrorism are terrorists. It is as simple as that. I had enough of this politically correct bruhaha jumping into a wide range of articles and pretending that they know better as if the others are not aware of the bulk of human knowledge and civilization. Terrorist is not the same thing as nigger, since there is no such act "to nigger" - if there was such an act, then the people who niggerded would be niggers. However terrorism is an act, and people who "terrorize" (as defined legally by the UN) are terrorists. Baristarim 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Using the United Nations Convention's definition of the term "terrorism" is a violation of NPOV. This is Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia that should not adhere to any points of views, and in this case the view of the United Nations. I am arguing this point because if we use "terrorist" or "terrorism" the way you intend to do so, it will contradict our very own article on
NPOV policy. Same goes for "rape", "sexual assault", etc. We can, however, say that "according to the UN, these are acts of terrorism" etc., but if we go and say "This is an act of terrorism", then that is impermissible as content for an article. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and has all to do with Wikipedia policy. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, please see Please see
Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I know that policy very well. It says words to "avoid" and not "banned" words. It can be used if there is an overwhelming concensus. What you are doing is
wikilawyering, I am afraid. Because you very well know that they are terrorists, and the only argument that can be brought to the table is that there is a wiki guideline that says "avoid this word if possible". It doesn't say "don't use" or "it is forbidden to use".. Baristarim 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

As of now there are 31 keep votes, 5 deletes, and I'm pretty sure someone said merge... so this looks like another stunning victory for KazakhPol! KazakhPol 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per
WP:NPOV. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 12:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keepper points made above--Boris Johnson VC 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article labels groups with widely differing agendas as 'Islamic terrorists', with the reason that they say that they work in the name of Islam. There are an enormous number of groups who could be defined as 'terrorist' - it just means that they use 'terror' to further their goals. Classifying these by religion would be akin to classifying the Nazis as 'Christian terrorists'. Hut 8.5 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nominator seems to think their perception that an article is POV is grounds for deletion, even though
WP:DEL says a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion, but rather tagging the offending passages with {npov}. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Move -- to "Allegation of Islamic extremist terrorism" or simply "Allegation of Islamist terrorism". I have no problem with saying al-Qaeda is terrorist, but this article puts Hamas and Hezbollah as "Islamic extremist terrorists", which is strongly POVish. These organizations are democratically elected to the legistlature of their respective nations and are commonly considered (in thier home countries)as "resistance" organizations not as "extremist terrorist". That they are "terrorist" is an allegation.Bless sins 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentso the
List of Hamas suicide attacks?--Sefringle 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Firstly, it doesn't matter what I think, per
Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and there should only be Accusations of Islamic extremist terrorism. Bless sins 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually there is no "list of massacres committed by Israel." The acts committed by Israel are disputed, while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just. Tewfik^Talk 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel would dispute black was white if it felt the need. That's kind of the point of NPOV, old son. Grace Note 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just." We are not determining what side is "right" - merely presenting facts. Tewfik^Talk 09:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha.. Why are people pretending not to have "common sense" and the basic rules of the English language? Those who are committing their acts with the intent of terrorizing civilians are terrorists. I mean, is this so hard to understand? It doesn't even matter one bit what they believe or feel. This is the BASIC tenets of English language, your intent is to terrorize? Then that's terrorism. Quite simple really. It is definitely political correctness to say "oh well, he murdered that guy, but we cannot call him a murderer; we have to say "he was convicted of murder by this court". WP:ENGLISH also applies in Wikipedia I am afraid. There are those who have been repeatedly called terrorists, and they do act to terrorize others, therefore they are terrorists. You honestly cannot expect others to say "September 11 was a militant attack committed by those who have been labelled as terrorists by X, Y and Z"!! It doesn't matter that those wackos falsely believed that they would be banging 40 virgins after they exploded into thousand pieces :) They did it to terrorize others, ergo they are terrorists. Baristarim 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and do not move - this is good stuff - and belongs where it is larryfooter

Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - the name change is not as important as the content. Radical Islam is a current event and people should know the facts about it. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Kwikiman (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Lee Hunter is absolutely right, you know. If there was an admin with the balls, he/she would delete this on the grounds that it's an egregious breach of the policies here, regardless how many vote for it. Articles that are titled with epithets should either be about the epithet or have their titles and tenor changed to something more neutral. And an epithet is what this is. It's a ragbag term for any act of violence that a/ we disapprove of, b/ is done by Muslims, c/ whose views we can characterise as extreme (while ignoring that they would characterise our secularism as equally extreme). We do not call the bombing of Baghdad "Christian extremist terrorism" even though Mr Bush a/ is a Christian, b/ is intolerant of solutions to governance that he doesn't approve of and c/ has ordered the destruction of civilian infrastructure and acts that he knew would kill civilians, among other acts of violence. Grace Note 08:16, 18 December 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 was delete, copyvio —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:25Z

Cobelco

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

Notability? RickDC 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:COI seals the deal. Hatch68 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from everyone's favourite vanity site. I'm still trying to figure out where the last paragraph came from, though. So tagged. MER-C 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as both copyvio and spam. --Walor 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per all and salt plus reposted content x3 now.--Dakota 07:08, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cat Bongz

Originally nominated as speedy by
speak up! 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - why was this not left as a speedy delete? It easily meets the "patent nonsense" qualification. Hatch68 04:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. So tagged. MER-C 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wide-spread internet phenomenon which is growing every day. There are countless forums and myspace pages already featuring cat bongz prominently. It's just that the term 'Cat Bongz' is not universally accepted yet. I maintain that all images of cats with funny captions will soon be widely known as "cat bongz". The article is not nonsense or a neologism. I challenge you to point out what part of this article does not make sense.
Wikipedia is not a
crystal ball. Pumeleon 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I challenge you to provide references. Hatch68 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEO. Clearly a neologism. To be accurate, I prod'ed it. Someone else tried a speedy on it. Don't think there's an applicable speedy category. It's not patent nonsense, with a few dozen forum hits [8] (which does not qualify as "wide-spread"). Fan-1967 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Neologisms where
WP:NFT also applies are, effectively, patent nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snake Brake as an example. MER-C 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

NFT's tend to get zero GHits, or one. This has spread a tiny bit. Not much, but a bit. Fan-1967 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

various cat bongz examples

I actually find these examples quite funny and even sophisticated - as humour goes these days!

Cat Bongz are actually well-known. Did you try googling them?? I support this wikipedia entry. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 60.240.150.163 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Of course we googled them. The link is six lines up ↑. Nine google hits does not make "a wide-spread internet phenomenon". Fan-1967 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fan-1967. Hagerman^(talk) 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 8 non-redundant ghits if I eliminate myspace and wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all the above. An added clincher is that any article which talks about something being "a phenomena" should be nuked on sight. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another delete per everybodyz. And something I was wondering: is it necessary to say that a picture of a cat using a sniper rifle is "digitally altered"?
Bubba hot ep 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Such pictures are cute, but the phenomenon isn't notable and the word certainly isn't either. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNeologanism. Anyone who thinks this is a new internet concept clearly doesn't remember the 80's when people used to post photos to tv shows or magazines. It isn't new, it's just a new buzzword that someone made up in school one day.Ga rr ie 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- non-notable, neologism, waste of space. -- Simon Cursitor 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cute kitties for sure but non notable neologism.--John Lake 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism. Something like this is more appropriate for Urban Dictionary. Pumeleon 21:17, 15 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kaufmann

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

Bumped from prod. I personally don't know anything about this person, but he appears to be a notable historical politican, though the article currently lacks content. One third of the 1000-page book The Ohio Hegelians (History of American Thought) is about him [9]. I'm hoping this AFD will grab someone's attention to help save the article, otherwise unfortunately it would have to be deleted for lacking content and information on importance/notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 04:28Z

Keep and expand. I know nothing about him but googling found that he was one of the Ohio Hegelians who were
Moncure Daniel Conway and August Willich.--Dakota 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per User:DakotaKahn. RaveenS

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, two-month-old group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Coalition of Independents (OKIES)

Oklahoma Coalition of Independents (OKIES) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable brand new political party, links provided don't indicate verifiable notability. Reads like spam. If this was an established political party, that would be one thing, but this appears to be a small group using Wikipedia to promote themselves Akradecki 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. No indication of notability. Ned Wilbury 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - corporate vanity. Okies (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 05:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, forgot to mention in the nom that this is a contested prod. Akradecki 05:39, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Celiberal.com

Celiberal.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable political forum. Absolutely fails
WP:WEB. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 04:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No indication of notability. Was mentioned in an apparently-indendant source, but that's nowhere near enough. Ned Wilbury 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa = 1,194,948 [11]. MER-C 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity page about nn website. Daniel Case 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This definitely qualifies under the db-web template. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:48, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shiny ball syndrome

Shiny ball syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is for a neologism or protologism and fails
WP:SET MarkBrooks 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Whatever we do with slang dictionary definitions: Not sure what that is, but I don't think they stay here, so delete. Ned Wilbury 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - smells of
WP:NFT. MER-C 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Ckessler 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologism. Daniel Case 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And [[WP:I'veneverheardofit]]. And it possesses debatable humour.
Bubba hot ep 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's actually got several blog hits but nothing else. Darkspots 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it were a scientific theory (which I highly doubt it is), there is no research linking it, and I highly doubt that there's any in existence. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Adam Riley (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete It's a cute joke, but not encyclopedic. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per—wait a minute, I've gotta take a look at the Centaur Art discussion, be right back. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--John Lake 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Neologism, no assertion of notability. —
ShadowHalo 22:24, 16 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sportspower cup

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

Small-town schoolboy sports competition. Not notable. QazPlm 05:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This should also apply to the sister articles: Toyworld Cup & InterCity Cup.Daemonic Kangaroo 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - no web presence apart from Wikimirrors, and town-level school tournaments are not generally notable ChrisTheDude 13:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daemonic Kangaroo. Punkmorten 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. м info 02:27, 16 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Criticisms of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

Criticisms of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is biased and objective and for the most part, unfounded, considering the amount of praise for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It is not cited and is written in the tone of an upset player. Furthermore, it is more relevant to a game guide or review, not an encyclopedia article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ckessler 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like OR to me. The only really notable criticism was over hot coffee, and that's discussed in the main article. Croctotheface 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless someone wants to a)cite these criticisms and/or b)write about the actually notable criticisms: the
Hot Coffee mod crap. Koweja 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Source or die ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Completely unsourced. MER-C 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source that thing or TO THE DEATH CHAMBER! Reeks of OR, plus it just plain sucks and is unencyclopedic. Pwnzorize it! E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not for the lack of sources. Any PC gaming magazine would be an adequate source for nearly all the statements made here. However, we're not a review site, so the "criticisms" have to be the notable ones, i.e. Hot Coffee, which is already in the main article. yandman 08:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
masterka 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely unsourced POV. Not even worth a smerge to the GTA:SA article. -- Kicking222 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when is Wikipedia a website to get advice on whether they should buy a video came or not? --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's
not. E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk

Delete, per above. Comment: When I saw the title I expected some sort of morality debate over the game play and content, such an article might have some intrinsic value (if painstakingly crafted), but this does suck. --MegaBurn 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not GameRankings, WP is not a fansite/forum substitute. Create Criticisms of Jet Set Willy instead. QuagmireDog 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePjbflynn 04:53, 17 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Celebrity Gossip

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

Reads more like a junior high essay, doesn't really have any chance for expansion & topic is covered in detail in more specific articles. Ckessler 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like somebody wants a job in journalism. Or to be an astronaut. Or a nurse.
Bubba hot ep 14:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as an essay. -- Whpq 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't insult junior high schools like that! (Delete, BTW.) -- Zanimum 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Celebrity. Jordan 20:23, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Risembool Rangers

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

Prodded deletion contested and overturned at
WP:DRV, even though it was intermittently restored and speedily deleted as A7, so ultimately it is the community's decision whether the article asserts or establishes notability. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'll have a go at deciding notability... once I've found out what the hell this is all about! :)
Bubba hot ep 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this is a fan club for an anime voice actor. No sources cited, and apepar to be findable after some gogoling. -- Whpq 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable sources that this is anything other than a minor fanclub are lacking. Gnfnrf 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being of minimal relevance to main wiki~. Possibly transwiki if an anime w~ will take it. -- Simon Cursitor 11:58, 13 December 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 was Merge/Delete. Cbrown1023 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leavers

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

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

Bump from speedy. Suggest merging somewhere. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 05:37Z

Merge both to Ishmael (novel). MER-C 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Terms already exist and are explained at
talk • contrib) - 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Erikster S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:56, 19 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Trauma

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

"The group prides itself in remaining an underground group, never wishing to break through to mainstream media or radio". Then they don't need to have a Wikipedia article, on top of failing
WP:BAND Daniel Case 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brain Trauma wants to remain underground to maintain there artistic integrity. That has nothing to do with "failing". They have been featured in two separate articles in The Charleston Gazette, which is southern and western West Virginia's largest circulated newspaper. They have a very large fan base. They were linked to from articles involving Horrorcore and R Budd Dwyer and didn't have an article to point the references to. I don't see why the group shouldn't have an article. -Joshua Kyle —
few or no other edits
outside this topic.
Note that the above post was made by a user who seems to be in the band... MER-C 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. I love it when this happens. Wavy G 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
conflict of interest. MER-C 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails to assert notability. —
ShadowHalo 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - nn notable, fails
WP:MUSIC.--Dakota 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Band does not appear to meet the requirement of multiple independent coverage in
WP:BAND. Serpent's Choice 07:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Please also note that Kasketkyle (talk · contribs) deleted the contents of this AfD discussion, replacing it in its entirety with the text blockquoted below:

Go set on your pedestal and feel important because you waist your life deciding what is and isn't important for people to know. No one gives a shit about what college you went to or what kind of degree you have. You aren't better at deciding what is and isn't important for wikipedia visitors. the reasoning behind this is...
If something has a "cult" following, it s quite possible that none of the fans know about wikipedia, hence a member of the group would be the only person viable for the job of creating the article. Although yes this does interfere with the neutrality, if no one else is available to create the article then the band shouldn't be deleted for simply creating the article as long as the article is used as a "history of the band" rather than "hey buy this bands next cd!". The notability of the band in question might be under suspicion, but, the band does have a very large underground following, and has shared the stage with such notable acts as Tech N9ne, Project Deadman, ZugIzland, Wolfpac, and others. Also, the Charleston gazette (wv's highest circulated newspaper) has ran articles involving brain trauma, twice.
if that doesn't qualify as reasoning to keep the article up, i could really give a shit, honestly, at least I'm not someone who sits around all day judging other peoples creativity.

please note that my deletion of everything was accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasketkyle (talk • contribs)

Delete, despite the soapbox rant above, no evidence from
WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Upgrading my vote to Strong delete after the angry rants above. First, they used profanity. Second, the writer at first misunderstands the issue, then does but basically without intending to makes the case for deletion. If the band has a small enough fan base that none of them are likely to have heard about Wikipedia, then it's a safe bet they're not notable. Oh, OK, they aren't notable by our (very objective) standards, but they have "a very large underground following".
Wikipedia is not Google, it is not the be-all and end-all of universal knowledge however much it may seem to be to younger readers. If they want their favorite band to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, I would suggest to the Trauma Victimz that they focus their energies on getting more attention on the band (but uh-oh ... that would make them commercial and thus less cool). Daniel Case 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

all i have to say is who ever deleted this is a JUGGAHO! whoop whoop! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.231.168 (talk • contribs)
Okay, so slang terms are allowed to be on wikipedia, but an article about Brain Trauma is not. These guys are awsome and deserve a break, just because some person wants to discriminate against Brain Trauma for their beliefs and wishes does not mean that the article or anything pertaining to Brain Trauma should not be on wikipedia. Brian Trauma is not slang, they are a group of people who produce good music and an article should be allowed on this site, they have the Freedom of Speech just like the rest of us. Michelle -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.149.49 (talk • contribs)

Delete When it comes to music and books, my history proves I lean towards inclusionist-views, however we DO have a guideline,
WP:MUSIC and have at least three (multiple) Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-trivial, Third-Party sources. Articles about the band (and nothing else but the band) by major magazines, newspapers, or peer-reviewed journals. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - I can confirm that the Charleston Gazette appears to have interviewed the band. But a single article doesn't meet the "multiple" portion of the mutliple covergae independent of the subject. I'm open to a keep if more reliable sources can be found. -- Whpq 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mer-C. (I remain underground to maintain my scientific integrity), Edison 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Let's help this act maintain their "underground" status and delete the article from Wikipedia. B.Wind 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever, I don't give a shit anymore. I would like to point out though, that my "rants" above weren't in the least bit angry. "Profanity" is nothing more than a word used for something, like the word DOG means a four legged animal that barks, FUCK is the word used to describe the physical act of love. This isn't profanity. In the above "rant" my usage of the word "SHIT" was not used literally, as in it was not used to describe excrement, therefore it is NOT profanity. You would think someone with a masters degree in English would notice something like that. But, I'm not the one in here trying to act like he's smarter than anyone else, I know my IQ, I know my knowledge, I don't have to get on a computer and convince people Ive never met of my superior intellect by making smart ass quips about something a band member posted as an article on wikipedia. But, you have won, for the time being. Some day soon, we will have the three articles, and the notability, and all that super important stuff. And I'll even have a fan post the article for us so it isn't a conflict of interest. Goodbye for now.

The S-word is profanity in any context. Have you ever tried out that argument offline? I didn't think so. We have a rule against this. Daniel Case 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I have tried out this argument offline, and the only time I have lost the argument is when it is with some bible thumping redneck or someone who already thinks that they are "superior". SHIT is not a profanity, the link you posted about SHIT is further backing that it isn't a profanity in certain contexts. But, seeing as you already have it in your head that you are "superior" to my ignorance, don't worry about it. You're too hard headed for your own good, whatever you think is right will be right regardless of any argument I provide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasketkyle (talk • contribs)

And the article is in
being civil, it's inarguably profane in this or almost any context and you're more or less going into logical contortions trying to convince me that yellow stuff running down my leg is rain. You're clearly too smart for that.
Whatever. I didn't assert any superiority whatever you think I did; I just laid out the reasons this article doesn't meet our standards for inclusion at this point. This whole argument is an irrelevant side issue. Daniel Case 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

DO NOT DELETE As a member of the US military, and yes a Brain Trauma fan, I would like to say that your want to delete this article from this site is deplorable. You call yourself a "free" encyclopedia, yet you are by no means an encyclopedia. A true one would cover all subjects, great and small. Where would some of the greatest musician be today had it not been for humble beginnings. This group may not be as large as some, but they are still just as notable. All groups must first crawl before they run. Look at Metallica... once upon a time they too felt it unneeded to play to a large fan base, but as they grew as a group so to did their fans grow in numbers. Many have started with just a handful of faithful listeners, only to later become musical entities. Take for example The Greatful Dead. They began as a garage band of hippies who simple wanted to smoke pot and play music. Now today they are a universally recognized supergroup of their time. So to conclude I feel that to leave out this group would be to say that to succeed you have to start at the top. (([email protected])) —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 151.205.86.63 (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment (edit conflict) There are rule for wikipedia. This band does not pass
WP:MUSIC then I guess they do not meet wikipedia's standards for notability. Would you be upset with the Billboard Hot 100 if they didn't place the band in their system? No? Why? Because they do not meet Billboard's standards...yet. Again, this is not an attack on the band, the fans, nor their music. This is a discussion on if the band meets Wikipedias standards... They don't... yet. When they do, feel free to provide sources for this, cite the hell out of it, and recreate the article. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

you are by no means an encyclopedia. A true one would cover all subjects, great and small.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Daniel Case 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, so the Charleston Gazette does not go above your "trivial references" as one of you put it. I understand that you have guidelines; the guidelines it seems are suited for artists that are well known and well published. At least that is how I understand the guidelines; you make it near impossible for new artists to get "public” whether they are underground or not Freedom of speech does not apply here, that seems asinine to me but it is your site and you can do what ever you want. However, Milf, FOAD, and other slang that people just have to know are so very important. As for the comment “Wikipedia is not Google, it is not the be-all and end-all of universal knowledge however much it may seem to be to younger readers.” You are right Wikipedia is not the “be-all, end-all,” but the assumption that younger readers believe that your site is the “be-all and end-all” of Universal knowledge is a bit much. What does the age of the readers or fans have to do with anything? In addition, the comment “I would suggest to the Trauma Victimz that they focus their energies on getting more attention on the band (but uh-oh ... that would make them commercial and thus less cool).” How do you know that they have not been, and it is not a matter of being cool, it is a matter of getting out there. You have made the assumption that Brain Trauma’s fans are a bunch of “kids” therefore you people must be old geezers, this follows with the assumptions that you have made. Some of you may not have been as critical as the others but your standards seem to high for new artists to get anywhere, you have to start somewhere. Webster’s definition of Underground: produced or published outside the establishment especially by the avant-garde. 70.105.149.49 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Michelle[reply]

What does the age of the readers or fans have to do with anything?
Just that most deletion debates over bands that follow the same pattern as this (and there have been many) often seem to involve younger editors who have a very different understanding of what Wikipedia should be than the community that's been here and shaped it over the past several years.
I'm glad you posted this because I'm going to pull some things out that I want to direct your attention to further your understanding of why this article will almost certainly be deleted.
...you make it near impossible for new artists to get "public” whether they are underground or not...
...it is not a matter of being cool, it is a matter of getting out there...
...your standards seem to high for new artists to get anywhere, you have to start somewhere...
Would you not agree, then, that rereading your statements above that you believe the purpose of this Wikipedia article about Brain Trauma is to promote the band? Or if you don't, that then a reasonable person could make that assumption?
Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for anyone. Not Brain Trauma, not the many penny-stock companies whose pr departments put up press releases here and think we won't notice, not the kids who want the world to know how cool they are or what dorks some other kid is. We delete all those articles too.
The obvious assumption from your comments above is that, if there is no Wikipedia article about the band, no one will know about them. Again, that's not Wikipedia's purpose. That might be MySpace's purpose; I can't speak for them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on which you can (hopefully) learn basic information about a lot of things. But we merely reflect the world, we write articles about what the world has taken note of. We reflect rather than report.
I checked out our articles on MILF and FOAD since you brought them up. Guess what? MILF is on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, and FOAD is in a glossary of Internet slang terms. Which is where they both belong. Daniel Case 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The same rules would apply if it were the
Charleston Gazette is mentioned, but in what issue - and what's the name of the article - does it have an online link? If not, perhaps it can be found offline, but only if the issue date were given). So if we take away the unsourced assertions, we are left with.... nothing. That's a major reason for the "delete" recommendations. Well, that and no references from outside West Virginia could be found in my short search for Brain Trauma the band. B.Wind 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Michelle, the thing is the band must have been reported on by multiple, independent, reputable, reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources. The articles on the band have to be about the band and nothing else (no coverage on any other bands or just a mention of the band being part of a concert). Look at
WP:MUSIC. We have a MUCH lower standard than a hardcover encyclopedia, but we still have standards or every garageband would be able to have an article. The other reason is having standards for bands and artists means they have to meet a certain level of notability and fame. This makes it easier for people who are not familiar with the band to add information to the article because any reasonable adult who is not a specialist in the music industry would be able to find information and post it about the band. You have a certain standard for the people you would date or let into your home. Does that mean your standards are bogus or wrong? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:36, 14 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa rosa rock music

Santa rosa rock music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN, 25 ghits, advertisement for a music show local to Santa Rosa. Ckessler 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. —
ShadowHalo 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:54, 19 December 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Found Pet Web Sites

Lost and Found Pet Web Sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I believe this falls under the category
not the Yellow Pages. I just don't see anyway to expand this into a proper encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.--Dakota 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be expanded to include other methods of finding lost pets, preventing pets getting lost, studies on effects of lost pets etc. Google Scholar lost pet search
WP 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment sorry if I sound blunt but what exactly do you think the "lost pet" search in Google Scholar proves? That "lost pets" are an academic subject? I don't think you bothered to look at what those references show because you probably would have then noticed that more than anything the dismal results support deletion. As for your call for the article to be expanded, you might notice that this would mean writing an article that has nothing to do with the title of this one. Pascal.Tesson 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Delete. I applaud any effort to return lost pets to their owners, but this is clearly a website list, which falls under
WP:NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. We are not an internet directory. --Adam Riley ^Talk 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is most certainly a directory. -- Whpq 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely a directory or guide. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:57, 13 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar ill'al-murd

Nazar ill'al-murd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Google brings up no legitimate hits for the phrase "Nazar ill'al-murd" - just this article and mirror copies of it. Article lists only one source (from the
Encyclopedia Iranica) which doesn't even address this topic, but instead discusses pedophilia
in poetry. metaspheres 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails
WP:V. MER-C 06:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

There's a good reason why you get no hits other than this article when you search on this phrase: One of the Arabic words is misspelled. The preposition إلى ila only has one l. The article's author must have confused it with a different Arabic word, the conjunction إلا illa. The phrase in standard transliteration from Arabic would be nazar ila al-murd. The word murd meaning 'beardless youth' is Persian, and the phrase is a mixture of two languages.
If the article isn't deleted, please spell the word right! The world has been slow to catch onto the concept of standard transliteration of Arabic, and it keeps causing information screwups like this.

I hate to break it to you, but "nazar ila al-murd" only brings up one Google hit, and "al-murd" only brings up mirror copies of the Wikipedia article. Neither look to be verifiable at all. metaspheres 15:2, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Googling on 'sufi.murd' and 'sufi.beardless' seems to show that this is a legitimate topic in Sufism. I don't think I can properly evaluate those sources, though. Suggest a rename per anon above, if sources are properly added. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The charge is spurious. Quite aside from the fact that a cursory search subtracting "wikipedia" from the search field will yield several useful links, there is a clear scholarly source in "Paidika" volume 3 issue 4 (1995) on p.13: "Love imagery in Persian Sufi poetry usually flows from this mystical, symbolic appreciation of love's spiritual power. In some works, however, the imagery refers also to specific practices, code named 'nazar ill'al-murd' or 'contemplation of the unbearded,' namely, the unbearded boy." There are others in the literature who discuss nazar (also rendered as "gazing") at length, though it is not always rendered in its complete form, the "al-murd" being either left out or translated into English. Haiduc 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or cite sources and check spelling.The theme exists, is real but the article is insufficient Alf photoman 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about citing sources, I shall do that forthwith. As for the spelling, that is how it is spelled in the literature. Very often here is no "right way" to transliterate one language into another, different scholars take different approaches. Haiduc 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mostly original research. For instance, the reference from Iranica ignores this part: "PEDOPHILIA In Persian love lyrics, however, one can hardly find the kind of homosexual relationship that is understood in the modern West; love is a one-sided and asymmetrical affair. As a rule, it is between an adult male and a boy or youth. Therefore, it should be characterized more properly as pedophilia, and its physical aspect as pederasty, rather than described under the more nebulous concept of homosexual love." [12] Perhaps you should rename this article to Pedophilia in Persian poetry. This is the English Wikipedia, by the way, so covering this stuff up with Arabic or Persian names seems a bit disingenuous to me. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter how one tries to spin it. Pure whitewashing. metaspheres 09:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep please calm down, metaspheres. the phrase's meaning is quite clearly explained in the article. re 'or' you yourself checked the citation! it exists, if you think it should be clarified do so, but please be reasonable about it. also you overlooked this [13] on the 1st or 2nd page of google. granted the correct transliteration isn't much help [14] tho obviously, it isn't made up. clearly it needs to be sourced properly etc, this is being done. most importantly a lack of google hits (think about it!) tells us nothing about a term from such a 'relatively' obscure area.  ⇒ bsnowball 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but but it's a bit difficult to keep "calm" when I see someone trying to whitewash obvious pedophilia. There is nothing in the article from Iranica which supports the Arabic phrase used in the article's title. Not one iota. A I said, the article from Iranica is discussing several different issues. This article focuses on the pedophilia part, yet the article title is something else. This article should be deleted. Haiduc, who I assume created this article, can then create a new article called Pedophilia in Persian love poetry or something like that. But don't whitewash this crap or try to hide the fact that it's pedophilia. metaspheres 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem here, but it has to do with the multiple uses to which the terms "pedophilia" and "pederasty" have been put. The current accepted definition of pedophilia in the US is that it refers to a longstanding sexual relationship with a child thirteen and under. At the same time, in Europe, it is often used to indicate a predilection for falling in love with children, even if no relationship comes out of it, regardless of the age of the child. Pederasty (see article) however is academically defined as a man's love relationship with an adolescent boy whether or not sexuality actually occurs, though some still use it in the limited sense offered by several dictionaries, "anal sex with a child", a definition that is not in use in academia. As far as nazar is concerned, usually, only anti-Sufi polemicists suggested that it was a hidden path to sodomy, while scholars did and do treat it along the same lines as the philosophical pederasty described by Plato and others (with, at times disbelief in the West that the Moslems could "come upon it by themselves" without first having been inspired by the selfsame Greeks). So the idea of whitewash is itself spurious. And I will second Bsnoball's admonition that one should not rely on Google for academic research of this nature. Haiduc 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually everything you just stated is
original research
. You can say what you want, but even the Iranica article calls a spade a spade. Academic definition of "pederasty"? Give me a break. There is one definition of pederasty and if you claim otherwise, I want to see the evidence. Iranica is as scholarly a source as one can find and the article is pretty damning of what you're claiming above, and even goes so far as to disconnect this "pedophile love poetry" from homosexuality. Anyone can read the article for themselves and I guarantee that most will not support your bizarre assertions. metaspheres 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be basing your argument, including your accusation of "original research" on your unfamiliarity with the extensive academic work on the subject of pederasty, and of nazar in particular. There are abundant sources of information on this topic if it interests you, and they have been cited. Please make use of them. Haiduc 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MER-C. DragonRouge 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google on "Nazar murd Sufi -Wikipedia" and a few English hits show up. Even if this is only about Islamic pedophilia and pederasty, it should be kept if notable and verifiable. As argued by others above, it's not any more about that than Plato's Symposium is just about homosexuality. --Richard 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article conforms to Wiki guidelines, which are that it should be verifiable (it lists sources for each potentially contentious statement), should not be original research (again, it's based on sources, not on OR), and it should adopt a neutral point of view (it seems quite non-polemical to me). The subject-matter causes a strong emotional reaction, but we shouldn't allow that to guide our decisions - Wiki is meant to be inclusive. 202.178.112.81 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry - meant to sign in and sign as PiCo 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article appears to have valid content. If the name is mis-spelt, move it. Can see no justification for deletion. --AliceJMarkham 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is more than just the name of the article, but the content itself, which is concerned entirely with pedophilia and pederasty. If the factuality of this information is not provided, then why should it be kept? Is Wikipedia here to provide a forum for pedophiles and pederasts?? metaspheres 06:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is cited, obviously real, and I fail to see why the fact that it is about pederasty and/or paedophilia means it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Also, I do not like metaspheres' implication that Haiduc is a paedophile because of his edits, that leads to bad faith and has nothing to do with an AfD anyway. Stop making an emotional argument. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT on the talk page Metaspheres (talk · contribs) has gone so far as to directly accuse unspecified other users of attempting to turn wp into "a forum sympathetic to pedophiles and pederasts" [15]. have placed appropriate warning template on users talk page.  ⇒ bsnowball 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made no comments directed towards anyone, so do not make false accusations. You will be blocked for doing so. If you have any problems with me or any other user, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Dev920's comment. Certain user's squeamishness in relation to articles they view as pedophilic/pedarastic topics is not a reason to delete an article. Rename if necessary, but I see no reason to delete. Jeffpw 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not squeamish. But let's see if Haiduc or anyone else who edits the pedophile/pederasty articles most often attempts to whitewash the issue and erase all references to the obvious (and sourced) pedophilia bits. Then I want to see what you have to say about "squeamishness". metaspheres 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Response Metaspheres, rather than engaging in what appears to be some kind of a crusade by making generalized charges of "whitewashing" it would be more helpful if you could address specific issues. As for the nomenclature preferred by the Iranica article, we are not locked into it since we have many other sources that we are working with and which seem to use the terms differently, and in a fashion more consistent with accepted academic use. Haiduc 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dev920. This is not a subject that is in dispute among experts - only among those that want to deny the historicity of such behaviour. Tuviya 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speak Persian and the word "Murd" does not mean beardless youth. Actually the word Murd means dead and is from the same Indo-European as latin Morte. See my comments on the talk page about Mahmud and Ayaz as well. For example Shams Tabrizi advised his son to avoid hashish and sodomy, two great vices. Sufi mysticism includes a tradition of approaching

the contemplation of God through focusing on the face (especially) of a beautiful boy, the shaahed. :::: But to claim that this equals pedestary or homosexuality is seriously flawed. Once place where the image of a beautiful young boy comes from is the Surah Ar-Rahman of the Qur'an (a text btw which condemns homosexuality as a great sin). Of course there is a lot of homo-sexual scholars who are biased and have power in the academia. But they can not even show one example of explicit homosexual act in sufism or Persian poetry. The contemplation of the beauty of the youth to achieve spiritual divinity did not have any sexual connotation and even this practice was condemned by Rumi. --alidoostzadeh 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was it condemned if not for its dangerously erotic aspect. And we are told that the transliteration "-murd" is related to "amrad," as in "amrad kaneh," a Persian word relating to a Persian institution, if I am not mistaken. But it is not our prerogative to declare or deny the pederastic nature of these relations and traditions. This has already been done by scholars qualified to do so and we are here documenting their published research and conclusions. And to denigrate these individuals, male and female, of various nationalities and various orientations, as a gay cabal is to introduce bigotry and prejudice into the discussion. Haiduc 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a Gay scholar or clost gay (like the British person mentioned in this article by the name of Burton) can not be taken as neutral source. Furthermore the word Murd (dead) is not related to amrad. Look up any Persian dictionary and there is no such a word as amrad. I speak Persian. And we have no word by the pronounciation of "kaneh" either. I am not sure where you are getting these ideas and words from. Do you speak Persian? If not then you are citing a source. Your source then does not speak Persian. And finally the article does not have a single quote or single book or single text from any sufic text alluding to any physical homosexual behavior. And yes sufism has had its enemies and one way to absolutely trash it was that sufis practiced aldultery, homosexuality, smoked hashish and all sorts of labels. --alidoostzadeh 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add that Persian poetry of Hafez or Rumi can be intrepreted thousands of ways. Communitss in Iran think of Hafez as a communist. Liberals as a liberal and winde-drinker. Conservative religious figures as a cleric reading the Quran. Zoroastrian and Zoroastrian wannabe's as anti-Islamic hidden Zoroastrianism. And finally of course, a Gay scholar would interpret his verses as gay. But the fact is that there is not a single verse of Persian poetry from any of the famous Persian poets that have any homosexual or pedopholia verses. The issue is simple. The emotional relationship between two males, specially one being a spiritual mentor to the other is manifolds greater than the emotional love felt between a husband and wife. As per the youth image, it comes from the Qur'an and youthfull beauty was something that reflected the divine beauty in some sufi circles. The Qur'an states: And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls. And when thou lookest, it is there thou wilt see a Bliss and a Realm Magnificent."[16]. Note the spiritual image of the Qur'an was taken by some sufi circles. There is also another symbolic quranic image about "houris" (a feminine creature of extreme beauty) which actually has deeper symbolic meaning according to sufi interpretations of the Qura'n.

Bottom line is that there is not one verse in any of the famous Persian poets that alludes to any sexual act and if someone wants to prove the contrary then they need to bring the actual Persian verses since so far I noticed words that do not exist in Persian. All the google searches about this subject have only brought other wikipedia articles. --alidoostzadeh 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fortunate enough to speak Persian, though I would love to. However, others who do have written on this: "Some of the famous love relationships celebrated by classical poets were between kings and male slaves. The beloved could also be the slave of another more powerful person. Many erotic Persian love poems, in which the lover describes the secret and sporadic nocturnal visits of the beloved, refer to such situations. Outside the royal court, homosexuality and homoerotic expressions were tolerated in numerous public places, from monasteries and seminaries to taverns, military camps, bathhouses and coffee houses. In the early Safavid era (1501-1723), male houses of prostitution (amard khaneh) were legally recognized and paid taxes. Bathhouses and coffee houses were also common locations for illicit [homosexual] sex...."[17] And once again, I will not accept your disqualification of "gay scholars" because in that case I will disqualify "straight scholars" and then where would we be?! Haiduc 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich, referencing a website called "Global Gayz"! Real rich. Sorry, but see
WP:RS
. And just so you know, don't try to make this a gay issue. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, no matter how hard you might try to do so. metaspheres 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

in the lead the phrase "Nazar ill'al-murd" is clearly stated as being arabic, the phrase "Shahed-bazi" is in persian. i have no idead wether either of these is true, but all the above about persian 'amrad' etc is irrelevant to the article as it stands. otherwise can we please leave out the opinions about homosexuality & debate sources? haiduc is correct in pointing out that you can't just ignore scholarship based on claims about the author. if you wish to establish bias in a particular author you will have to provide justifications based on that authors writing. tho arguably the para about burton shld go, absurdly generalised ('easterners'), & if he spells out that interpretation, then the quote shld to.  ⇒ bsnowball 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to
WP:NOR. Do a search for this "shahed bazi" and the few hits (not from Wikipedia) that you find only connect it to homosexuality in Persian literature, not pederasty or pedophilia! The article is mostly original research, it's not that hard to understand. Wikipedia is not here for POV pushing of any kind. From what I can read, the homosexual scholars in question are not even talking about pederasty or anything about men having sex with children! It's bad enough that the pederasty
article is far, far from NPOV and makes it seem like a harmless practice! Unfortunately I see this shit all the time on Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons why people with a history of having been sexually abused tend to avoid this place like the plague! And again, this shit has nothing to do with "LGBT topics"! This is unbelievable. metaspheres 10:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but reference from Global Gay! is not a valid reference. Or else I would have to write an article for the global heterosexual. Now don't get me wrong, of course homosexual behavior has existed in every society. But we are here talking about sufism and sufi poetry. Sufi poets like Rumi and Shams very harshly criticize homosexual behavior and sodomy and drugs. Yet anti-sufis (wahabites) in order to disown sufism have made all sorts of remarks about it. Some of the worst literature has been written about Ismai'li sects from Sunnis. They claim ismaili's freely have sex in massive orgies and etc. And btw I speak enough Arabic to know that Al-Murd is not word in Arabic. The word Al-Murid though means student and perhaps this is a story about sufi master and his student. Nothing homosexual and etc. about it. The fact is there is not a single evience of one verse in sufic Persian poetry referring to any homosexual and pederasty behavior. --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a degradation of Wikipedia principles in the foregoing discussion that must be resolved before we can go any further.

The persistent attempts to demean sources attached to queers studies or the gay community must cease. They are no more appropriate than attempts to disqualify sources on the basis of the skin color of the writer.

The repeated efforts to confuse age-structured homosexuality with a mental dysfunction having criminal overtones is nothing but a slur and ignores all the preceding academic study (history, anthropolgy, philosophy, sexology, etc.) which has identified pederastic practices as a traditional form of same-sex desire (which like any desire can have normative or transgressive aspects).

The consistent sexualization of same-sex desire in Sufi practice in order to "prove" its irrelevance to Sufism is a blatant straw man argument which ignores previous scholarship which clearly demonstrates the existence of a tradition of chaste (or "philosophical" or "pedagogical", as it has been dubbed) pederasty which consists of a relationship between a man and a boy premised on the unconsummated desire of the man.

The editors arguing against the substance of this article are basing their comments on their personal knowledge base, be it linguistic or cultural or historic. That is not a recognized foundation for discussion in this project. Please cite here the arguments of scholars in the field who support your contention, as I have, and let's see if we can integrate their points of view into the article. That is how the Wikipedia game is played, not through emotional outbursts or personal attacks. Regards, Haiduc 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly quoting a Gay scholar on homosexuality in Persian literature is like quoting David Duke on Hitler. There is an agenda behind it. It is non-neutral POV. Secondly the gay scholar you quote does not know Persian well enough obviously or else he would know how to pronounce Persian terms. Thirdly I can quote Dr. Franklin Lewis who has written the most important book on Rumi and clearly shows that Rumi (who is the ultimate Sufi) condemns homosexuality as does Shams condemn sodomy and hashish (in the Maqalaat). The word pedastry should not be used as in www.dictionary.com (which is more reliable than wikipedia) this term refers to actual sexual abuse on a child. Where the sufi practice was to actually divinity in the youthfullness and I quoted the Qur'an here. And finally Persian literature and sufi literature should be explained by Sufis. Not by Wahabists, Gays, and other people from other religions who might have a bent against sufism. There is absolutely nothing sexual about the emotional love felt between two man in Persian literature. It has to do with a master and disciple relationship where the disciple believes that the Master's command is God's command. Also Professor Lewis Franklin [18] has written the most comprehensive book on Rumi and his words are much more reliable than someone writing in a Gay magazine (which is non-scholarly to begin with). Also personally I do not see how an article whose title does not make sense is valid in wikipedia.--alidoostzadeh 05:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ali makes a lot of sense.Azerbaijani 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Ali doostzadeh. (Marmoulak 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - per Ali doostzadeh as well.--Nightryder84 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article appears properly sourced and NPOV. Due to the number of osurces which refer to it, the topic appears to be notable. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Frankly I think there is little hope in the article surviving. First, because the article is primarily about pederasty, the cultural attitudes of the primary english speaking audience will not allow it. Secondly, add to that the utter condemnation of anything homosexual by the english speaking muslims that will object. Also, there seems to be a dispute as to how it should be correctly named. I vote keep because the article content seems more or less accurate, it seems well cited, and it seems NPOV. Also, perhaps an article that honestly discusses pederasty in Muslim culture may eventually expose the truth about pederasty in roman Catholic culture. Atom 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how a topic whose name does not make any sense in either Arabic or Persian can be kept! As per your second sentence, if you do a google search on the topic name, you will only get wikipedia and sites that copy & paste wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is false. See this link and this link as well as the first reference on the article page. Since the term is thus in use, you have no authority to contest it, unless you wish to bring properly cited evidence that the Sufi practice of boy contemplation has a more common Arabic name. On the other hand, if you wish we could use the Persian term of "Shahid bazi" which may be more familiar to you, and which has an equally valid pedigree (and is more frequently encountered on the web). But then of course "nazar ill'al-murd" will have to be treated in the article as an alternate, Arabic, term. Haiduc 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you said Murd is related to amrad and etc.. Murd means beardless in Arabic. Thus the whole concept is that of contemplating youth as a divine sign of God. There is no sexual basis on it and the stuff from a Gay british person of the 19th century is totally invalid. The whole concept of nightgale, flower, candle and moth in Persian poetry have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality and homosexuality. Anne Marrie Schimmel is the major scholar on Persian literature and she has written on this symbolism and there is absolutely none of the intrepretation that the homosexual Burton has madeup. Any terms that are related to sexuality and specially homosexuality and child abuse and pederasty must be removed from this article as they have no support in relation with sufism. They are all allegations from Burton who was a 19th century British homosexual whereas major scholars of Persian literature like Arberry, Schimmel[19] have described these terms. As per the practice of nazar illa-al-murd although there is no sexuality involved, rumi who was a sufi totally repudiated it. Also the picture from Jami's work did not show up directly from the website. SO please provide the correct link. --alidoostzadeh 07:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments of the user Haiduc look very convincing to me. Besides that, the person, who has stated this deletion-campaign is obviously driven by his personal opinion regarding pederasty (which is not necessarily illegal in many countries) and attempts to "save" the history of his Muslim brethren. Fulcher 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I asked for a single source that shows pedestary in Persian Sufic poetry. Now I will bring some reliable sources. Lewis Franklin (Rumi Past, Present and East and West, pg 320): Shams al-Din counseled the young Sultan Valad (Rumi's son) to avoid Hashish and sodomy, and condemned Owhad al-Din Kermani for his practice of Shahed-Bazi in this case his attenton to beautiful boys, in the Hellenstic tradition of the ephebe. Shams and Rumi both condemened the excesses of Sufi behavior, as did other Sufis, and were opposed to libertinism. Rumi held a very unfavorable opinion of Owhad al-Din, believing that Owhad's relationship with the boys in his circle was not chase: Shaykh Owhad al-Din left a bad legacy in the world..

Now I have quoted the most important Sufi in history yet some people want to attach this practice to sufism. Note also pedestary is different than shahedbaazi as I have explained already. Sorry guys you can not quote some British 19th century Gay scholar who ridicolously sees the Moth and Candle and Nightgale and Flower in Persian poetry as sexual. --alidoostzadeh 16:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want evidence of pederasty among the Sufi? Why do you not read the uncensored and unwesternized history of Sufism? Instead of acknowledging the complex debates engaged in by the mystics and their critics, you delete from articles _and from your own user page_ whatever passages make you feel uncomfortable about your ancestors. Excuse me, but that kind of behavior does not belong here. What did the critics say about the Sufis? Here:

"But they are in depravity the most elevated of men, as you see without doubt
They have taken beardless boys as their aim unabashedly, thus coveting perdition."
And called them their beginnings -- of dishonor, evil and disgrace. ---Hasan al-Badri al-Hijazi.

"The Sufis of the age and time, the Sufis of the wine-press and the eating-tray.
They have outdone the people of Lot by adding the beating of drums to fornication." ---Ahmad al-Murshidi

I am not interested in your focusing on the Persians, this article discusses the Sufis and the proper references have been given. Be forewarned that your repeated removal of Burton is a disruption of Wikipedia and if it does not cease it will be dealt with accordingly. Haiduc 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my Rumi evidence did some damage to your attacks and distortion about sufism. As per the two quotes you brought, they are not by Sufis. Burton who lived in the last century and was a homosexual with no credibility in Persian literature. But Professor Franklin is a expert in Persian literature at the University of Chicago [20] and has written the most comprehensive book about Rumi in any language. Professor Franklin says: We know that (some) Sufis sometimes used the dervish cloak to hide antinomian behavior and libertine excess, for authors sympathetic to Sufism, such as Sa'adi, Owhadi of Margheh and Ibn Jowzi all condemn it. Shams counsels the young Sultan Valad to avoid Hashish and sodomy, two great vices.. Thus the practice of some antimonian sufis does not represent sufism in general and if there was one person that represents sufism it is Rumi and Shams. Also I have asked three times to show the exact link where the Jami picture in this article is taken from and in which one of the 7 chapters of the haft awrang is the story mentioned. Note Jami has three chapters on Salaman and Absal, Lili o Majnoon and Yusuf and Zuleikha in the 7 chapters of the Haft (7) Awrang. The other 4 chapters deal with matters that are not about love. And one poem specially chastizes any sort of lust. Note the two quotes you brought are also from not Sufis obviously and the teaming up of Wahabites with Gays is amusing. The fact is real sufism as exemplified by Rumi does not condone even shahedbazi (which is different than pedestary) just like real Christianity condemns homosexuality and pedestary. Now if some priests act in that manner it does not mean that the official church condones it. So your generalization to sufism when the most notable sufi of all ages, Jalal al-dIn Rumi and his mentor Shams condemn Awhad ad-din Kermani is actually academic dishonesty. And finally the moth and candle, and the nightingale and flower are just Persian symbols of love and have nothing to do with any sort of sexual relationship. You are imposinv western values on Sufi literature. --alidoostzadeh 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedestary"? Wutz that? ;-) Fulcher 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the sort of topic I would like to even engange in but I will defend sufism from people who seem to be experts in such terms. --alidoostzadeh 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like my Rumi evidence did some damage..." Rubbish. But your contribution of a quote is a step in the right direction. Please be so kind as to include it in the article. I have no intention whatsoever of deleting it, it does not contradict my agenda. No information on this topic, pro or con, contradicts my agenda. The only thing that contradicts my agenda is editors on a crusade who are out to impose their point of view by removing properly sourced material that makes them uncomfortable, like your persistent vandalism of the Burton quote. And by the way, I noticed that you inserted your Rumi reference at the very top of the article. As my parents used to say to me when I was a kid and barged ahead, "The donkey goes first." Please do not disrupt the article to make a point. That reference too is welcome, but only if properly placed. As for the Jami info, please go into the site here and follow the links. The program they use does not permit direct entry. The relevant section of the Haft Awrang is "Chain of Gold". Thank you for picking up this faulty reference, I will have to provide this info in the image pages too (I was not familiar with proper referencing when I posted those pictures). Haiduc 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every fields has its experts. In terms of Persian Sufi poetry it is Lewis Franklin and Anne Marrie Schimmel as they have published a lot in this arena. Not some british gay person from the 19th century or political writers. Also let me add Ehsan Yarshater is not a scholar of Persrian poetry and his training is linguistics. Thus you either quote scholars of Persian poetry or else it seems it is just intrepretations specially from sites like gay world and etc. As per Rumi, he is the most well known Sufi in the east and West. My sources like Franklin and Ann Marie Schimmel are from scholars of Persian poetry. Thus Rumi and Shams warning admonition of sodomy and hashish are very relavent to this article and since Rumi is the most well known sufi poet in the world, his statement should be given prominence. As per Jami his Haft Awrang is here: [21]. Show me the verses. The manuscript could be about another poet whose work was included in that art work as well. Also there is absolutely no hint of any sex feelings even in the picture or pederasty. --alidoostzadeh 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another great link: [22]. Mevlana(Rumi) condemns sodomy and effeminate behavior in numerous places in the Mathnawi. He said, "The (true) sufi [Sûfî] is the one who becomes a seeker of purity [Safwat]; not from (wearing) garments of wool [Sûf] and sewing (patches) and sodomy. With these vile people, sufism [Sûfiyî] has become stitching and sodomy [al-liwâTa] and that is all" (V:363-64). This contrast between purity and sodomy would appear to echo one of the passages in the Qur'an which mentions the Divine punishment of the people to whom the Prophet Lot was sent. When he confronted them ("Would you commit this abomination with you eyes open? Must you approach men with lust instead of women?"), they responded with sarcasm by urging that Lot and his followers be expelled, "For they are a people who would stay pure" (Qur'an 27:54-58). Note the most prominent sufi in the world was against deviant practices. Thus the article is doing a great injustice against sufism by trying to connect a practice (shahed bazi) (which in itself was not sexual) to sufism. My suggestion for some people is to stop misrepresnting sufism. --alidoostzadeh 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please ali, discuss content of the article on the article's talk page. & keep out the homophobic comments, they don't help your case at all.  ⇒ bsnowball 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing main stream sufism which clearly condemns homosexuality. And when we discuss sufi literature we refer to authorities like franklin and not homosexual sites. And when were looking at the most exemplary and notable sufi in the world, we are talking about Rumi. I have not seen you guys quote one scholar in Persian literature here. It is just couple of Gay people and some non-scholars who have an axe to grind against sufism. (like wahabites or others). Whereas the Rumi quotes from Rumi himself are crystal clear. --alidoostzadeh 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just perused through the article and it simply resembles some sort of Frankenstein sewn together from wildest pieces of information out there. A few Google hits? Is this a joke? Considering the gravity of the subject matter? I am not a historian, but I can see that some of the sources are being stretched to the breaking point to prove I don't know what. Since when is homosexuality=pedophilia? The notions in the article are so confused that it might as well be arguing that Pyramids were built by Martians. Half the article is about quotes on how Islam condemned pedophilia. Condamnation of an act doesn't prove its existence nor its proportions. If the question was if there has been homosexuality or pedophilia in Islamic countries over the ages, then the answer is obviously yes. Just like every part of the world. And it has also been condemned by every religion on those places as well. I just cannot see how exactly this connects with a particular spiritual school of thought. The only quote I can find, and that based on an interpretation of the text, is a poem. And reading it, I honestly cannot understand how it can be interpreted anywhere near to referring to pedophilia except having read it as such, knowing it beforehand. I mean, is this it? One half-interpreted poem? This proves that there were major currents of pedophilia in Sufism? I can prove that Atlantis really existed with more ease! The gravity of the subject matter implies that there will be serious and extensive sources to back up the obscure claims of the article. I mean, what exactly is it about anyways? Homosexuality? Pedophilia? Eroticism? Yoga? Homosexuality is Islamic countries? Sufism? Isn't anyone aware that these are not connected with each other? We gotta turn off the electricity of this Frankestein, otherwise it would be zooming in Wikipedia as some kind of zombie knocking everything around it! Baristarim 08:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is not even a pro-gay or anti-gay issue. I am atheist, so it is not like it is going to derange me by its nature. But I have also read Sufist literature, and I have a lot of respect for it. I suppose that anything can be true in this world, however sewing up unrelated information to create some sort of thesis is not right, and also breaks WP:OR. It is not even clear how most of those sources cited even refer to currents of pedophilia in Sufism. There are mentions of Yoga, Eroticism, Homosexuality in the Islamic world etc. How are these even related between each other, let alone with Sufism?Baristarim 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per alidoostzadeh and Baristarim. --Mardavich 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete this is nonsense. per ali --Rayis 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything has been said already. Tājik 15:12, 19 December 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur art

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

Origial Resarch about artwork depicting centaurs. Unverifiable. Largely unsourced. 3 rambling pages from a previous seeming problem user, no links to this article, and no other (non-bot) edits. Twredfish 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much out there on Google. MER-C 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough content to warrant a separate article from centaur. I'd suggest merging to centaur, but its a train-wreck at the moment that doesn't need any more unverified content than it already has. Please note that the reference about the purported origins of centaur myth in this "centaur art" article is a link to an essay on a student's personal website, not any actual official university publication or research. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any page containing the word "complexification" should probably be eliminationisated too. --
Folantin 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rather off topic, but most of them use it in a specific mathematical context:
Novelty theory (does this meet inclusion standards?). Just so you know; we can now resume this AfD already in progress. Serpent's Choice 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, packed with original research. Would set an extremely bad precedent if kept, leading to dozens of similar crufty articles,
Mermaid art, Vampire art, etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, there is a
Mermaid art article... by the same editor. Hmmm.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominated
Mermaid art and Lamia art too, on the 12th. Didn't seem right to tack on to this one, given review already in process, but grouped those two together on the next day's AFD page.Twredfish 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - though centaur erotica? Lol!! Moreschi 13:10, 12 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi le duck

Mimi le duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Procedural nomination. Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 06:59Z

Weak Keep if it can be cleaned up and wikified. It's a real show, with reviews, etc., easily retrievable. (I'm prepared to revise this opinion if someone can point me to notability guidelines for theatre and musicals, which I couldn't find. In their absence, I am forced to apply the
Pokemon test.) - Eron ^Talk 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Week keep as well. Basically everything that was said just above is how I feel about it.

Weak keep per Eron.--John Lake 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no cited sources and therefore does not meet
No Original Research. Two out of the three pillars of wikipedia, not met, I think constitutes deletion. Alan.ca 10:00, 16 December 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 was speedy delete due copyvio
G12. Content copied straight from http://www.wesleyan.edu/psyc/mindmatters/. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mind matters

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

Bump from speedy. Seems non-notable: top 10 Google search results for "mind matters" are for other groups. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:03Z

Delete -- non-notable, and a (mild) copyvio from http://www.wesleyan.edu/psyc/mindmatters/ --Lost tourist 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - something done within a business - not nationwide. 86.20.53.195 17:48, 12 December 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 was delete, but since a partial merge to List of cocktails has taken place, a redirect seems to be in order instead. Sandstein 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre Juice

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

Non-notable cocktail, entirely unsourced. Even if a reference were found for the recipe,
WP:V issues. Quale 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

~~KEEP~~ - for now at least. I agree that this article is in need of improvement. However, whomever prodded this page for deletion apparently did not read the notice on the talk page that states the entire series of cocktail-related articles are undergoing evaluation, improvement, and/or merging of useful information into other articles. Prematurely deleting pages while the
WikiProject Cocktails
is still working on them severely hinders our progress. If deleted, it requires us to request the deleted information back from an administrator so that we can cull the useful bits out of the original article. Once the project is finished with this cleanup, we will be nominating many articles for deletion. If we cannot find more information to improve this article, it probably will be one that will be deleted at that time. Thanks. --Willscrlt 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of Ogre Juice does turn up a few hits in places outside of Ontario. It was probably an Ontario native who posted that statement who did not want to take the time to do the necessary research. Instead of nominating
WikiProject Cocktails and help us improve the entire collection? Just a thought. :-) --Willscrlt 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete - Thank you for waiting until I had a chance to pull the useful information out of the article and merge it into the List of cocktails. I now change my vote, since the only remaining unique information is largely regional (and a very small region at that) in nature and unreferenced. The "good" stuff (though with this particular drink, that appears to be a matter of taste and opinion) has been saved. --Willscrlt 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Willscrlt and for the fact that the article doesn't offer a lot of information or any sources or references. Jayden54 13:32, 13 December 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 was no consensus. Sandstein 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Zawodny

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

Non-notable. Vanity page. No references. 256 unique hits. cacophony ◄► 07:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vanity page, but delete anyway. Likely to fail
WP:BIO, nothing but mentions in blogs and other user-generated content. MER-C 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment From what I can gather, the bio information is sourced by his self-written bio on his site, so even if an affiliated party didn't put the info in the article, I think it's vanity by proxy. cacophony ◄► 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's published a notable
CNET News.com Blog 100, and he has delivered several presentations at notable open source conferences like these: [23], [24]. He's been mentioned in notable blogs such as Valleywag (here) and has at least one—albeit somewhat fleeting—CNN mention here. He's also been mentioned in several published books as seen here. -SpuriousQ 11:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per MER-C. Also, according to
WP:BIO his own book alone can't enstablish his notability. The other sources you cite are blogs or trivial coverage. - Femmina 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now, but needs a lot of work. Google news and Factive indicate plenty of coverage, but that needs to be evaluated by tose with subscriptions to see if it's non-trivial. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Notable person, but this is a vanity page. Jordan 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A rewrite might be difficult with the lack of any sources. Can somebody please provide a source for his biographical info that wasn't written by him? cacophony ◄► 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a bio on him from the O'Reilly site, one of his publishers: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1758 Jordan 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable and well-known, and has plenty of press coverage (so passes
WP:BIO). Jayden54 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The press coverage has to be non-trivial to satisfy the bio requirements, which it isn't. Valleywag and CNN both give him passing mentions. Likewise for the books listed on Amazon search. Thus, fails
WP:BIO. cacophony ◄► 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per SpuriousQ. — coelacan talk — 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete T-t-t-terminate this non-notable vanity piece. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I threw this page together last year when I was looking for info about him, he is mentioned a lot in tech circles, and I still think an article would be useful. It's not sourced well, obviously, and if that can't be solved I am neutral. - cohesion 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpuriousQ. Zawodny is sufficiently well-known to be considered noteworthy, and the article contains useful information him. Recommend incorporating references found above by SpuriousQ. Bear in mind that
WP:BIO is merely a guideline, not policy, and "is not intended to be an exclusionary list". In my opinion there is sufficient information available about Zawodny to create a useful, sourced NPOV biographical article. --Fjarlq 01:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable, published, sourced, and well-known. Just this week he exposed Google for ripping Yahoo off. Wankers had to redesign their page that day. Ranks no. 469 out of 55,000,000 in Technorati. DelPlaya 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:BIO notability guidelines. Even if 469th place among blogs was impressive, it's irrelevant, as the subject of the AfD is the person, not his blog. cacophony ◄► 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Good point, cacophony, the blog (which wasn't written by itself) is also notable and should have more of a presence in the article. 469th place out of 55 million anythings is impressive and just as relevant as your mentioning that his name only receiving 256 unique ghits because from Technorati we learn that the subject has received 2,685 links from 1,778 blogs, which would suggest to most that he is quite well known and notable within his field. On a side note, you may want to cross out your claim of Vanity now that it has been proved inaccurate and it goes against
WP:AGF DelPlaya 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I will
WP:BIO, wheras "Technorati ranking" is not. cacophony ◄► 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment May I suggest that by claiming Vanity as you do in the first sentence of this AfD, you are inferring that the subject wrote the article himself
WP:COI, which has been disproved, thus you should retreat from your vanity claim as it might paint you as biased. Regarding WP:BIO, the line you reference concludes with "or other well-known Internet search engine". Technorati has a respectable ranking of 181 on Alexa. A rank that is higher than Slashdot, NBA.com, or even WalMart.com, therefore most would agree that Technorati's numbers in regard to this subject are valid, and since their numbers rank him quite high, it passes the Search Engine Test that you present. DelPlaya 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Technorati is not an internet search engine, it is a blog search engine. As such, it's results would obviously be biased towards blogs, and anything that is a blog would rank higher on Technorati than on an internet search engine, regardless of the notability of the subject. If you'd like to use another search engine as an additional test of notability, feel free to pick one that treats all websites equally, rather than assigning a higher rank to the class of website that you would like to have a higher rank. Might I suggest you use one from
here? As for the claim of vanity, currently the article seems to be sourced from Zawodny's autobiography, ergo, vanity. cacophony ◄► 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Technorati is not an internet search engine? To quote from the first sentence about Technorati on Wikipedia "Technorati is an Internet search engine for searching blogs, competing with Google, Yahoo, PubSub and IceRocket." If you would like to use search engines that compare sites like Amazon.com vs people like Mr. Zawodny, please keep using that strawman technique. If you would like to try to see where people like Mr. Zawodny stand in his field, Technorati is a far better judge, in my opinion - and by its Alexa rating, I'm not alone in using it as a helpful tool. Some people today might want to use ghits to use as strawmen against those who are well-known in the blogosphere, some in the past threw alleged witches into water to see if they'd float. It appears that you wish to avoid any tool that would show this subject notable, as opposed to seriously trying to discover how notable he is. That's too bad because it makes you appear biased and not not neutral. DelPlaya 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that's correct. Technorati is not an internet search engine. To quote from The Wikipedia list of BLOG search engines, "Technorati". We are trying to determine how notable Zawodny is, period. Not in his field, not among bloggers, but among everything. Realtive notability is irrelevant. One could use your logic to determine that my dog, Skip, deserves a wikipedia entry, because he is notable among the rest of my pets. But I digress - It appears that you wish to avoid any tool that would show this subject non-notable, even if that tool is Wikipedia policy, as opposed to seriously trying to evaluate his notability.

In fact, this whole argument is irrelevant.
WP:BIO states that, in order to meet the notability requirements, the subject has to be "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". To elaborate upon that, "Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing" are explicitly excluded. Jeremy Zawodny does not meet those notability requirements. Therefore, Jeremy Zawodny is non-notable. cacophony ◄► 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid you continue to misread
WP:BIO. Nowhere on that page does it say that if someone fails at one of the bulletpoints then they are nn. Indeed it says that even if a person doesn't satisfy any of the items, they are still not necessarily eligible for a Speedy Deletion. The item that you quote is simply the first of a long line of things that *could* determine notablilty. Meaning even if Mr. Zawodny had several non-trivial published works where he was the subject, it still doesn't guarantee notability. "People who satisfy at least one of the items below *may* merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." With thousands of links to Mr. Zawodny as well as Top 500 Technorati ranking, and several non-trival newspaper articles where he was a subject, it would appear that he has what WP:BIO is looking for which is "a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest." But if you want to continue the charade that not perfectly meeting one item disqualifies you, then go right ahead. DelPlaya 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, you're right, he fails at all the other bullet points as well. You are also correct in noting that people who meet the requirements *may* merit their wikipedia article, and they *may* not. You are also correct in that he does not merit speedy deletion, which is why we are going about non-speedy deletion in this AfD. So, on to the AfD;
The "Technorati ranking" of somebody's blog is not an accepted means of determining that person's notability.

Number of links to a person's blog is not an accepted means of determining that person's notability.

Number of google hits is an accepted means of determining that person's notability.

Jeremy only has 256 google hits.

Several non-trival newspaper articles of whom the person is a subject is an accepted means of determining notability.

Jeremy DOES NOT have several non-trivial newspaper articles of whom he is the subject, so that point is moot.

There is NOT a good deal of verifiable information available about Jeremy, as it stands there is only ONE verifiable source that provides any biographical information.

Regards, cacophony ◄► 13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you just want to be argumentative here. The same line that you claim deems ghits an accepted means of determining a person's notability is part of the Alternative tests section that is prefaced thusly "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support) include:" Therefore your claim that "Number of google hits is an accepted means of determining that person's notability" is false. Just like many of your other opinions. Just like your opinion on Technorati, which I have suggested fits in with the Alternative test section as an "other well-known Internet search engine". Therefore if ghits counts, so does the Technorati ranking. Whatever, when you decide to read the entire article that you reference and throw in some common sense, and think about the spirit of WP:BIO as well as what it says (and doesn't say), you will probably have better luck with your opinions seeming less biased. In closing, and I'm not the first to say this, WP:BIO needs to include standards for determining bloggers. And I would suggest that until a consensus is reached regarding what makes a notable blogger, AfD's about bloggers should be tabled. DelPlaya 23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if I may reiterate, blogging search engines such as Technorati do not search the internet, they search blogs, and thus do not fit into the "other well-known Internet search engine" with Google, Yahoo, and Alexa. I really don't see why bloggers should be treated any differently than anybody else, that they should have their own special notability requirements. Other, more notable people who are bloggers seem to meet the notability requirements just fine. What we have to remember, though, is the fine line between blogger and blog, between website and website operator. Even if his blog were notable, then it would be notable in it's own article. Managing a notable or successful website does not automatically make one notable in their own regard. That would be notability by association. Thus, we cannot judge this person's notability by the notability of his website. That's why we have
WP:BIO. Regards, cacophony ◄► 04:23, 17 December 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 was Speedy kept bogdan 10:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holocaust conference

This is not a notable event. It deserves mentioning in the Holocaust denial article, not more than that. --Gabi S. 07:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what the relevant criteria are here, but this is a current event being reported in the NY Times, the Jerusalem Post, etc. Ehud Olmert has commented on it. It seems notable to me. P4k 07:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't meet the criteria for notability. In a year from now, it will be remembered just as another case of holocaust denial. Nothing special. --Gabi S. 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks; I was about to go looking for this under International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust , its full name. I just read an article about it at slate.com. Just cause its not your country's president holding a conference, doesn't mean it isn't notable. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable and definitely a keep, but needs to be kept NPOV. metaspheres 08:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, seriously notable event with the likes of David Duke, and Neturei Karta in attendance and the worldwide news coverage of this event (579 separate Google news links currently). This event may be controversial but if anything that only necessitates coverage of it even more. (→Netscott) 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for the moment. When the conference is closed and all the media coverage of this and that Holocaust denier appearing and saying this and that thing is finished with, we'll be in a better position to judge the merits of a merger. That said, this isn't exactly a run-of-the-mill conference which happens every year, so it's probably going to remain worthy of its own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event could very well change the future of holocaust studies, because, though it is supported by Iran, it offers a voice for alternative views to be expressed in forum, which they have never quite enjoyed before. Just because you do not agree with the conference does not mean it is not important, nor does it mean others do not agree with it, there are indeed a large number of people who feel vindicated by this conference, they may be anti-semites, but no one's perfect. Also judging by how NPOV, detailed, and just flat out interesting the article has become, I would support it being listed as a good article. Hayadel 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just a current event. Although the purpose of the conference is disputable, I seriously don't think this article has anything negative. In fact, it should be kept, so that people will know the ignorance of the Iranian president. 71.146.170.38 01:39, 15 December 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 was delete. Sandstein 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkmarker

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

Appears to be hoax. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a hoax as they exist (see, e.g. here) but I won't comment on notability. MER-C 08:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete They appear to pass
ShadowHalo 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find enough information to verify if the link above (and others on the net) are in fact the same band (the article doesn't give us the names of members, so I can't tell). I think the national tour std in
WP:MUSIC and nothing in the article establishes notability. SteveHopson 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, copyvio from this (broken) link. [25], cached Nov 3. I apologize that the above link doesn't work, not sure how to fix that, but you can easily find this by googling "Gest Quest". - Aagtbdfoua 03:56, 15 December 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 was keep.
T · C ] 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

SriPada Pinakapani

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

Nominated for speedy but appears to have claims of notability, No opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs tidying up, but he's obviously recognised as notable in his field. I've added some links. --Mereda 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable personality. Article needs cleanup and wikification. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Padma Bhushan = notable.Baka man 02:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bakasuprman.Hornplease 08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep-Padma Bhushan winner. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:43, 14 December 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Campese

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

I suspect this is a non-notable musician. Suspected breach of
Guinnog 07:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unsourced
autobiography. The author's userpage confirms it. MER-C 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per above. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unverifiable, unreferenced nn bio.
Sarah Ewart 09:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Subwayguy 01:50, 15 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finda

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

Supposedly an info directory site for New Zealand. Alexa ranks ~ 46,000+ [26] Personally I don't see this particular site as being notable enough to warrant its own article. Also I believe that it is only been created in order to generate traffic. I have personally deleted this article already under CSD, however user has recreated it and insists that it is noteworthy.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one non-trivial coverage, doesn't meet
WP:WEB: [27]. MER-C 08:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article meets the first criterion of WP:WEB - there are multiple stories about it on major NZ news outlets, as cited in the article. (Alexa rankings are generally not great as evidence, and 46k is actually a decent rank for a site with an audience limited to New Zealand.) Dbdbdb 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies
WP:RS and seems to be notable with New Zealand. -- Whpq 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Meets
WP:WEB in its current form, I have heard of it in Australia as a NZ competitor to similar Australian based sites.Ga rr ie 01:43, 13 December 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 was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Christina Dure

Amanda Christina Dure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 07:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blanked by author. MER-C 08:40, 12 December 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 was keep. Sandstein 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eccky

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:44Z

Keep - seems to pass
WP:WEB. One non-trivial mention, more here. However, there is no corresponding article on the Dutch Wikipedia. MER-C 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Question - how do we delete the two images on it which are not low-res reproductions of works which are copyrighted to Media Republic?Ga rr ie 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
GRBerry 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Hello - I'm the author of this article, wrote it on behalf of Media Republic and I'd love to not see the article deleted! I'm not an expert enough user of Wikipedia yet, and I don't really understand the deletion policy. I'll do some reading, but could participants of this discussion please offer some pointers on what might be adjusted in the article in order to keep it around? For example, GarrieIrons, what needs to be done about the graphics that you mention? Do they need to be made "low-res"? Could you let me know? And GRBerry, I can certainly shorten the Gameplay and Chat section. I appreciate everyone's help very much and will be checking in again! Ginettissima1054 12:54, 17 December 2006 (GMT+1)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Many contributions here were unhelpful for AfD consensus purposes (see
WP:ILIKEIT). The term "Euromalays" is admittedly original research, but the article has now been moved to European Malays. Sandstein 22:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Euromalays

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

While I do not deny the presence of Malays with European descent, the title of this is a neologism. It only garners two hits on Google not including the Wikipedia link. Furthermore, Eurasian (mixed ancestry) already exists.--Chris S. 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Chris S. 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, the article is poorly sourced. Contributions from the anonymous editors of this article also leads me to believe that it was written by someone from Malaysia who, for some reason or another, has a deep preoccupation to human races (what
Hitler would have termed as "racial sciences"). Take note that one of this article's sections is titled "Can the Euromalays be accepted as part of the Malay community?" which appears to be unencyclopedic and, in my opinion, biased. --- Tito Pao 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve --User:Matthewprc 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a chance to keep and update my article. I'll try to improve the website the best way I can. --Fantastic4boy 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon explaining the differen between Eurasians and Euromalays, Eurasians refer to the broader aspect and involve all types of Eurasians (Anglo-Indian, European-Filipinos, Filipino mestizos etc.) - it's more like generalising all types of Eurasians. Like Indos and European, this article specialises information relating to those who are a mixture of both European and Malay races. Furthermore, this article does not only relate to those who have Malay and European parentage, but also including those who have more dominant European genes (e.g. a person who is 1/4 or 1/6 Malay) - an example of a person who is of such descent was Maria Hertogh. This is what makes the Euromalays article stands out from the Eurasian (mixed ancestry) article.
The article could be improved by making a separate section for Euromalays who are from Malaysia, Brunei, etc. However, Euromalays (as proven by genetic research) can't include Filipino Mestizos, since Filipinos aren't Malays in the first place. Same goes with the Indonesians. However, if you still want to include Filipino Mestizos as well as Indos, one suggestion would be placing a tagline that "Euromalays can refer to people who are of mixed European and Malay Archipelago (not necessarily ethnically Malay, but living in the Malay archipelago) descent". -- User:Matthewprc

Comment: please explain how this differs from ms:Serani, which is a far more widely-known term. cab 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as it has been stated in ms:Serani, refers to those of partly European and Asian descent (it doesn't specify 'Malay' as the one and only term). That's why I've decided to use the term "Euromalays" (abbreviation for "European Malays") to distinguish this group of people from other Eurasians (i.e. "Serani" refer to Eurasians of whatever racial backgrounds - partly Chinese, Indians etc.). Note that the Malays are an ethnic group, not nationals of Malaysia (Malaysians are nationals of Malaysia). Therefore, to use the term "Serani" just specifically for someone who has Malay and European admixture would then be an incorrect usage. Do you understand what I mean? --Fantastic4boy 17:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, that Tony Fernandes man looks partly Indian and partly Portuguese, he doesn't look Malay at all. --Fantastic4boy 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also Malaysian and well aware of the difference between Malays and Malaysians. What you seem not to be aware of is that Wikipedia has a policy against
original research
, which, among other things, advises that we should not be inventing new words. You state That's why I've decided to use the term "Euromalays" --- however this is not your decision to make. The name of the article should be based on what these people are referred to in newspaper articles, scholarly works, etc.

In any case, creating an article for every possible type of mix seems like the wrong way to go about subdividing the topic of
sourced. cab 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your helpful advice. I find you to be a generous person. I now understand that Wikipedia does not allow us to invent new terms since that they have not been shown on newspaper, magazine etc. as solid evidence yet and that they consider doing such thing as talking nonsense and making arguements without proof -
Wikilawyering. Do you then think the term "Eurasians with European and Malay lineage" or "European Malay descendants" be appropriate for Wikipedia? --211.24.155.43 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Mestizo or keep and rename as Malay mestizo or similar. (I personally am not aware whether the word mestizo is used in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, or Brunei.) The article contains a lot of useful information pertaining specifically to people of mixed Malay and European descent. —Lagalag 12:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - if the article cannot be improved, Merge it with existing related articles. --RebSkii 18:47, 18 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs in fiction

UFOs in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original Research.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Delete depite the problems with the nomination - incomplete, arbitary - does the story I just made up about aliens make it on the list? - and unsourced list. MER-C 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — No valid reasons provided for deletion, seems like a perfectly acceptable article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize and Delete This topic doesn't deserve an article, but some may find it useful as a category. Xiner 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, and appears to be a list without mentioning the fact in the title. As a list, this would be absolutely unmaintainable. Hell, the vast majority of the entire genre of science fiction would qualify for it. This is too expansive and is unnecessary. --The Way 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and de-listify. There is no need for a list of works that have UFOs in them (though the size of the list does say something for the notability of the subject), but the title (and stub at the top) implies an article on the motif of UFOs in fiction, which has it's own set of conventions and images that have only a small overlap with the (purportedly) real-world UFO sightings/belivers. This whole "foo in fiction" concept is getting hit a lot at AfD because they tend to start as lists of works with foo then get deleted because they aren't good lists. Control the listcruft, but not by destroying the stubs they're growing on. BCoates 13:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we drop the list, we have an unsourced stub containing original research. The list isn't sourced either. Fails
GRBerry 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per MatthewFenton and BCoates. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:17, 19 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Child magazine

My Child magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination. Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:54Z

Delete - fails to assert notability. Looks pretty non-notable to me looking at the ghits. MER-C 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. //
I c e d K o l a 01:28, 17 December 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 was keep.
T · C ] 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ice Age (band)

Ice Age (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The decision of a
deletion review and is now back for more deliberation. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - notable and per everyone on the deletion review.
Bubba hot ep 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - I should say, "per everyone who voted overturn on the deletion review.
Bubba hot ep 14:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as before. Meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason as in the last Afd; two full-length albums on a notable label. Prolog 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the act appears to go the way of
The Stray Cats, being a US act being much more notable in Europe than in the US (at least in the beginning). The article is in dire need of a rewrite and redlink removal, though. B.Wind 18:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per previous AFD, for which a good-faith closure would have been "keep". — CharlotteWebb 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfair: if you had read the DRV discussion you would have noticed that at the point when the original AFD was closed, the evidence did indeed point in the wrong direction. Please check your facts before flinging accusations. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per discussion at DRV and new evidence. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per B.Wind.--John Lake 19:05, 14 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How I Won the War (band)

How I Won the War (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. The author of the article seems to be claiming that the band meets
WP:MUSIC, see Talk:How I Won the War (band). —Quarl ^(talk
) 2006-12-12 08:02Z

Should be a Speedy Delete. The band does not meet
WP:MUSIC. The listed articles are not features on the band, they list several bands or they are publicity tools. They are merely trivial published works and one is obviously a source dependent on the musician/ensemble itself. They don't make them notable. They do not meet any of the other criteria. --Walter Görlitz 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as above. Does not meet
WP:MUSIC. Prolog 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete copyvio of article about a Canadian act that seems to fall short on
WP:MUSIC (even the first couple of lines state lack of notability and the act's apparently trying to change that). B.Wind 18:44, 13 December 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 was Speedy Keep - more an a statistical blip are requesting speedy keep and
WP:SNOW applies here IMHO.. Tawker 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James Kim

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

This article is a hot subject, and I understand that. I can relate to people who want to talk about and commiserate after the tragedy of this brave man's death. Nominating this article for deletion is going to make me a villain to some, but so be it. It has been noted that this story garnered a great deal of attention from media spectators, particularly on the internet. I imagine with so much attention being paid, it was inevitable that this story should come to Wikipedia. Be that as it may,
Wikipedia isn't a memorial.

There was no article for James Kim prior to his being featured in the 24/7 news cycle. The talk page for his article mentions his notability through his journalism career. This can only be seen as a revisionist justification; no one had seen the subject as noteworthy until the news media placed so much focus on it.
Others have argued that his death may serve as a lesson to others; that some may learn from the events. I can see from the article and the talk page that there is even discussion of "mistakes" made. Personally, I find the subject extremely distressing. I actually got a little nauseous reading what I felt was morbid overanalysis of a horrifying series of events. Personal feelings aside however, if people are looking for lessons on Survival skills or to read about the dangers of Hypothermia, then let them go to those articles. I can honestly say that I don't think anyone will come here seeking knowledge on subjects of this sort.
I think it is best to leave current event stories to current event story outlets, regardless of the emotional component. Mael-Num 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hugely inappropriate for deletion. This is a truly bizarre suggestion, given that anyone who has published anything with an ISBN number attached to is appropriate fodder for a wikipedia article, no matter how obscure and insignificant they are. Some people become known through life, and others through death. The article is quite thorough and factual, and these facts are thought-provoking and capable of stirring public debate about travel safety. Case studies of particular people are relevant to these debates. This is Wikipedia at its finest. If this is a candidate for deletion, then I am going to recommend the 5,000,000 nobodys who have been awareded publishing contracts and now have stubs that say "John Doe is the author of..." for deletion. If there is ever another family stuck in the woods through misfortune, and the news says "In an incident reminiscent of the demise of James Kim..." people should be able to come to Wikipedia to find out who this man was, how he came to be known to millions, and how he died. Aron Ralston has an article here because he got trapped in a canyon under a rock for days, cut off his own hand to free himself, and live to write a book about it. Kim, already in the media due to his career, walked 16 miles through the remote winter wilderness to save his stranded family and died. While we're at it, should we delete both of these articles using the very logic of Mael-Num? Or is it the book written by the survivor that makes all the difference? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 86.108.68.7 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment: Inappropriate reasons given for deletion. Mael-Num, your reasons for deletion do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. For an individual to be included in Wikipedia that individual does NOT have to be noteworthy before the events for which he garnered media attention, whether he is alive or dead. If there was no article about James Kim prior to his notoriety in the 24/7 news cycle it would be irrelevant and has no relation to Wikipedia guidelines; again Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state an individual must be noteworthy prior to the events for which that individual garnered media attention; obviously if that was the case, innumerable articles regarding individuals like
John Mark Karr would also be deleted. James Kim need not have been noteworthy for his journalism career. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual's death necessarily has to provide "lessons" or useful information regarding survival skills, any other skills, or practical information about the physical ailments from which they died; whether the events surrounding the individual's notoriety are practically useful to the reader or not and whether or not those events provide "lessons" is absolutely irrelevant under Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, you cite emotion and memorializing in this article, but no such emotion or memorializing is present in the article (perhaps you could cite specific instances of it?). The only memorializing I see is a link to CNET's memorial of James Kim; whether that link is valid to include within the article (rather than solely as an "external link") is another discussion. If you feel this article should be deleted, please provide reasons for deletion that conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. One could argue that an article was warranted before his disappearance, but sufficient information about the man was not available to those who would write it. If his career was significant enough and he passes
WP:BIO, he should stay. There certainly isn't a lack of interest in information about him. For what it's worth, I'd be quicker to keep this article than the one for, say, Michael Jordan's father, which is there pretty much solely because of his untimely death (after passing an AfD). -- Tim D 08:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Let's not muddy the waters.
one of the best known basketball players of all time. So why shouldn't that exact same logic apply to James Kim, because if I bumped into James Kim (or his father, wife, brother, or son) before or after this event, I would not recognize him at all. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Mael-Num, your rationale that James Kim was not notable before the events surrounding his death which garnered media attention is NOT part of Wikipedia guidelines regarding inclusion OR deletion. Neither is the fact that you wouldn't recognize him in the street. Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual must be noteworthy before the events which garnered media attention and focus on that individual, whether that individual is alive or dead. Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual must be personally recognizable to you before or after the events which garnered them media spotlight. You have NOT used standards which conform to Wikipedia guidelines in order to justify your nomination for the deletion of this article. Using your rationale, countless other articles would be deleted as well; Was
John Mark Karr? Was he note-worthy before the events in which he was involved that garnered him media attention? How about the climber Aron Ralston, the man who became stuck in Blue John Canyon and amputated his own arm to escape and survive? Was he famous before that event? Would you recognize him before or after that event? Once again, if you feel an article should be deleted, you MUST provide reasons for deletion that conform to Wikipedia guidelines. You have not done so. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Well, don't muddy the logic either...I didn't say that two individuals were comparable. I used Mr. Jordan as an example of a case where an article was kept solely for the situation surrounding his death; before death, James Kim was notable for other things (of course, James Jordan did beget Michael, but I'd generally say that biological notability is a little different). I'm sure that if it stays, the article will ultimately be about his life and career, not about his death. And again, for what it's worth, if I had bumped into James Kim before his death, I definitely would have recognized him. Notability doesn't mean that everyone everywhere will know the individual :) -- Tim D 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article is tightly sourced and provides a biography of a person that has been in the news recently. It doesn't matter if the story disappears from the headlines in five days, this is perfectly within the scope of Wikipedia and
WP:BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I didn't look at the talk page, but to me the article doesn't contain any morbid analysis. It's actually quite well written. I'm not sure what your point is about
T 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment If you didn't look at the talk page, which is what my comment was addressing in part, then perhaps you should try to read it before attempting a rebuttal. If you had, then you might understand my statement about
WP:IMP states that one flaw in the current definions of "what is worth writing about" do not "explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest", the obvious statement there being that items that are of fleeting interest don't belong in Wikipedia. Your reaction is worth noting, but reactionary people should keep it to themselves; there's been enough of that in this case already. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't look at the talk page because it doesn't have any bearing on whether we delete the article. The blog section of not is to prevent people from abusing user space and server space. Similarly, if the talk page is a memorial, that has little bearing on the article. I'm not sure what you mean about "the perceived intentions of Wiki's founders", but
T 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
WP:BIO, which is guideline, states that "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated" is a factor for determining their inclusion within Wikipedia. James Kim does appear to qualify, with the Associated Press [28] and CNN [29] reporting about his death. The talk page also shows signs of expansion beyond coverage of his death. —Goh wz 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Incorrect. Perhaps you don't understand what assassination means? Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It says such as assassination. How can we carry on a discussion with someone who won't be rational and honest? (And I do apologize if that sounds like a personal attack. It is not meant that way.)Tragic romance 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if you're really curious, I did understand, but as Tragic romance mentioned, assasination is an example, the overriding description being "newsworthy events". —Goh wz 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is much too detailed to be deleted and Kim was significant due to his work on TechTV and the circumstances of his passing. --Peter McGinley 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies
WP:BIO. -SpuriousQ 10:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. How can you delete an article about a man known of by millions of people the world over? Because he wasn't famous before this event? Should the articles on
Edgar Allen Poe be deleted because he wasn't renowned until after his death? As for notability, he was on TechTV and CNET, and he was also "noted" by virtually every news outlet in every medium. He isn't just "news" anymore.Tragic romance 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: TechTV and CNET do not make someone notable. Indeed, if this were the case, then why was there no article written before his untimely passing? Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Maybe TechTV and CNET don't make someone notable. Maybe they do. But since he was "noted" by virtually every news outlet in every medium, and millions of people the world over are aware of him, he's notable. Answer whole arguments, not just the part you find the weakest. Thanks.Tragic romance 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Mr2001 11:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons above. Headwes 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, your argument is basically "well, he got a ton of media coverage, but..." which explicitly states that this is in compliance with
WP:BIO. "no one had seen the subject as noteworthy until the news media placed so much focus on it." -- that's exactly how we determine what's noteworthy, and now that he's been judged such, we're good to write about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, The policy
Wikipedia isn't a memorial. is intented to exclude articles that are simply memorials to friends and relatives who are not otherwise notable. The article on James Kim does not fit in this category. James Kim would have been notable whether or not he died, by virtue of his decade of work in the tech media. He became more notable because of the circumstances surrounding him and his family in the last week of his life. Crunch 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:
Wikipedia isn't a memorial. also states that "subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered", so while I appreciate your interpreting the guideline's intentions for me, I would beg to differ. James Kim was not notable before he died. There wasn't even a WP:stub for him. I am an avid gamer (for close to 20 years now) and I never heard of him. I have a good friend who is an editor for a major metropolitan newspaper, and because she doesn't saturate herself in the 24 hour news cycle, she was barely aware of the "significance" of the event. It seems a case of television telling people what's important, and the only possible response being slack-jawed assent.Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Whether someone is included in the personal scope or worldview of Mael-Num is not a yard stick in which to measure Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Rugz (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment:He isn't notable for being fondly remembered. (In fact many of us are critical of his choices.) He's notable for the poignant (?) way he died. Perhaps he wasn't notable before he died. But he's notable now.You do make a good point about whether his plight was important enough to capture the coverage it did. But importance is not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is.Tragic romance 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any person deserves an article in wikipedia if "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (see
unsigned comment was added by Urod (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment: Define "non-trivial". A newspaper will print nearly every obituary you send to them. That's hardly a valid test of what makes
important and lasting encyclopedic subject matter.Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Again this individual sidesteps and mischaracterizes the argument. True - a small obituary in a newspaper does not justify inclusion. But this was covered by virtually every news outlet in every medium. Millions of people around the world are aware of him. Further, this individual cites an essay that is labelled as "being kept for historical reasons" and "has fallen out of favor in preference for the 'Notability' guideline" (paraphrased). Tragic romance 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIndividual was notable prior to the incident through his TV work and as a CNET editor. Just because an article wasn't created before this doesn't mean he wasn't notable.--
Crossmr 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep due to enormous amount of media attention, and as mentioned he was fairly notable before the incident, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your argument, "I think it is best to leave current event stories to current event story outlets" doesn't make sense, considering the fact that the main page of Wikipedia has an "In the News" section. Nobi 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uberkeep Incredibly notable and incredibly well-sourced. He would have qualified for a WP article before his death. -- Kicking222 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I can't believe this even got nominated. --Howrealisreal 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus enough for you? This should have been a matter of common sense. Read Wikipedia:Notability_(people).Tragic romance 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was on international television on three separate shows for 5 or more years. He clearly has a fan following. The nomination for deletion is clearly from ignorance of the topic or field in which James Kim was dominant. As per
WP:BIO the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. If James Kim is to be deleted then the following people should also be deleted from Wikipedia: Leo Laporte, Patrick Norton, Chris Pirillo, John C. Dvorak, Adam Sessler, Kevin Rose, Sarah Lane, Megan Morrone, Jessica Corbin, Catherine Schwartz, Bill Rafferty, Morgan Webb, James Kim, Jim Louderback, Martin Sargent, Michaela Pereira, Erica Hill, Victoria Recaño, Sumi Das, Chi-Lan Lieu, Chris Leary, Dan Huard, Brendan Moran, Lauren Fielder, Robert Heron, Kate Botello, SuChin Pak, Roger Chang, Tom Merritt, Laura Swisher and Scott Herriott -- all of which are television personalities of international fame. Rugz 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong and Speedy Keep Deletionists can really be bizzare sometimes, in my opinion. If you read the article, you'll see that it is neither a memorial nor a lesson in survival skills, no matter what a user or two might have written in the DISCUSSION page (which is clearly not the article). This is a noteworthy story, which so clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines. Moncrief 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, Verifiable, Not Original Research, state in Neutral POV, passes
WP:BIO
. Hey, don't knock the Deletionists. We aren't always deleting things, we just have a tendancy to have a stricter way of looking at an article (in-other-words, we have higher standards) :P --16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete A tragic event, and no doubt a skilled journalist but not noteworthy enough to keep. Ramskjell 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of curiousity, is there a Wikipedia guideline you're basing your definition of "noteworthy" on? Do you disagree that the article meets the guidelines in
WP:BIO? Moncrief 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Since you asked and I'm
on a blog. Despite the "consensus" reached by the masses drawn here by the lowest common denominator news coverage paid to this article, I hope that cooler and more rational heads prevail, and sort this thing out properly.Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: The article clearly meets the #1 standard on
WP:IMP: An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." Moncrief 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Congratulations! You managed to betray both my assumption of good faith and yourself as being an argumentative and dishonest respondant with incredible speed and brevity. Your rules-lawyering fails because, despite the boldface used twice above, you managed to blind your eye to the part that reads The criteria do not explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest. I won't allow you to just gloss that over. Before you respond with more non-sequitur, please adress exactly why you think that line is there. Or feel free to pretend that my response never happened. Mael-Num 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out
WP:IMP as a rationale for your AfD nomination, and I am merely quoting from it. It is difficult to know what is of fleeting interest and what isn't until some time has passed, so I think Tim D's suggestion just below is a good one. Cheers! Moncrief 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Concession accepted, and I agree with both Tim D and yourself. I was unwise to attempt to remove this article while so many people are so emotionally charged. It would make sense to keep the article until there comes a time when we can evaluate the more far-reaching relevance of the story. Mael-Num 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concession? I don't think I'm the one conceding. By the way, if you formally withdraw your AfD nomination above, we can expedite the process. Cheers! Moncrief 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is anyone even trying to use
WP:BIO
replaces it (along with any other notability guidelines). I hate to say I ignore any opinions but if I were the closing admin, I would wonder why you are debating the article using obsolete guidelines. --22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer While you may think yourself clever for implying that I was merely attempting to use
WP:IMP, rather than actually doing so in an argument, and through this flimsy implication alone claim that my argument isn't valid...well...you're not that clever, because if I can see through that nonsense, you've done something wrong. More importantly, may I ask why you are picking nits and lawyering rather than addressing the content and spirit of a guideline that is significant enough to the owners, operators, and admins of Wikipedia that they cite it themselves as things to consider when authoring an article? Just honestly curious. Mael-Num 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If there is to be a discussion on whether this article should be deleted, I think that it shouldn't happen now. It's almost impossible to separate the notability of the person from the popularity of the event. I say that we should just see how things pan out over the coming months and then revisit the issue later. There's a lot of emotion tangled in here by other editors, but that can't be a reason for keeping or deleting it. -- Tim D 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree with that. Why can't we make a dispassionate rational decision? I don't see much emotion at all here or on the article's talk page. Tragic romance 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as most of the above, also relevant in many different categorical contexts. dr.ef.tymac 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet
WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Also per the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we do not have to have an article for everything that is in today's newspaper. A lot of similar news stories over a few days does not make this likely to pass the "hundred year test." It is tragic that Mr. Kim died, but hundreds of thousands of people die every year just as tragically, and they do not require Wikipedia article either. We do not create articles for every person killed in a plane crase, or who drowns, or who gets electricuted. He was apparently not notable enough for an encyclopedia article before he got lost and died of exposure, and that death is not of particularly enduring notability. Edison 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment James Kim does meet
Tom and Eileen Lonergan, and many others. I suppose if the television networks ever make a prime-time movie about James Kim's ordeal, it will suddenly justify the existence of this article? If you feel this article should be deleted, please use Wikipedia guidelines and ONLY Wikipedia guidelines as your justification. The rationale for deletion presented here does not conform to those guidelines and would mean countless other articles regarding high-profile individuals who gained notoriety only through their deaths, disappearances, or criminal acts should also be deleted. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Extraordinarily well put, Blacksun1942. You said it all right there. This is the strangest candidate for deletion I've seen in three years editing Wikipedia. Moncrief 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well-known journalistic figure before the tragedy, and his tragic end only makes this article all the more important. Yaf 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per trialsanderrors.
Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep for now It's hard to know if he would have met
WP:BIO now, but still barely. Most of the non-trivial mentions all surround the single event (even if it took nearly 2 weeks for that event to pan out). However, at this point in time I think it's too early to conclusively call this based on policy. Wait 6 months and see how often this page is edited. Wait a year and see if anyone remembers him for anything other than how he died. Wait a year and see if the focus of the article changes from his death to his accomplishments during life; then judge the article based on what it says about his life, not his death. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Fairly well known prior to disappearance; however I'd like to see the article beefed out a little bit to follow the
Kameron 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep James Kim's facts should be kept. I believe based on the facts of his uncommon affect on the nation and world as a whole regarding the events the
WP:BIO rules allow for this listing to remain on Wikipedia. The facts about the affect of the world can be found on all international web sites--Fredchew 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm surprised that James Kim gets a consideration for deletion. What about Kim Hyun-chil? He's much less known, and also didn't have a wiki page until his death. His death is also listed in the current events page while James Kim is not. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Farful (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep Anyone who votes for DELETE shouldn't be editing material on Wikipedia in the first place. There are far more less-notable people who have Wiki articles. His life is clearly noteworthy and will probably influence how the state of Oregon polices its roads for the next several decades. --
unsigned comment was added by UCLARodent (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Strong and Speedy Keep With all due respect, I find this nomination for deletion to be self-evidently absurd in the extreme. The emotional components and memorializing that you cite are not included in the James Kim article, so I am unsure why you cite them as reasons for deletion. James Kim and the events surrounding his disappearance and death had focused media attention and headlines not only nationwide throughout the United States, but throughout the world as well. To suggest this article should be deleted means that articles about Eizabeth Smart or Nicole Brown Simpson should be deleted; neither of them remotely qualified as noteworthy people under Wikipedia guidelines until the media focused on the unique events they were involved in. For a person to be noteworthy that individual does *NOT* have to be noteworthy prior to the circumstances in which the individual garnered media attention, furthermore Wikipedia contains *NO* guidelines regarding an article's deletion or relevance merely because its details make you "nauseous" and finally Wikipedia has *NO* guidelines requiring that an article pertaining to an individual must contain some usefulness regarding lessons to others or survivial skills. None of the reasons you have given regarding this article's potential deletion conform to Wikipedia standards and rules, and until your reasons for deletion conform to those standards, they must necessarily be considered irrelevant. James Kim qualifies as a noteworthy person under
WP:BIO guidelines, and his article conforms to those guidelines. Therefore, under the circumstances, and provided that you have so far given no reasons for deletion that are relevant to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion or deletion, I am bound to recommend this article be kept. Blacksun1942 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

keep - the man can be in Wikipedia. After some time the article can be re-written to give the correct attention about his dead and his live. Now it looks like the only thing that there is to say about the man is that he died. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Passes
WP:BIO guidelines who don't have articles. Therefore, to say that James Kim wasn't notable because he didn't already have an article is a very silly argument. DCEdwards1966 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per above. --EarthPerson 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article on James Kim is neither a blog or a memorial site based on my understanding of WP:BIO guidelines.

Delete/If they ever sort out the basic underlying flaw in Wikinews, transfer article to Wikinews Nomination shows inexperience with general feeling in afds, and may not be very well-reasoned (but jeez, is there a really need to pile on the newbie nominator like an angry mob with a ton of bricks? (
WP:BITE) he/she's not even a SPA), but I have a long-standing position on the suitability of articles of short-lived news value such as this. I concur with the nominator's basic argument, and User:Edison's argument. I don't know if Wikinews's licensing problems will ever be sorted out. If they can't be, than Wikinews will always be something of a dud, I fear. Bwithh 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep:
WP:BIO --Jay Jenkins 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well,
WP:BIO is a guideline.... This subject is of, at best, borderline notability... I don't see how the claims of "incredible notability" etc. that have been raised in this discussion can be substantiated. Bwithh 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
James Kim's notability is firmly established; scroll up and read further examples within this discussion. James Kim meets the
John Mark Karr do; their notability is just as firmly established. Blacksun1942 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, media coverage (even by major souces) does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability and I don't see the equivalence of Klass, Karr or Ralston. Klass has a foundation and an arts center in her honor. Karr represented a major turn in a culturally significant murder case (supersensationalized by the media, but had long-running ramifications and reverberations for the contemporary moral debate over US culture), and Ralston has authored a book which has been nominated for at least one national book award (Quill Awards 2005). In addition, none of these articles have been subject to afd discussion. If the Kim incident has a substantive impact on a law, or leads to creation of a significant foundation or something, that would increase his notability in my eyes. What I object to is the immediate inclusion of stories simply because they receive news coverage without judging if there is evidence for long term significance or substantive current social impact beyond the news story. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and its a not a news archive (that should be Wikinews's role). Bwithh 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that your reasons for deletion do NOT conform with Wikipedia guidelines. Your comments about whether an individual has a foundation in their name or has written a book and what impact that would have on a person's eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia are completely arbitrary on your part and do not in any way conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Your rationale justifying the inclusion of John Mark Karr (his relevance to some kind of debate over US culture) is extremely subjective and highly debatable at best. Aron Ralston may not be "remembered" years from now, whether he has written a book or not; and if the creation of a foundation or book is some kind of subjective pronouncement of worthiness, you would be naive to think that the James Kim story will not find future outlets in various American media forms. Nevertheless, even if the creation of a "book or foundation" with James Kim's name on it never comes to pass, they would have little if any relevancy to Wikipedia guidelines. Foundation or no, James Kim certainly meets
WP:BIO does not state that an individual must have a lasting impact on law or a foundation named after him. Blacksun1942 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

In response to
the Pokemon test... "gotta catch all those minor TV presenters/panellists who have ever been on TechTV/CNET TV " etc. I'll bet most of these have never been subject to afd discussion either. Just because another article exists, doesn't mean that an article in the same general category should. Bwithh 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
TechTV was broadcast in Canada, Australia, Russia, Japan. According to Wired, TechTV in its prime reached 43 million households, and had 1.9 million unique visitors monthly to it's website Source: Wired News June 14, 2004 Rugz 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a cable channel can reach 43 million homes, doesn't mean that there are 43 million homes which watch that cable channel. It just means that its part of a cable package of 100s of channels that's available to 43 million homes. So what if Techtv has some viewers in other countries, this does not automatically mean all its presenters and panellists have "international fame" Bwithh 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great point. Let's delete the TechTV page too! Not enough viewers. Rugz 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, and especially so on account of
WP:SNOW - no pun intended. --Dennisthe2 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SNOW doesn't apply - substantial debate has occurred Bwithh 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not seeing debate, just reiterations of the same misinterpretations of policy. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar delete arguments have prevailed in at least one similar case I've acted as nominator of and which was endorsed in review (except those cases didn't involve a person with TechTV exposure which I guess raises his profile amongst Wikipedians). It may be a minority opinion, but it's not a straightforward misinterpretation of policy (actually
WP:BIO is not a policy). Bwithh 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SNOW seems to apply here because I see 40+ Keeps and 4 Deletes.... No matter how strongly the people calling for Delete feel, or how much they wish to debate the topic, a clear and overwhelming majority has already been reached. Blacksun1942 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SNOW isn't policy nor is it a guideline. It merely cites the official deletion policy page's section on early closure which also states: Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. Bwithh 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - removing just because it was added after death and media attention is not justifiable. --Ron Williams 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - per above --Borisborf 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a good sourced article. There are multiple sources available about this man and he meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
e Ong 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Man, I normally see such tendentious wikilawyering on behalf of keeping bad articles, not for deleting good ones. Not one of the nominator's arguments hold the slightest bit of water, no matter how many times he repeats them. It got international coverage, for god's sake. Scott Simon even devoted a commentary to discussing the man and his death, which wound up as one of NPR's "Most E-Mailed Stories" [30]. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Mael-Num has nullified his own nomination -- the sheer number of people here who know of James Kim and who are commenting on this AFD proves his notoriety. F00d0g22 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed 100%. Rasi2290

Keep Highly notable. Hanako 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I only wish my death would come while I was a well-liked employee at anonline media company. Then too would my passing be memorialized by throngs of internet users on wikipedia. Not to insult the late Mr. Kim, but can anyone say with a straight face that but for his death, a wikipedia article on him would have endured? I doubt it. Let's be honest: there is a massive selection bias going on here; the majority of wikipedia editors are probably in the tech community, and thus they're a little more invested/interested in the story - this much should be obvious when someone actually takes the time to chart out his walking path with a google maps graphic. I don't think it speaks well of Wikipedia (in terms of preserving neutrality/non-bias) that just because a member of their own community has passed, there's a rallying to ensure that the general public will never forget their lost colleague. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that screams "memorial". Bottom line, information-seekers 5 years from now aren't going to be saying "shucks, I really wish Wikipedia hadn't deleted that article on James Kim, because I was really looking forward to learning all about him". Ocap8 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does becoming famous after or as a result of a death mean that a subject isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article? There's even a whole article --
Chandra Levy, and even Anne Frank and Vincent van Gogh. James Kim was on the cover of People magazine, and saying that only people in the tech community (not that I agree that most Wikipedians are in said community) are interested in this story just isn't accurate. You may find the story unappealing or unimportant, and wish that others shared those sentiments, but the fact is that it was a major story. Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, isn't in the business of molding reality to some ideal form, but rather we should be describing reality as it is as NPOV as possible. The fact is that this was a notable story, even though you may wish that it was not and you might personally dislike the media that propelled it forward and dislike the reasons it became a major story. Moncrief 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that's my point. Anne Frank and Vincent van Gogh (save Polly Klaas and Chandra Levy; the propriety of those article I'll put aside for a moment) have had some significant contribution to society. The majority of people (and I don't even know who decides on the qualifications for inclusion on that list) on that "List of people who became famous only in death" have notoriety for reasons other than the mere fact they died - their death was notorious because of a resulting change in social policy or notorious because of their association with a bona fide famous person. To address your argument "well what about the Chandra Levy's of the world" I would submit that a victim of violence, especially where the situation surrounding the murder is somewhat notorious, is a lot more intrinsically "worthy" of note than a mere accidental death. The headline for that aricle says it all: "Those on this list have become famous in death to a degree beyond the immediate release of the notification of their death." In my opinion (and of course you're entitled to yours, that's the point of this forum) is that he's not famous in any degree worthy of inclusion in wikipedia beyond "the immediate release of the notification of their death." If you want to pursue the argument that he was famous prior to death, so be it, but you (not you in general) can't conflate the two and make a circular argument that goes something like "ok, he died, nothing really special. but now we're going to highlight his pre-death accomplishments to make his death special." And if you're able to make some argument for inclusion absent of his death, I'd simply ask "where was his article before he died?". Ocap8 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal standard for the notability necessary to generate a Wikipedia article seems to be much higher than the Wikipedia consenus and that outlined in
Jessica McClure, who have not necessarily made any "significant contribution" to society but who are known to many people nonetheless. Since Wikipedia is [not paper] and because there is willing free labor to build Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia has become a unique one-stop/first-stop resource for who-knows-how-many users, such people have articles about them, and their articles (and countless others like them), if well-written and factual, do nothing to harm or detract from Wikipedia. If you think James Kim isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article (yes, only in death and only because the media and public attention on his death made him notable, whether the media or Joe Q. Public "should" have given him that attention or not), and you wish not to provide a resource on Wikipedia for people who will turn here and have turned here for information on Kim*, then all I can say is that I sincerely wish you well, as your fight for massive deletions will be an arduous and uphill battle, to say the least. *(If this James Kim article were deleted, which obviously it won't be, I wonder how long it would be before someone new started a new one. Ten minutes?) Moncrief 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I would just add explicitly that I never said that fame prior to death was a necessary condition for wikipedia inclusion. And to the extent that there's a huge difference between posthumous recognition of a person's societal contributions (i.e. famous after death) and poshumous recognition merely because of the circumstances surrounding death (i.e. famous because of death), I would reference my above comment. Ocap8 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I was reacting to this comment -- "Not to insult the late Mr. Kim, but can anyone say with a straight face that but for his death, a wikipedia article on him would have endured?" -- to which I would respond: I'm not sure -- if well-written, my money is on yes -- but it's a moot point. He became notable because of the attention generated upon his disappearance and death. And so what? That's reality. I don't see the need even to justify whether or not he was notable before he died. Personally, I would never have thought to start an article on Kim before he died (nor would I have thought to nominate it for deletion if it was decently written), just as I never would have thought to start an article on, say,
Laci Peterson before she died. They both became widely famous only in death. And? So? This fact doesn't trouble me as a Wikipedia editor; it's just the way reality panned out. Moncrief 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Whether he was notable before his death, he has worldwide notability now. [Adding "strong" to your "delete" doesn't improve your argument any.] Tragic romance 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree with your claim that adding an adjective to my final reccomendation for deletion doesn't enhance my argument, I find it odd that you don't feel the same way about adding "strong" to people's "keep" reccomendations. Of course, I'm assuming that you don't feel the same way, seeing as you haven't seen fit to comment on those qualified statements. Ocap8 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because those arguments stick to policy? ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong keep Well-known journalistic figure before the tragedy, and his tragic end only makes this article all the more important. Yaf 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)" Yes, that comment was rife with arguments based on wikipedia policy. How about you focus less on trying to offer up glib retorts, and focus more on comprehending the scope of my response. Ocap8 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would if there were anything worth focusing on. ~ trialsanderrors 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dense. Ocap8 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL. ~ trialsanderrors 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi...Pot? This is Kettle... Ocap8 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Just kidding. Keep. Because of the first - very lucid - rebuttal and the lack of any subsequent coherent challenge thereto. eric0000 24:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - per above -- Meira Voirdire 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is worthy of being on wikipedia - 68.79.112.173 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable. +
Johnson 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Whilst others have, I imagine, provided a sufficient basis for our keeping independent of those challenged not unpersuasively by
WP:BIO but do so relative to an article that ought not to be a biography but, instead, one apropos of the disappearance incident, which likely is notable in view of its prominence across American and Canadian media outlets (the appropriateness of such prominence, of course, notwithstanding). Where one is notable principally avolitionally and where his/her notability flows entirely from one incident, it is, I think, preferable that we should have an article on the incident (to which here, for example, James Kim would redirect) rather than on such individual, especially where most biographical details commonly understood as encyclopedic (as those composing parts of the instant article) are not particularly relevant to the incident and thus, as regards the genesis of the notability, not particularly notable. Joe 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - Um, this is close to the worst deletion nomination I've ever seen. Well written article which makes a comprehensive case for notability. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the nominator gives a justification for deletion as "Personally, I find the subject extremely distressing. I actually got a little nauseous reading what I felt was morbid overanalysis of a horrifying series of events," you know it's an AfD for the books. (Perhaps, using those guidelines, we should delete The Holocaust too?) The only one comparable in awfulness that I can recall was a 2004 AfD nomination of Holden Caulfield, but when I went to look for it just now, the only remnant I found was "This article was listed for deletion by a new user, probably a sock puppet. It was not a good faith listing, and no interesting or relevant discussion resulted, so I'm not archiving the VfD discussion. Isomorphic 22:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)." Moncrief 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than meets
WP:BIO as Blacksun pointed out. On a quasi-related note, a "Media Coverage" and/or a "Public Response" section should be added to the article. RampageouS ^{talk to me} 11:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and shorten. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet even a ten-year hence-and-ago test for notability. Sure, plenty of people might be searching for it now, but proliferating pages destined to fade into obscurity just makes editorial monitoring that much more difficult. Pop Secret 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets get an AfD going for
Dewitt Finley) Blacksun1942 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

That "test" for notability is one among many guidelines. It's not a litmus test. Tragic romance 08:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was a regular contributor to notable television series viewed internationally. -- Zanimum 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. This event made all the major news services and he was involved TechTV and appeared on camera so he was not non notable in his lifetime.--John Lake 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment In 5 years (or maybe 90 days) he will be remembered only as "that guy who took a wrong turn and wandered around in the mountains until he froze," right up there with the "three guys currently lost on Mt. Hood with dozens of people looking for them." Do they have articles yet? Kim's only "involvement in a newsworth story" was his getting lost and dying of hypothermia. It must have been a slow news week. He was not "assassinated," so why that even mentioned? There are certainly as many news stories about the 3 lost guys as for Kim. Kim is no more notable than the 600 plus other people who die each year of hypothermia in the U.S. 67.162.79.243 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" don't pertain exclusively to assassination, it says "such as".--John Lake 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that that even has to be explained to some people. Tragic romance 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original commenter does not seem to realize that there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about people who have died of hypothermia in the wilderness who could certainly be said to be less "notable"; not the least of which is
Dewitt Finley Blacksun1942 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
(Not that it matters but Finley died of starvation, not hypothermia.) Tragic romance 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCheck the history of the
Dewitt Finley article. It was created after Kim got lost, perhaps, so it could be cited to justify the Kim article.67.162.79.243 14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply: Those articles could (and should!) likewise be deleted. Whatever the notability test might be, it's certainly not so generous as to mean "more notable than other entries in Wikipedia." Pop Secret 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, do they harm Wikipedia, those articles? They appear well-written to me. Are you concerned about a lack of bandwith to support them? I guess I don't understand why they trouble you. If you don't want to read them, don't search for them. Are you concerned that they aren't factual? Moncrief 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The harm to Wikipedia is that they serve as a vandalism honeypot and that they will not receive, by dint of their impending obscurity, the collaborative effort and attention that we use ensure well-written, verifiable articles. Bad articles, even those infrequently read, taint the wikipedia project as a whole and detract from the credibility of even our best articles. Our bandwith may be well-nigh infinite, but our editors are not. Is this the type of article that will be policed five years from now and ten? That
Wikipedia is not paper must be understood to include the project's longevity as well as its bandwith. Pop Secret 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia has grown exponentially since its founding, so deleting an article based on what could or might happen to articles in the future seems unecessarily pessimistic to me. It's impossible to know which articles users have on their watchlists, and it would be a really arbitrary task to delete articles on the basis of a perceived paucity of editors and what may or may not happen five or ten years from now. But thanks for your response. Moncrief 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think it was something of a fluke that Kim didn't have an article before his death, and it could use some more info on the way he lived. We could stand to tidy up and slim down the section on how he died, but still, Keep. Matt Gies 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he did but it got redirected [[31]].--John Lake 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article existed, but only as a redirect to a biography on a different man entirely. Of course, this is immaterial to the debate at hand, but interesting nonetheless. Matt Gies 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was very known before his death too --
Nolanuss 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Blacksun1942 and Zanimum and John Lake --Pixelface 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Blacksun1942 et. al. -Big Smooth 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one argues for deletion of this article, then articles on people such as
Terri Schiavo should be deleted too. — Peter McGinley 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Since his death is already internationally known, (cause of American Media) i say leave it, this is similar with the Anna Svidersky case, in which someones death became a major headline. They are definitely not wiki worthy when alive, but in death they made headlines for whatever reasons, so i guess it's wiki worthy now. —The preceding
Spadger comment was added by Chaotaoquan (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep' strong keep, this is nice information to have for people looking about the topic and him. 71.196.154.124 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is based on facts and is a current event. Just because someone passes away doesn't qualify an article for deletion. Paddad64 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* And how noteworthy does one have to be? I do notice that there's still an article here on Jessica McClure, what noteworthy accomplishments had she managed to acquire before she fell into that well? While we're on the subject, who the heck were these Donner Party people? Would they merit a wikipedia article if it were not for the circumstances of their journey west? I daresay they would be like other brave pioneers, remembered only in the dusty scrapbooks of their descendants, or possibly in the town's historical society. Human history revolves around the triumphs and yes, the tragedies of ordinary human beings caught up in greater events. Whether or not they were noteworthy before these events has no bearing on whether or not they will be noteworthy in the eyes of history, and as baby jessica and the donner party have, perhaps one day this article will move from the realm of current events into history, and this article help someone who wasn't around to know what happened to him. (sfitzok)

Keep. There really isn't a single admin willing to close this stupid nomination? Y'know, if you would redirect one-tenth of the time and effort you waste on bureaucratic nonsense toward actually building an encyclopedia, then Wikipedia versus Britannica wouldn't even be a close comparison. Cribcage 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must Keep The James and Kati Kim story has worldwide prominence and is a top story of 2006.--69.110.15.149 08:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete a great article?Miltonkeynes 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must Keep This article is far too detailed to be deleted. Also, just because James Kim's death had much media coverage, it doesn't mean that was the only reason the creator of this article made it. It is not written in the form of a memorial, or tribute, but rather an encyclopaedia entry. He died, but does that make his article worthy for speedy delete? Ka5hmir 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His journalistic efforts should be the main focus of the article, and not his death. The article looks like belongs more in Wikinews than Wikipedia. Silvie rob 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While one can appreciate the sentiments of the pro-delete camp that this issue has perhaps received too much media attention, the combination of Kim's contributions to the literature of technology and his death make this entry appropriate. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Cattriona 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per
talk 00:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep If James Kim made international news and international media (online or otherwise), people deserve to know who he is. Who wants to know about that Korean guitarist (that no-one wants to know about)? Hohohob 11:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would we be having this argument if he had survived? Probably not. He'd be on here without a word against him. Plenty of TechTV people are on Wikipedia (Leo Laporte (The Screen Savers, Call For Help), Chris Pirillo (Call for Help), etc...) The Chris Pirillo article has less information about its subject than this one. I agree that over time, this article should contain less about his death, and more about his life, though. --Chris 17:04, 16 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Information Network

Doctor Who Information Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable fan clubs. Ghit 1310. Wun Lxo 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not compatible, it must be deleted"? MER-C 09:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable national fan club group which has had plenty of media exposure on the CBC in relation to the new series. 23skidoo 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless independent, third-party sources are found. Recury 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems notable mostly in Toronto, and nearly the whole article is a copyvio from DWIN's site. Static Universe 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a club that is still going after 27 years sounds notable to me. --EarthFurst 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Docter Who fan club in my city that's been going for 23 years. They aren't notable either. Static Universe 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Static Universe--Dakota 05:45, 14 December 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 was delete. —freak(talk) 07:59, Dec. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Isabella V

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

Deletion decision by a prior (2nd) AfD was overturned at deletion review and is now back for a third time. Please let's not make this the next GNAA, overwise I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. metaspheres 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Surely we keep all real or possibly not real characters who allegedly might or might not have done something~~ Unless at least one faint iota of this can be verified somehow, and shown to be the sort of thing which would pass the 100 years test (would it pass the 100 days test?) Deeleet is in the house. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grutness. We don't need an article on every blogger, internet 'personality' and webcam exhibitionist out there. Unless this can be somehow verified, and asserts some sort of importance, it doesn't belong.
riana_dzasta 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Grutness. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the third time with extreme prejudice. Take your choice: nonnotable hoax, fictional person failing
WP:BIO. Even at least one of the sources derides the "legitimacy" of so-called Isabella V. It doesn't even qualify as an Internet meme.B.Wind 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, meets the various standards due to the amount of verifiable information available concerning the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Minor fan base. Stompin' Tom 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominater, B.Wind and Grutness--John Lake 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a web "thing," it meets WP:WEB. As a person, real or imaginary, it meets WP:BIO. The press coverage listed in the article shows this, so the notability and verification exists. I'm very, very curious as to what policy/guideline people are working off of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, a simple question: is Isabella V a real person, a hoax, or a meme, based on your research of the subject? B.Wind 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little of all three, from the looks of it. That's what makes it a compelling subject, and most of the reason why it's notable. --badlydrawnjefftalk 11:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer makes no sense... and it simply reflects the reason that the specious article should be deleted. It doesn't tell the reader who/what this so-called person actually is. Similarly, since you've been following it from the beginning, apparently, and can't say specifically what Isabella V is, I must presume that such specific information is not available in any form, much less via
WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted.B.Wind 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I never heard of it before the DRV. As for sources, it has plenty, and if you took a look at them, you'd understand my position better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of
GRBerry 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
We've been too busy fighting over inclusion to actually write an "actual article." If people weren't so quick to ignore policy/guideline, e might not have to worry as much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:46, 16 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetrical Double Sided - Two Way Ranging

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

This article was the only one linking to the just deleted Nanotron Technologies article. I can't tell whether it is notable outside the context of that company, but I can tell that it lacks independent sources and should therefore be deleted unless that problem is remedied. ~ trialsanderrors 08:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like
original research
. metaspheres 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced original research. —
ShadowHalo 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Why should it be deleted? It is a methodology for ranging that has been recently developed and is in the marketplace. Explain clearly why this page ought to be deleted. Unless you are an engineer who is qualified to delete this, I would question why you are doing so. —GlenninBerlin

Delete. No verifiable external sources. No argument for notability. WP could likely use a good article on wireless localization (less specific to phones than
GSM localization) but this isn't it. —David Eppstein 22:32, 17 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatz Lichtenstein

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

A prior AfD was overturned at deletion review due to the emergence of new sources (please review DRV discussion for a listing of the sources), so it is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources that have been provided are perfectly in line with
WP:V
. No reason to delete. metaspheres 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete because this is a silly reincarnation of
Wikipedia:Hoax. IZAK 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Izak, please note that among the many reliable sources now discovered is the 1929 Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia, and as such, it is (I hope) no longer possible for you to dismiss all the reliable sources as an elaborate conspiracy of Christian prosletysers. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7: Hungarian
fools gold - a true hoax. IZAK 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Please provide a link to the discussion of the new sources. --Dweller 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ah. Found it. Strong Keep. --Dweller 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) vote strengthened Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion at Deletion review
Catchpole 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per discussion at Deletion review - crztalk 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per discussion at Deletion review. Jamie Guinn 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Discussion at deletion review. However, I'd like to make it very clear that only the sources agreed to be reliable based on that discussion should be used in the article. JoshuaZ 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete the guy was nuts, not a WP:rule but just my 2c, and per IZAK. FrummerThanThou 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if we deleted bios simply because the people they deal with were nuts, we'd have a lot fewer articles here. His views may have been distasteful to many, and he may have been a bit loopy, but not nearly as distasteful or loopy as others I could mention who have large articles (I won't mention some of them for fear of invoking
Godwin's Law...) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Brandt?? **GASP!** - crztalk 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
crztalk 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable person who created a controversial Judaic cult Alf photoman 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter that he was nuts, FrummerThanThou, so was David Koresh. MetsFan76 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if he's a hoax, he's a notable hoax, per Little Mikey. Further, I think it's difficult to argue Lichtenstein's non notable if he's cited as a notable founding father by today's Messianic Jews. Wikipedia comfortably accommodates many fictional characters of note... not to mention all the Biblical characters than non believers also consider to be fictional. The hoax issue is therefore a non starter. Notability is the key and if he's cited in key documentation used today by Messianic Jews I'd argue he's clearly notable. Sorry IZAK. I'm gritting my teeth and strengthening my keep vote above. --Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dweller: And you can add the "non believers" as subscribing to the further fiction that they are evolved from baboon-like Neanderthals. Lots of fictions up in the air today it seems, take your pick... IZAK 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller: You seem to be mish-mashing a number of unrelated subjects. Ignatz/Isaac was not a "founding father" of anything, he died many years before the Messianic Jews and the Jews for Jesus movements were concocted by various
Evangelical churches in the USA. (BTW, The Catholics don't get involved in attempts at creating disguied versions of Christianity, they have enough confidence in their brand name.) And you are not clear, are you saying that you may even agree with me and that the entire story may be hype that is ultimately fiction? And are you implying that Lichtenstein is worthy of article based on a distorted "reciprocity" of "if you respect my hoaxes then I will respect yours" what kind of logic and basis for an encyclopedia is that? The Messianics (who are Christians) will grasp at any straw to further their self-appointed mission of converting the Jews and will stop at nothing, including accepting stories that they know nothing about, in order to buttress their mssionizing which is doomed to fail because it is based on half-truths (beginning with the biggest one, that they insist on calling themselves "Judaism" when they are in actuality Christianity.) But I guess, we will just have to allow this to play itself out over time... IZAK 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand your point(s?). Evolution is notable and therefore has an article. Messianic Jews' claims about Lichtenstein make him notable, I'm afraid. It's not about respect or hoaxes, it's about notability. If a substantial group of people suddenly claimed that my aunt was important for some trumped up reason, even if they were wrong, she'd be notable and encyclopedic. --Dweller 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller: I was responding to your point that: "the Biblical characters that non believers also consider to be fictional" which is a pretty wild thing to throw into this discussion about a supposedly religious figure, since both Judaism and Christianity agree that the Hebrew Bible is 100% true, (and they obviously disagree about the New Testament because if they agreed to the New Testament as being true then there would not be Judaism, and if they agreed that the New Testament was false there would not be Christianity.) And I was merely adding an abvious rejoinder that if you throw in the red herring about "Biblical characters" perhaps being "fictional" then the counter-argument that evolutionists believe that they come from baboons is an equally fantastic fiction and hoax for those who do not buy into mythological and known-to-be fraudulent unscientific evolutionary "theories" -- as Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." What is so hard about grasping that? IZAK 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DRV and prior AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do DRV or prior AFD stand up for this argmnt? frummer

Keep passes most
WP:RS's. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for all of the reasons I gave before.--Meshulam 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contemporary authors with more publications have been deleted as non-notable. Publishing stuff doesn't make you notable. We need a source that will attest to his historical importance, but reading through the deletion review I don't see any such source. We are not here to conduct historical research or to resurrect long-forgotten historical figures. We can only write articles about people others think are important. GabrielF 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first AfD and deletion review, plenty of meat for an article here. The popularity of shrubberies among delete opinions as high as ever: what would "a source that will attest to his historical importance" be? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he meets
GRBerry 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - IZAK's arguments that this is a hoax is pathetically unconvincing. -
n 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I agree with Hahnchen and would like to add that this is an online encyclopedia, not a forum to attack an entry because it goes against your beliefs. MetsFan76 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons I gave before. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:04, 18 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Novakeo

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

WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 08:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - alexa = 130,788: [32]. MER-C 09:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless they can prove that they are in some way well known, Delete it.
FirefoxMan 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete blogcruft.
Danny Lilithborne 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nn notable web blog per nom as fails
WP:WEB.--John Lake 19:26, 14 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Real World: Atlanta

The Real World: Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

masterka 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unsourced
crystal balling. MER-C 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator. metaspheres 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -SpuriousQ 10:10, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Facade Computer

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

Non-notable company does not meet
Chondrite 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.
WP:CORP calls for multiple non-trivial media mentions. As it stands now, this article just has one which is trivial. SubSeven 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom and SubSeven --Amaccormack 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this way back in April 2004. It's sort of a vanity article, although I believe it met the vague notability requirements at the time. However, it's borderline for WP:CORP (which was created in September 2005), and due to vanity concerns, I don't think I can in good faith vote keep. Therefore, I must say delete. Andre (talk) 21:07, 12 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Brandstetter

John C. Brandstetter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

59 unique Ghits, including quite a few for namesake(?) John Brandstetter, a community assistant at YourHub.com. The relevant hits include dew biographical details, only production credits. One VG credit on imdb Ohconfucius 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. MER-C 09:25, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 12:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

John F. Mansfield

John F. Mansfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject is a research associate, and does not appear to pass
conflict of interest: created by User:Jfmjfm Ohconfucius 09:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Anville 18:53, 15 December 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 was: speedied under CSD A7 -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedir.net

Nedir.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable website, no indication of how it satisfies
WP:OR, no external sources. Has been tagged for non-notability since October. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 12:34, 12 December 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 was keep. -
Mailer Diablo 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable online fan series in production—fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in the article is largely speculative and unverifiable. --Slowking Man 09:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Sandy Scott 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I should never vote in ignorance.--Sandy Scott 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is based on an incorrect premise - this not a fan-produced but produced by actors from Star Trek (I'd argue with it being a "series", but that's what the article says). The official startrek.com website has covered it, and I can find reports in various press sources about it being filmed. I shall try to source stuff. This is not your common-or-garden fan film, but something that really is notable. Morwen - Talk 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have added sources, to startrek.com, to the official press release, and to a newspaper in the area which covered the filming. Is this appropriate now? This has probably been covered in the specialist SF press, but they don't tend to make their archives online. Oh, that that is a keep, by the way. I believe the article now meets, with my referencing the formal requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web) Morwen - Talk 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that fan-series are not notable, but this one specifically is notable due to the inclusion of about a half-dozen "real" StarTrek actors and directed by a director that also directed an episode of Voyager. JRP 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that if anyone is thinking of nominating Star Trek: New Voyages and Starship Exeter, then I can (and will do anyway) furnish them with similar, if not better, references. Morwen - Talk 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Voyages and Exeter were both nominated earlier this year, and the result to both was Keep, given the news sources and notability. --Mhking 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; the fan film (and it is a singular film if I understand correctly) is being produced and directed by professional actors connected directly with the Trek franchise. In addition, articles within the mainstream media, as well as an article on the official Star Trek site itself [33]. In addition, more than 48,000 Google hits are returned on a search of the film's title. --Mhking 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- a three-part miniseries. I stand corrected. --Mhking 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mhking and common sense. This is hardly your typical fan series.
TheRealFennShysa 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Super-Mega-Turbo Strong Keep - per Mhking. This has major stars in it, including Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTRiker (talk • contribs)

Keep for now; review in 6 months, to see whether it's still green-lighted. -- Simon Cursitor 12:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is by far the most professional of the fan films and involves a lot of professional actors. 71.111.73.121 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; above the level of a normal fan film Tricky 08:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; considering other Star Trek fan productions that have been kept, this one should be kept too. Major actors, covered by Paramount itself. Superwad 10:36, 15 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Newham

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

I'm not sure about this one... 915 GHits, and not all of them are for this one (there's also a Citibank regional director). However, the article claims he's been published in the "Journal of Analytical Psychology" and a few other major publivations. My main concern is that I can find no mention of the author himself from (relatively) mainstream independent sources. I see articles he has published, I see books he's trying to sell, I see short bios on the sites he uses to sell them, but no mention of the author himself from anything serious. yandman 10:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - pure spam as were his Psychomediation and Voice Movement Therapy. -- RHaworth 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm...there would be alot of articles requiring deletion, surely, if we delete this one. There are many individuals entered in the Wikepedia with less publications and references.
Here are the details of the "Journal of Analytical Psychology" article:
Newham, P. (1992). Jung and Alfred Wolfsohn: analytical psychology and the singing voice. Journal of analytical psychology, 37, pp. 323-336.
What exactly is being sold here and how? I don't see it.

Delete Most likely
WP:PROF. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and trialsanderrors.
Danny Lilithborne 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per trial. TSO1D 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the closing admin wipe Voice Movement Therapy too, please? It's even less notable than he is. yandman 08:21, 13 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Seal lung kung fu

Seal lung kung fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete Single school - non-notable. The author of the page disagreed with the prod, please see Talk:Seal lung kung fu for his comments and my original reply.Peter Rehse 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, only 50 non-wiki ghits. Probably fails
WP:V too. MER-C 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; per nomination --Mhking 16:41, 12 December 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 was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottewell Curling Club

Ottewell Curling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN curling club. Prod contested without stated reason. Tagged for importance since July. Hornplease 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-club}}. So tagged. MER-C 10:56, 12 December 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 was Speedy delete a7, repost of article posted several times under other titles. NawlinWiki 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Ho

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

personal vanity page -- Brazzy 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - if you see a vanity article with the word "student" in it, it's automatically a {{
db-bio}}. So tagged. MER-C 11:29, 12 December 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 was keep. True, this article has trouble with
be bold and add sourcing and remove original research. Alphachimp 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Slashdot

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

The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources, and it doesn't seems to be based on anything but original research. -- Karl Meier 11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No delete necessary. - Flag it as needing attention instead. Slashdot is very notable; the article will probably be fixed pretty quickly. // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue here is not notability. The issue is that it has been here for more than five years, and no one has been able to write a proper article using any reliable secondary sources. -- Karl Meier 12:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tagged it for sources, or just gone straight to AFD? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If proper secondary sources for this article actually exist, then I would expect that someone after five years would have used just one of them to create a proper article. Fact is that this article is very old, and no one has been able to write a proper article with proper references. -- Karl Meier 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let's not go overboard with nominations here. Slashdot is quite notable. —Mets501 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes
slashdotted... MER-C 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Award winning website.
Catchpole 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Award winning? What are you talking about? -- Karl Meier 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a website, that has won an award. A
Catchpole 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, passes
WP:WEB, but you're right about needing sourcing. AFD shouldn't be the first stop when sources are obviously available, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If it is true that reliable secondary sources are "obviously available", then why is it that hundreds if not thousands of editors haven't used a single such source, when working on the article for more than five years? Frankly, I doubt that it is true that these reliable secondary sources are actually so "obviously available". -- Karl Meier 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, slashdot's so big that you have to go down to the fifth page of google results before you start finding sites about it rather than just posts of news from it. It's been written about numerous times, it's won a webby award, it has an alexa rank placing it in the top 400 sites on the internet, and you'd be much better recieved if you actually asked people to provide those sources instead of assuming they can't be there. I nominated other slashdot-related articles for deletion because they pretty much just documented memes in an unverifiable fashion, but the essential information of the site itself should be pretty simple to confirm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More links: [34] [35] —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep. Unless someone can actually provide a compelling case that this article is a hoax, of course (which is the primary reason for WP:V). Lack of desired content is not a criteria or valid rationale for AFD. There have been stub articles with far less "third party" info that have been around for years. Plus the site is notable enough that it qualifies as its own source. POV and Speculation can be deleted from the article if found. 23skidoo 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the relatively few genuinely notable and verifiable web-community articles. I agree 100% with the nominator that the current referencing sucks, but that shouldn't be hard to remedy: I get 1790 matches for Slashdot using a Google Books search. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A PROPOSAL I would be willing to take the time to cleanup/rewrite the article using only material verifiable by reliable sources. I see this as preferable to deletion (and certainly preferable to having an unreferenced article). It might not be a one-man job, though. Is anyone else willing to help? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep genuinely notable web community. Suggest flagging for cleanup instead. Squeezeweasel 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly obvious speedy keep Tag it for cleanup, tag it as unreferenced, but don't nominate an article on a hugely notable subject for deletion. -- Kicking222 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is referenced, it's just that most of the references are on the site itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:12, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peer to Peer and Human Evolution

Peer to Peer and Human Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

Non-notable essay. Contested prod. Leibniz 12:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ~~and~~
~~Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought~~.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not OR though. It's a paper published elsewhere. — coelacan talk — 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops got confused, missed the author credit for Michel Bauwens.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, no RS. --82.35.193.80 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete article fails to establish notability of idea, which is basically that social interaction, between individuals, is ummm, important... at least it might be... when dressed-up in contemporary techno-lingo... Pete.Hurd 22:50, 13 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sokolov musician

From speedy. Seems to be borderline notable classical composer (there was only the limited number of the members of the Union of Composers back to the USSR times Alex Bakharev 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quite notable disciple of Lev Naumov and Nikolai Sidelnikov, see e.g. feedback on MusicCritics.ru. Some expansion is needed though. --Brand спойт 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to
Danny Lilithborne 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as by
Danny Lilithborne and mark as stub Alf photoman 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for support on this. I added a few more sentences - he was my composition teacher in the late 80s. Anatoly larkin 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to make it point to an intermediate "Disambiguation" page when you type in "Ivan Sokolov" in the search bar? Currently it defaults to the chess player. Anatoly larkin 05:52, 13 December 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 was Delete
Naconkantari 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Associated Student Bodies

Associated Student Bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded by
reliable sources. Seems to be published by a non-notable and probable vanity press." Prod seconded by Serpent's Choice
with reason "No independant coverage outside of a scant few forum posts; no distribution via major national distributor Diamond".
Although I suspect this AfD to go through, my opinion is still Keep. ASB is as influential, within the fandom, as any other adult comic - certainly more than
Katmandu. 9240 Ghits for "ASB furry". But, I agree that it's not well-known outside the fandom and its detractors - the decision is yours. Tevildo 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep not sure I'd agree with it being as influential as Katmandu, but it's definitely a long-running paper comic and notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I proded this article because, while some people might find this notable to their specific and small community it is not to the general populace. This is the definition of cruft. The article is even unable to prove that it is
verifiability. This is a non-notable amateur comic book that claims to have a very small niche and it is unable to support an encyclopedic article. The place for this is a personal website or private wiki such as wikifur. NeoFreak 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm not able to support or refute claims that this comic was influential, or even known. I'm unable to find any review of it online outside of forums posts. It was never offered in Diamond Comic Distributors's Previews, virtually ensuring it had no national distribution to US comic stores (indeed, while experience is not a measure of verifiability here, I worked in the comics retail industry for almost a decade and no distributor we worked with ever offered this for shipment or sale). Even things like Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur saw Diamond distribution. I have no doubts this series was important to some people; I have no doubts that it inspired later works. But my doubts or lack thereof don't matter -- verifiable references from reliable sources do, and ASB doesn't seem to ave those. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is highly subjective. It wasn't a highly distributed comic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't notable or was extremely obscure. Amazon has it listed [36] with a rank about 130,000th, and even if there are many books around there, they're not as unique.
Besides, Wikipedia is not paper, and if "each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy," and I only know three kinds, then I think something like this can have its own page. What it does need is some more research; perhaps the people at Wikifur can help. I think it gets its own page though. There is much much more less notable stuff floating around on Wikipedia, and while that statement itself does not make this any more "notable", I say we keep it. 65.43.85.113 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability has a very straight forward criteria that this article fails to meet. Also notability is not subjective. Please see the notability policy section
Notability is not subjective. In the future it would be helpful if you read the policy guildlines before making any assertions about their contents. NeoFreak 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If every last extension to the X Window System in the past 20 years, and every last obscure broadcast network isn't subjected to this kind of scrutiny, then why is what many furs consider a classic of the anthropomorphic comic genre given the boot? Simba B 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not being considered for deletion due to content. It is being considered for deletion due to the
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason for retention. If references exist (outside of blogs, livejournal, and other self-published web content) for this comic that apparently saw no formal, professional distribution, please provide them; nothing changes the course of an AFD like a good reference or 3. Serpent's Choice 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:The aformentioned content is both verifiable due to independant third party coverage and notable due to usage. This article is not. Even if those articles were not notable other violations are not a precedent for this violation. NeoFreak 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, because of the nature of the comic as furry pornography, it's very unlikely to have references beyond self-published web content. Again, I accept that it may go because it's not notable outside the fandom - although the same could be said of the vast majority of Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek and anime articles here. I would, however, be disappointed if it goes merely on the legal technicality that it hasn't been in "Previews". Tevildo 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be Previews. It just has to be independant, reliable coverage. I do understand that certain subjects (obviously including gay-themed adult furry fandom products) have a harder time garnering that coverage. But it is not an impossible hurdle, and there are other titles for which ample references exist. They just do not seem to be there for this one, although I'm more than willing to be proven wrong if possible... Serpent's Choice 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "usual" indicators of notability cannot be applied in every situation. In this case, with its notability being debated, I believe in a "When in doubt, don't delete" type of policy. It's not a very-well supported article as of now... perhaps it can be. 64.108.90.40 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and do the works that were inspired by or make references to this comic give any evidence as to its notability? Can somebody look into works that reference, parody, or were inspired by ASB such as Circles and ISB? If there are many references to ASB in other works, then it would assert something about its importance. 64.108.90.40 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One non-notable comic being influenced by another doesn't do much for anybody. I'm planning on taking a much closer look at circles as well, along with some other NN furry comics, and there is a very good chance you could see Circles AfD'd in the near future. NeoFreak 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too aggressive with your deletionism. 68.250.100.129 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? NeoFreak 13:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong delete - this is completely ridiculous. No sources, no reliable sources, reads like an advert and a piece of cruft, only 810 Ghits does not impress, no assertion of notability from reliable sources, or indeed from any sources at all.
Deletion! 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the problem with this one is localized notability. There are a total of 11,000 ghits for this thing, 90% of them scattered across furry or gay themed websites, blogs, forums, and the like. (Ghit searching is science, young padawan.) There is VERY SLIGHT coverage in a couple of college newspapers but I can't find an online source to link to. Rabbit Valley, at the least, is not exactly self-publishing either. I'm really not sure where to draw the line on this one. Strictly speaking, it fails
WP:INN -- we're discussing ASB, not Circles. Circles I've heard of. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Good points, Elaragirl. Just a couple other comments about it, the collection has an
WP:INN correctly, it means that articles similar to ASB does not support notability; does that only apply to similar articles that have no connection, meaning that similar work that are related to it (derived, make references to, etc.) can have an effect on notability? Just wondering. 68.248.144.218 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, to me it cuts both ways. Just because Article A got deleted doesn't mean Article B can be deleted out of hand because it's similar to Article A. OR, if Article X is non notable, and gets deleted, just because you don't think Article Y is non-notable and yet is still here isn't a good reason to keep Article X. In this case, Circles has a connection to ASB, but Circles is better documented. The user who compared a furry comic book to X Windows is making a connection in notability that doesn't exist. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:12, 19 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel script

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

A page essentially based around advertising competing pixel advertising scripts. Prod tag removed so brought it here. Mallocks 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adcruft. Makgraf 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
desat 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, cruft. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 00:43, 20 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Opportunes

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

Not
verifiable encyclopedia article in this case. Notability-tagged since July. De-prod comment was "we go through the acapella thing all the time. they hardly ever are deleted at afds." Even if it's true that "they are hardly ever deleted," that has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept. Anyway, it doesn't appear to be true that "they are hardly ever deleted": see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bear Necessities of Brown University and the current Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meddiebempsters and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MIT/Wellesley_Toons_2nd_nomination. Pan Dan 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Meh. OK, lets do it again. Keep. The Opportunes are notable as being the Harvard-Radcliffe Opportunes, and the oldest co-ed glee club - beg pardon, a capella group - in the Northeast. They exist, as the Today Show can attest [37]. Also see [38]. A major award - it's CASA not CARA, and at least two reliable source articles. Whatever. Hornplease 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting further: an annual international concert tour. That means
WP:MUSIC satisfied on three counts. Hornplease 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

(1) "oldest a capella group in the Northeast"? Not so. See The
verify the material in the article. (4) Appearing on The Today Show doesn't automatically confer notability. It's an indication that there might be reliable non-trivial coverage of this group that we could use to write an encyclopedia article. But there doesn't seem to be any. I looked, and you looked, and neither of us came up with anything that we can use to verify the material in the article, or to re-write an encyclopedia article anew. Pan Dan 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Oldest coed acapella group. The Harvard Crimson is not considered as trivial as most local newspapers. It certainly is accepted as a reliable source; if you want new policy on that, take it to the pump. Thus the Crimson, if nowhere else - and there are others, including a Globe article from 1999 - that indicate that the thing exists, and give us enough information that we can check whether or not a reasonable amount of information is accurate. The Rashida Jones thing is confirmed in an issue of the new magazine 02138 that I saw the other day. The point being that if you claim that the Crimson is not RS, then you have to remove references in a ton of other articles. If you do, then you cannot claim that multiple mentions in the media are not relevant. Above all, the Crimson definitely reports an international tour; that meets wp:music all by itself.

You see my point? I have no objection to changing wp:music to remove a ton of little groups; but the problem is that wp:music, as it stands, will almost always allow a capella groups in major univs through the cracks. Hornplease 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Much of your comment takes great care to rebut my claim that The Crimson is not a reliable source. Problem is, I never made such a claim. Please read my above comment again. What I said about The Crimson is that it should be considered trivial as an indicator of notability because it's local, not that it's trivial because it's unreliable, nor that it is unreliable. (The same is true of the 02138 magazine you mention, which bills itself as "geared toward alumni of Harvard University.") I also said that The Crimson articles don't verify the information that's in the article right now, nor could they be used to write a Wikipedia article anew -- this is because of their trivial content, not because of their reliability. (2) Ah yes, the "international tour". I meant to respond to that yesterday but forgot. In my view, the
primary notability criterion is -- well -- primary. It's a derivative of the core policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it's in every one of our notability guidelines including WP:MUSIC. The ancillary provisions of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. exist because they are indications that the primary notability criterion is likely to be satisfied. For example, the "international tour" provision is at WP:MUSIC because a band that has gone on an international tour is more likely to garner press coverage. However, a college group travelling abroad to perform is at a fundamentally lower media-grade than a band with a signed label. In every case, ultimately, the primary notability criterion must be checked, and in this case, it's failed. Pan Dan 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If this page is going to be deleted, then the page for the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones should be deleted as well. That article does not cite sources and lists the Veritones as "one of Harvard's oldest" a cappella groups. Could not the information about Rashida Jones and various other members of the opportunes be verified if the Opportunes' CDs are cited?--140.247.240.127 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is
notability. We need sources that are independent of the Opportunes. By the way, the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones. Pan Dan 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: "the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones article has been nominated for deletion" -- by you, I see! Pan Dan 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete No use of
GRBerry 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I must disagree if you think that the Crimson is not independent in this sense. Hornplease 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting independence, which of these or these stories do you think we can use to build an encyclopedia article? Pan Dan 12:45, 17 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 NBA season

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

There is some concern that this article should be deleted as per
WP:CRYSTAL. Honestly, I am neurtal, but I removed the prod tag, since I think that deletion should be discussed. Roodog2k 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Roodog2k 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Basically, here is my rationale for removing PROD, listing in AFD and my neutral stance:
Three points to consider with Crystal Ball:
1) Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

I contend that the 2008-2009 NBA season is both notable and virtually certain to take place. Therefore, I disagree with
WP:PROD
.

2) Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item

I would agree that this is an arguable point to delete this article, but not without discussion. Therefore, I disagree with
WP:PROD
. I would say that a small set of non-generic non-speculative information MAY be available for this season. I would rather err on the side of caution.

3) Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate....

Not applicable in this case, IMO.

Now, I can see reasons to delete this article, but I can also see reasons NOT to delete this article. For instance, there are a few cities that would be considered front-runners for the 2009 All-star game.
Although the location of the 2009 NBA All-star game is ofically undecided, by nature of precident of other similar future-scheduled sporting events that are expected to take place, such as the 2018 Winter Olympics, I think it can be argued to keep the article. The NBA announced the 2008 All-Star game on May 22, 2006, which means that a decision would be forthcoming from the NBA within about 6 months. There is certainly specualtion considering what city may play host to this event... then again... its speculation.
Roodog2k 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the point of deleting? There's no crystal-ball material in the article right now, and it's going to be filled up with actual details eventually. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see why it was created actually, but there's no point in deleting it if it's just going to be recreated in a year or whenever. Recury 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is devoid of useful content and contains only generic information that essentially says that the season will start and end and have an all-star game. -- Whpq 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Provides no concrete information. DCEdwards1966 22:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Basketball Association - current article is too generic to be of value at present. The statement of the number of games is crystalballing as it assumes that the length of the season will not change in the next two years. The redirect will serve its purpose until concrete, specific details become available through official sources... and then the article can be revived. B.Wind 17:48, 13 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Allaahuakbar.net

Allaahuakbar.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

According to Alexa, this website's ranking is only 349,951. Therefore this website is not notable at all and hence does not comply with
WP:WEB. --Matt57 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral, leaning towards delete. i did a quick, incomplete search and i did find some decent places discussing this website [39], [40] but i would have to search further to see if i can find anything else. this i'll do at a later time.
ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for those links but two links on Google that link to it doesnt say anything. Like I said its ranking is 300,000+ and it doesnt meet any of the
WP:WEB? Please apply these policies to this article and you'll find that your weak delete would probably turn into a strong one. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
crztalk 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination--Sefringle 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ' The site is owned by " India's Ansar us-Sunnah Library and Research Center". What is that? It is not a private person... if the organization is notable, then we might have a case for inclusion, considering Itaqallah's comments. --Striver 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt look like the organization is notable. The question you should consider is: Does it satisfy
WP:WEB? That is what we should go by because this is an article on a website. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Does Itaqallah's reference not fullfill "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? --Striver 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesnt. Did you check the links? They're simply making references to the site's information. The above you quoted says "has been the subject". Allaahuakbar.net has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". When I make a reference link to a website, that is trivial as compared to publishing work and having that website as a subject of that work. If you're going to bring two articles that make a link to a website and say its notable - that for example can apply to virtually any random XYZ Geocities website as well. --Matt57 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the content of the first: "Orthodox Sunni Muslim organizations regard MSTA, NOI and FP as heretical cults. India's Ansar us- Sunnah Library and Research Center refers to NOI as the Nation of Kufr (unbelievers) for its emphasis on Black nationalism and identity and what it describes as a blend of false Muslim and Christian beliefs. The group's website places NOI alongside Shiites, which they describe as rafidah (rejectors), and other groups they consider heretics such as Sufis, Druze and Amhadis in a section warning Muslims to guard their faith (allaahuakbar.net).". Is that a "simple link"? --Striver 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not, I agree. But thats just one link.
WP:WEB says "Multiple" and in addition it also says "non-trivial". Going by what BhaiSaab said for Faithfreedom, I'll say that in this case this mention is trivial. If you see the policy, it defines what trivial is and this is true in this case in my opinion. There are more popular Islamic websites than this, dont worry. This one is definitely non-notable. What you could do is find which pro-Islam sites are notable and make articles on those. --Matt57 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete WP:WEB. FrummerThanThou 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom --Mhking 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should add that the ranking is not the only thing that makes this website not notable. Its simply its failure to satisfy
WP:WEB and thats the main criteria that should be used. --Matt57 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria ... no external links that satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... links to the subject's website and an "under construction" domain do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards. —Dennette 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a negative propoganda website run by
wahhabi sect and targets non-Wahhabies, especially Sufis. It has no credibility except maybe for wahhabi editors like Itaqallah. Hassanfarooqi 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

..excuse me?
ITAQALLAH 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
lol! Itaqallah, are you a "wahhabi editor"? :O --Striver 16:15, 16 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Rooney

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:43Z

Delete - non-notable person utterly fails
WP:BIO. Valrith 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A reasonable number of media references as Bill Koch's wife and Kevin Costner's girlfriend. Tevildo 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reason to have an article on her; all this info can be included in both the Koch and Costner articles without extending them much. Until there is more about her, why have an article just on her? --Brianyoumans 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. GregorB 14:37, 14 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Wars Jedi Knight 4: Jedi Council

Star Wars Jedi Knight 4: Jedi Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This entry is about a game that hasn't been announced by
LucasArts officially. Much of the information written here is not sourced, therefore i believe it should be deleted under the reason "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", seeing what happened with "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic III". — Canderous Ordo 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until it's officially announced rather than rumoured. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystalballism.
Danny Lilithborne 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete crystalball --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "rumoured" Star Wars project. Hmm... Wikipedia is not Supershadow.com. Wavy G 23:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -LtNOWIS 14:56, 14 December 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 was Speedy delete a7, what one family calls its annual reunion; no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Christgiving

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

There's no evidence that this event has any particular notability. To that end, google:"new+christgiving" or google:"new+christ+giving" produces 2 hits, whilst google:christgiving produces 65. The New in the title is, for what it's worth, redundant. - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/nonsense/neologism. Kafziel ^Talk 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I think we can stretch
CSD A7 to cover a non-notable gathering of non-notable people. (And if not, I want an article about my birthday party.) - Eron ^Talk 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Invented in 1995 by the Kritek family and article created by Pkritek = COI, but in this case I'd prefer to just say vanity! Emeraude 17:19, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bass players who play with a pick

Bass players who play with a pick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Irrelevant and potentially endless list of single aspect of music trivia Skysmith 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also unverifiable in many cases. —
ShadowHalo 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. Clearly not encyclopedic, and is simply an unmaintainable and unmanageable list. Agent 86 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft.
Danny Lilithborne 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Incredibly crufty. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unpracticable lists, may include millions Alf photoman 00:31, 13 December 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.

While this debate ended in Keep, a subsequent debate ended in Delete.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (programming language)

Aurora (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable programming language software per
sg 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.-gadfium 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article should be deleted on the say-so of one person? I am not entirely sure how to even start defending the article with me being a beginner contributing to this site. First of all i tried to make the article as neutral sounding as possible by looking at the other language articles and following their style. Not only that, but this lanuage is maturing and will be fully released in a few weeks. This article was to pre-emp the research of the computer science community and general public regarding Aurora. Of course to you this must sound like marketing talk and one big advert but other users and i hold Aurora in extremely high regard within the OOP systems languages and is a potential successor to C++, which of course DOES make it notable. You show me another language other than Java or SmallTalk that rivals Aurora? This has created alot of dissapointment in the current Aurora community especially as the release date is so imminent. Does this mean that Aurora will never have it's own page until you say?

It should and surely will have its own page when it becomes a successor to C++, or shows signs of being in the running. Me, I am a potential President of the United States, but that in itself does not me notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & *comment - no, if you were a running candidate (as in a sense this used software is) you would have a page. Your comment would work more on the lines of a concept language someone may or may not make thats a potential computer language this is one. Or as you say a person who has the potential to be a candidate.--Xiahou 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepKalekold 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nonnotable, advertising. Since "this lanuage is maturing and will be fully released in a few weeks," it also falls under the rubric of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article has no cited sources except the company's own website and affiliates and a user's forum. No evidence presented that the language is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per nom.-Shannara. There have been too many trigger-happy admins going through deleting entries on Wikipedia. This really need to stop.

Frankly, for someone to start a delete thread who knows nothing about the langauge, its potential, and its roots, is absurd. The language is a solid compiler with tons of working examples, all it is lacking is a few documentation changes here and there. Do some research before you go and and try to hang something that you have no clue what it is or what it is about. If you bother to WIKI up XNA you will discover that there is a thread about it in here, and it is still technically in ALPHA, although they call it Beta 2 (or community technology preview 1), and its still under development. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge about many existing items. Aurora exists and is real and in use by tons of people.

Speedy keep Zumwaltwood. 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
Account's second, third and fourth edits. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has the use of cursive font faces in signatures suddenly become wildly popular among the general Wikipedian community? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is your point about my edits, I had typo's and wanted to correct them. Has no bearing on this discussion. The font type of the signature also has nothing to do or has any bearing on this discussion. Zumwaltwood 21:51, 12 December 2006 (EST)

1) Since most people new to Wikipedia don't know about AfD, when a brand new user account's early postings are to an AfD discussion it raises the question of whether this might be an experienced Wikipedian posting under a new name, in order to give the appearance that a point of view is supported by more users than it really is. In AfD discussions, it is therefore customary to point out user names whose edits to an AfD discussion are among the first edits made under that account name.

2) The font type is a curious idiosyncrasy shared by the user or users of several accounts posting here. When several different account names share similar idiosyncrasies in their posting style, it raises the question of whether the accounts could all belong to the same person. See
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don't care either way, but i think it should be pointed out that some of the advocates for keeping this article, and indeed those who wrote most of it, are 'partner developers' that gain financially from the sales of this product. To that end their comments could be considered marketing. If the article stays it should read less like an advert and in a similar style to other languages 82.29.182.9 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was to pre-emp the research of the computer science community and general public regarding Aurora. Of course to you this must sound like marketing talk and one big advert but other users and i hold Aurora in extremely high regard within the OOP systems languages and is a potential successor to C++, which of course DOES make it notable. You show me another language other than The C's, Java or SmallTalk that rivals Aurora? This has created alot of dissapointment in the current Aurora community especially as the release date is so imminent.
Also using google results as an indicator of being worthy for inclusion into this site is unreliable at best. Searching for mentions of Aurora returns a few thousand results, but is this an indication of its importance to the computer science community? I don't personally think so.
Lets take an example of other articles that appear on this site, lets take for example Doug Koupal. Who is Doug Koupal? I don't know either, but his contributions must of been notable because he has had a shiny wikipage for a year now. And guess what, he returns between 3-4 results from google!
Marking this article for deletion is a matter of opinion by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject of computer science or programming languages in general. Aurora IS notable and will gain global acclaim once it is released (exactly like XNA as another contributer pointed out). This article was created to educate people quickly about Aurora's design, feature set and history. Which is exactly the point of an encyclopedia.
I do however concede the point that the article may be construed as marketing and that i, as a partner developer on Aurora was the one that started this article. The reason for this was to get the information as accurate as possible, so what better author than somebody directly invloved? Maybe you are right (?) that the article could be worded a little more neutral, but you tell me how you can mention a language's feature-set and heritage without it sounding promotional?
Kalekold 10:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that someone who knows the language wrote the article (it'd be shocking if it was any other way!) but i think it would have helped your arguments if you were not on the payroll and the conflict of interests question did not arise. As to the article itself, certain phrases read like marketing spiel, for instance "advanced compiler" (what is so advanced about it?), "Linux and Mac OS X are planned" (marketing...), "Affiliates" (sales...) but perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of notability. A lack of hits on Google combined with a lack of links to independent sites in the article can only lead to the notion of it being non-notable. Sure, the developers and the (currently 210) forum members will have heard of it and will come here chanting "it must be notable - *I'VE* heard of it!" but who else? Has it been reviewed in magazines? Has any notable software been written in it? I don't think your argument about Doug Koupal is relevant. If you think he is non-notable then you should take that to his page, it is has nothing to do with the notability of this article. After all that, i think the article could stay if tidied up appropriately although the question of notability (at this point in time) remains 82.29.182.9 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep The standard is not whether the people here have heard of it before, but whether the sources demonstarate that it is notable.DGG 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The article cites none and Google shows nothing either. It appears not only have "people here" not heard of it before, nobody outside of Ionic Wind Software has heard of it either.
sg 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. Show me the sources and I'll change my recommendation to "keep." I've done this before and I'll do it again. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI even though it has no bearing on this discussion but to the validity of my posts, I am new to wikipedia, but I am a seasoned poster on many other forums. There is no validity in "calling me out" and accusing me of "puppeteering". Also, I think the cursive font is nice so once again, trying to accuse me of being one of the other posters by stating :"The font type is a curious idiosyncrasy shared by the user or users of several accounts posting here.": is an obvious gesture that you are placing me in the same category of those individuals, which in and of itself is a predjadicial remark. (you are basically being prejadice to my posts and towards me directly which is not allowed in wikipedia rules), I would appreciate it if you back off of me and stop with your prejadicisms towards me at this time. I do not appreciate them or your continued attacks on me, prejadice has no place here so please take it elsewhere and stick to the discussion as to wether or not this should remain in Wikipedia.

Zumwaltwood 10:42AM, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Comment

Google Research Information on Aurora Programming Facts: Google Rank 3 Facts: Google information: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3aionicwind.com Facts: Google Search for Aurora Programing, Rank 7'th slot out of Results of about 1,050,000 for aurora programming. (0.28 seconds) When stating that search engines know nothing about something please state facts as to where you are getting your accusations instead of just throwing words out with no solid research.
Further Information: (Last Update: 12/13/2006 According to TrafficBlazer on GoDaddy) Saturation Facts based on GoDaddy Results: Yahoo! Listed 33 Yahoo! Directory Listed MSN Search Listed 190 AltaVista Listed 38 AlltheWeb Listed 38 Google Listed 2,920 ZenSearch Listed 2,920 Starting Point Listed 2,920 Alexa Listed 10
Just a little research about the product will show alot of information. Please do more research before posting accusations. Zumwaltwood 18:57, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I have only used the
sg 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Infoworld or Computerworld or PC World or online in byte.com or something of that sort. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Article is completely unreferenced, and reads like a marketing brochure. Since the language has not yet been released it seems unlikely that any significant applications have been written in it. All claims to notability provided on this page appear to relate to the language's potential. But as others have noted,
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Article is quite uninformative, completely unreferenced, and the notability of the topic hasn't been established. --Craig Stuntz 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aurora is a NEW language, and because it is new, it shouldn't be evaluated for "notability" on the same criteria as long-established languages such as C++. I believe discussion about deletion of this article is premature. It won't do any harm to let it remain for a little while longer, and see whether the imminent production release really happens as claimed, and whether the language is reviewed in other publications as a result of its production release. --Rod Turnham 14:06 18 December 2006 (EST)
Wikipedia grants no special privileges for "new" phenomena and does not evaluate them in a different way from other phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news medium. It's the other way around: there's no harm in deleting the article now. It can always be re-created without prejudice when enough has been published in
"userfy" the article, that is to move it to someone's personal user page on Wikipedia, would be honored. That would mean that the information would be available, indexed by Google, and make it easy to re-create the article at some future date. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 18 December 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 was delete. --
desat 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline

Uncited, unsourced, ugly, unuseful, original research, POV. You name it, this violates it. -
· 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, and a substantial portion is written in Turkish! -
· 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on Original Research: Timelines are hardly classified as an original research. This argument is not applicable.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on UGLY: is a POV of the reader, "Wikipedia" do not eliminate articles based on their beautification of historical content. This argument is not applicable.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on source and citations:The citations and sources are in the article.--OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Turkish: There is no Turkish in the article.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on POV:
Francis Tyers needs to explain how POV is applicable to a time line.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment People are welcome to go to the single site which is used for all the references, www.pkkgercegi.net. Does it strike them as the bastion of impartial scholarly research? -
· 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
All the articles in Wikipedia can be accessed from the citations. However, The timeline was created on
26 March 2005 by user:Cool Cat (more than two years) and I have never seen this time table anywhere on the internet, but the Wikipedia. The timeline is composed from many different sources and there are a long discussions (couple times) about this timeline under PKK talk pages.--OttomanReference 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If
Francis Tyers
is welcomed to bring is POV to make it NPOV.
"Balancing the articles" usually means putting an opposing viewpoint within the article itself, either as a separate section or mixed within the same section, not by writing a separate, stand-alone "article"... and this is hardly an encyclopedia article as it is presented here today. B.Wind 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the people interested
Francis Tyers seems removing content more than adding to it. This time line stayed in the wiki sphere for nearly two years. I guess if you do not like something (a dedicated militant of an ideology or group) what you need to do is "wait"; there will be a time that one can even "delete" a content using claims like ugly, unuseful. Thanks guys.--OttomanReference 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as nom. -
· 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete but only because it belongs in the Turkish Wikipedia as long at it is not even decently translated and because it is unsourced. This could have been a valuable article (and not just a subpage as it is now) but it fails this horribly. Note that you could possibly have speedied this as not being in English.
MartinDK 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

How is it not in English?--
Doktor Gonzo 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Translate and merge with
PKK as a sub sectionRaveenS

Delete Awful. bogdan 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Wikipedia is a place to search and find information. This Time line is perfect to understand PKK and its history. OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete collection of date links without substance. In addition, Firefox users can't even follow the graphic on which the list below is based. If there were some actual usable, objective substance associated with each of the linked dates, it might be different, but the article as it appeared on my computer via Firefox was indecipherable and without utility. B.Wind 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As told by Baristarim, Hurriyet is the most prominent newspaper in Turkey, why can't we use it as a source? And time table looks good if you know how to read a time table.--
Doktor Gonzo 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per B.Wind all 93 kilobytes of it.--Dakota 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with
Doktor Gonzo 20:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Merge or Move - We no longer allow subpages in Main article space. I'm indifferent to what is done, but it can't stay here.
GRBerry 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep or create a new article if its listing as a subpage violates guidelines. There are shorter articles about fictional Star Wars and Pokemon characters and planets, there is no reason that there shouldn't be an article about the timeline of PKK et al. NPOV issues can be dealt with, just put the appropriate tag. The whole article is sourced, it can be expanded, structured and English sources found.. What is the problem here? Hurriyet is the most prominent newspaper in Turkey. In 2004, Turkey ranked higher than Italy for the freedom of the press, so I think that its words carry enough weight. The article could be moved to a a new article, but there is no basis for deletion. Many timeline articles exist for every topic imaginable. NPOV issues in the article are not the basis for its deletion. Baristarim 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course, per nom. //Dirak 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no need to explain... I have been covered by the answers above. Hectorian 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am bothered to see so many people who have less than an impartial view on issues concerning turkey on one vote. That is why I wont be voting.
As for the article in question, I did not create it, I created a sub page because of the amount of code. I merely copied the timeline from tr.wiki since it felt sensible at the time. I was going o translate it but later felt that was rather pointless. A number of png/svg timelines would be better IMHO.
--Cat out 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Cool Cat. Couple of small timelines would be great.--
Doktor Gonzo 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Niko Silver 11:39, 19 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

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

Dicdef. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Neigel von Teighen 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a dictdef and while it could be transwikied, "rationale" already exists in a much cleaner version on Wiktionary. Srose (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge where useful. Shawnc 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Srose.
Danny Lilithborne 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Looking at the short (but ancient) history of this "article", it seems that it will never be anything but a dicdef. However, the bit about the "episcopal liturgical garment" could be a valid entry if sourced correctly. Oh, and I removed the rhetoric at the beginning of the entry.
Bubba hot ep 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The article can be more than a perpetual stub. There is scope for further expansion. The liturgical vestment is now a valid, sourced, and separate article, which you will find at rationale (vestment). Keep. Uncle G 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.
Bubba hot ep 08:38, 16 December 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 was delete. --
desat 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Vera Jimenez

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

Undeleted prod, concern was: "Likely failure of
WP:BIO". Sending to AfD for further discussion. Femto 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

comment Unverified items removed from page. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Gringoloco (talk • contribs
).

Delete. Fails BIO. Consensus generally holds that local reporters and news anchors are not automatically notable. Kafziel ^Talk 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~nom and~~ above. IMdB entry says it all, really.
Bubba hot ep 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable.Stompin' Tom 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Come to think of it, what does "undeleted prod" even mean? Looking at history, it had an uncontested prod tag on it for almost 2 weeks. That's an automatic deletion. I'm not a fan of
WP:PROD, but why was an AfD even necessary here? Kafziel ^Talk 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe because it wasn't deleted as an expired ProD, Femto thought it was contested and needed bringing to the AfD forum. May have been one which slipped through the net, so to speak. Interesting.
Bubba hot ep 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting after deletion. I got an email from User:Gringoloco which I interpreted as reasonable request for undeletion. Personally I cannot decide about the (non)notability of Mrs. Jimenez, so this deserves a full AfD discussion. Femto 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Yup, that's exactly why prod is so worthless. I can't understand why anyone uses it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I originally submitted this article and this subject has a large fan base in one of the bigger media markets in the world. But I admittedly was unaware of the rules for assuring a notable candidate. I only became alerted to the deletion after some apparent fans e-mailed me questioning what had happened to her Wiki page.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a duplicate of Wood finishing. FreplySpang 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to treat wood

How to treat wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is an explicit "How-to" guide violating
WP:NOT. Previous edit history on the article has removed two Speedy tags, so a PROD would likekly get the same treatment so bringing this to AFD. Note that the original author started the article with nonsense information. Whpq 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed, and I would have placed a speedy delete on it earlier if one had fit. I say to delete. Niki Whimbrel 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, as it was taken word-for-word from Wood finishing. FreplySpang 17:09, 12 December 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 was delete. --
desat 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

World Record Golf Tour

World Record Golf Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Trivial. Article is about an attempt - not yet completed - to get into the Guinness Book of Records, and given the figures stated this is unlikely to be completed. Invites readers to buy/contribute, therefore spam. Emeraude 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor trivia. Not notable. - fchd 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be notable when/if it completes. Already gaining coverage in the UK, see here. However, as it stands, I have to agree with the nom!
Bubba hot ep 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete --Gabi S. 19:09, 15 December 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 was keep. And please, somebody cleanup the article, it's in a mess indeed. -
Mailer Diablo 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redshirt (character)

del a classical, textbook violation of
reputable source that introduces and discussed "redshirt" as stock character. `'mikkanarxi 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete After telling us that the phenomenon started in Star Trek, the article goes on to list example after example where characters were dressed in anything other than red! This whole article is pointless. Emeraude 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments about OR for things that are widely known rarely impress me. And here's at least one [42] documented usaged printed in a Law Journal. Not to mention sources like [43][44] There's even a movie. [45]. And there's a book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek" that has a chapter about it. Also apparently a Starlog article, but I'm not sure what issue it was in. If you want to rewrite or improve the article, do so. Or ask other people to do it. I might not even object to a merge, but calling for deletion? Seems a bit excessive. FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, colleague, you missed the target 100%. The first of your refs mentions "poor fellow in the red shirt" so what? Indeed it is an unnamed FIRS. Does it say that it is a stock character? No. Your refs 2,3 are not
reliable sources fior wikipedia. Finally, The movie is a parody of Star Trek. It is a primary source in our context and certainly does not introduce the notion or literary criticism "the redshirt is a stock character". Etc. To draw a conclusion is original researh. `'mikkanarxi 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Recognizing widespread usage demonstrates that this article is not creating a theory which is what OR is meant to avoid. The fact is, no matter how much you try to claim OR, the real problem is not that it's OR, as there's no theory or speculation involved that serves to advance any position. Sure, I agree that there should be better sources. That's a reason to clean-up, not to delete. BTW, the word conclusion is not used in
WP:OR at all. There are times when conclusions are necessary to write good articles. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Widespread usage means nothing. The term may be used in numerous context. The specific theory that redsirt is a stock character needs to be referenced, not the usage of the word. `'mikkanarxi 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must disagree. If we can see lots of uses of the term Redshirt, then clearly it's not a novel idea unique to Wikipedia, or any one person's cause. My advice remains the same, look for sources, don't argue for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognized stock character which is also considered a cliche. Article can be improved and better sourced, but that's not criteria for AFD, in my opinion. 23skidoo 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo.
Danny Lilithborne 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep though the article mentions mostly star trek that doesn't mean that it hasn't been used else where in science-fiction. Tarret 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Major Cleanup/Move to Red shirt (Star Trek) I'm willing to accept that this is a Star Trek reference that has gained some traction in broader pop culture. However, this article needs deep deep scrubbing for undue weight and excessive trivia (and the mass of original research that goes along with this) as well as at least an attempt at proper referencing. There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the "redshirt" term either (so suggest move). All the usages appear to be references to Star Trek, and the term appears to have no significance beyond this (i.e. not in general usage as a term for a disposable stock character for other programs). I'm slapping a toomuchtrivia tag on this article. Bwithh 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best choice for the first WikiWorld I have to say. (though I welcome the WikiWorld concept) Bwithh 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wikipedia would seem to have a very heavy Star Trek leaning due to the overlap with geekdom, and geekdom interests. ( BTW I consider myself one of those geeks) The term red shirt is clearly well used by both Star Trek fans and some of the general population. But I would submit that if I were to take off my Vulcan ears and look at it from a broader perspective, what we have is a Sacrificial lamb. Note that there is a small amount of information already there. This article could be renamed to something like Sacrificial lamb (fiction) and developed with a broader viewpoint. -- Whpq 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Extremely notable concept. Needs to be improved, not deleted! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for heaven's sake! Poor Ensign Redshirt is an important concept in sci-fi, especially Star Trek, which was itself a cultural phenomenon. Needs massive cleanup, not deletion. K. Lástocska 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well-known and commonly used term in entertainment. This is not original research. Just needs references, that's all. Wavy G 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Redshirt is a common term. Plus, it is the highlight of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/WikiWorld.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A cultural icon of the TV extra killed off at the start of the show. Very noteworthy. -
Husnock 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - After all, the red shirt always dies, right? ;-D --~~EEMeltonIV 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep but rework. It's because a standard term, but some of the article is a little too unsourced. Makgraf 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs extensive cleanup and sourcing work though. Nehrams2020 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — no reason provided for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was very surprised to see this up for deletion after the wonderful WikiWorld cartoon. Cultural references abound, and the term has transcended its Star Trek origins. --Canley 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with keep, but also with clean-up. -- Simon Cursitor 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement, but that's not grounds for deletion. This is a notable concept in fiction and is widely referenced. Just get better sources for the article. --
Milo H Minderbinder 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

thumb|right|100px|Kirk ain't no redshirtComment If it is so notable and widely used, then WHERE THE HELL ARE REFERENCES from solid sources in which movie critics say it is a stock character ? Oh, and this is a proof that kaptain Kirk din't wear red shirt (only red pantaloons). `'mikkanarxi 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a use by the Chicago Tribune's TV critic: [46] (a blog, I know, but an official one of the Trib).--
Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The question isn't can we find usages of the term, it's can we find discussion of the term as a term. The answer is: probably yes. I shall check my books this evening and see what I can find. The use of a "redshirt" to refer to non-Star Trek usages may be harder to source, that case just warrants rewriting the intro. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example on the new york times, I can't read the whole article but from the preview it looks like they talk about the term and define it [47]. Anyone have a NYT membership? --
Milo H Minderbinder 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 18:46Z

Keep, while the article may lack references, it can easily be fixed. -- Zanimum 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up Yes the page has gotten to unwieldy, but deletion is not the answer. It certatinly need to be focused more. If we can keep the lesser know Stormtrooper Effect we certainly should keep the more well known version. EnsRedShirt 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and eliminate the OR.
JChap2007 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and Comment - AfD-mongers seem to have a militant institutional bias against popular culture articles or articles that they judge to be "fancrufty." I believe this is a reflection of the same kind of EB-ish thinking that Wikipedia is supposed to reject, as Wikipedia is not paper. Wl219 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Shrug>. The articles I listed for AfD can be counted on my fingers and toes :-) In your anti-deletionist crusade you fail to see my major objection: lack of serious references. Everyone writes "keep/cleanup", but I don't see any flurry of activity to do the second part. It remains full or unreferenced bullshit as before, only some laughable footnotes added to illustrate usage cases, in best traditions of
original research. `'mikkanarxi 00:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep fairly notable in pop culture (even I have heard of the term, and I've never seen an episode of Star Trek). Needs extensive sourcing though, I completely agree with the nom in that it currently stands as original research and fancruft.
riana_dzasta 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Needs cleanup, but the term is clearly notable [48] beyond Trek fandom. — edgarde 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cartoons good. Classic comix good. Ancheta Wis 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is notable enough, even if some reworking is necessary. Danaman5 06:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup the article is crap, filled with original research. Please clean it up significantly. The article should in the end be 1/3 the size it currently is. --70.48.243.22 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup as agreeing with 23skidoo Admiral Memo 05:39, 17 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

National Intern Appreciation Day

National Intern Appreciation Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

0 hit, likely hoax or non-notable Shawnc 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe if they renamed it "Monica Day" it would attract more interest... NawlinWiki 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like someone's not getting enough appreciation. It's a bit like Mothers' Day - the kid usually says, "But when is it Kids' Day, Mum?" to wit mother usually replies, "Every day"... erm, but that's a different story. Oh, and I found no sources whatsoever.
Bubba hot ep 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete --Gabi S. 19:08, 15 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of International Expatriate Social Rugby Teams

List of International Expatriate Social Rugby Teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Have I missed something? I have seriously exercised my brain and can find no reason why this page consisting of a list of red links should exist. Nothing links here, except a request for the article. The only external link listed which might have given some help is actually an internal link to the creator's wiki page, and gives no help. Emeraude 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. International Expatriate Social Rugby does not exist. Shawnc 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN The article, while rubbish, is also hilarious. What would Expatriate Social Rugby be? The best part might be the article's creator adding himself (i.e. his user page) as an "external link". -- Kicking222 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we add List of International Expatriate Amateur Rugby Teams to this AfD? -- Kicking222 17:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, the phrases "Expatriate Social Rugby" and "Expatriate Amateur Rugby," according to Google, do not exist on the web except for on WP. -- Kicking222 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trash. Also delete Kicking222's suggestion.
Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both. For all the reasons stated above. - fchd 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per all above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Scripps Douglas

Anne Scripps Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Scott Stuart Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Either I don't see what's particularly notable about this husband-murders-wife story, or I'm missing something huge. theProject 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both If you're missing something huge, then so am I! Sounds like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill murder to me - if there is such a thing. Anyways, two bad articles could be combined to make... well, one bigger, bad article, but then what would be the point?
Bubba hot ep 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both of them. I don't see how notable at all either. Radagast83 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman is notable for being part of the wealthy
Scripps newspaper family (who do the spelling bee). This crime has an extensive write-up at crimelibrary.com and it's own Lifetime movie. Static Universe 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both and add to
List of notable double murder cases and List of murdered people. --Gabi S. 19:12, 15 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Shankar (poet)

Ravi Shankar (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded in July, and de-prodded a few days later. Speedy-tagged for
failing to assert importance, and deleted by me, failing to note in the history that it had been prodded and de-prodded. Undeleted after inquiry on my talk page, and brought here by me to finish off the whereabouts of the article. – Elisson • T • C • 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now None of the links are from particularly reliable sources, and I can't find any verification that the sources mentioned as having published his work actually did publish (or talk about) it, though perhaps I'm missing something on Google because of his name (I, of course, tried more specific searches than just "Ravi Shankar"). No real notability is asserted otherwise, and the article is also somewhat POV. If some of the claimed sources are added, my !vote might change. -- Kicking222 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix the article (weak keep) Article needs better sourcing and (as aptly stated by User:Kicking222) is "somewhat POV". Assuming that the available information is correct (I have no reason to question it), he appears to pass a "notability" test as a rising young poet who is getting published and noticed. Also, the disambiguation issue associated with his name increases the value of retaining an article about him. --orlady 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article was fixed after I commented. My "keep" is no longer "weak." --orlady 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable poet is not equal notable singer. The references are less, external references fewer and there are no top poetry shows to attract attention. But Clean up and Wikify Alf photoman 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I removed the prod back in July. Shankar was interviewed by Jacket (magazine) (a non-trivial independent interview), and as an NPR commentator and an editor has more media exposure than a lot of contemporary poets. I've rewritten the text to make it less of a promotional blurb. Gimmetrow 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Two books, some notability.Stompin' Tom 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publications reviewed by journals that have national (U.S.) reputation, editor of a national poetry journal, and commentator on a national radio network satisfy
WP:BIO. B.Wind 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as nominator, after seeing the rewrite. However this is not a withdrawal of the nomination. – Elisson • T • C • 19:45, 13 December 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 was Speedily deleted as {{
WP:SPAM refers. (aeropagitica) 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Boron additive

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

Article consists only advertisement for one brand. There are no links to this title. User stated here that he is not an advertiser but the article contains mostly links to the company. Shawnc 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Update: Article is a copy of this page. Shawnc 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete And I have tagged accordingly. Spam alert.
Bubba hot ep 21:01, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Greenwich Meridian Tower

Greenwich Meridian Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A search for sources for this tells me that Wikipedia is the only English site with information on it, and this is only a claim by an architect, for designing a tower that would massively surpass any currently in London. RHB 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't expect a mile-high tower in London (or anywhere else) soon. The current
record holder is 629 m. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Probable hoax :: delete -- Simon Cursitor 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sole link is to a Romanian page that shows a picture of the so-called Greenwich Meridian tower near the Sydney Opera House. Obvious hoax. B.Wind 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
DrKiernan 09:46, 16 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Gilham Page

Emma Gilham Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

No claim of notability other than being the wife of a 19th-century railroad magnate; no Ghits except Wikipedia mirrors. NawlinWiki 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in this article indicates she has done anything notable or meets
WP:BIO. Being married to a notable person does not necessarily convey notability. However, I would not hold the lack of Ghits against this article. The web isn't necessarily the best source of information for things historical, and the article itself indicates there are hard-copy sources available. Agent 86 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep, as she was a debutante in her time, and thus might meet
WP:LOCAL. -- Zanimum 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Change my vote to keep, I didn't even see the namesake towns part, until GarrieIrons mentioned. -- Zanimum 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you follow through to the articles on the towns, they were named after her husband, not after her.
GRBerry 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - if the lead section is implying that the towns were named after her, under
WP:LOCAL Ga rr ie 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as there is no evidence that she had any notability on her own. Being a
GRBerry 02:41, 16 December 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 was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band,
WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mo Matching Drapes

Mo Matching Drapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per
talk 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete Have tagged it so. Does not even attempt to assert notability and neither can I find any sources to back it up if it did.
Bubba hot ep 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No notability. TSO1D 22:21, 12 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Waid Harbison, Message From Feline Quarters

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

Message From Feline Quarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prods removed without comment. Twelve-year-old wrote a book, published it with vanity publisher iUniverse. No press or significant reviews on it I can find. Not notable. Fan-1967 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Per nomination. Obviously non-notable. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added BOTH to my delete vote. I guess I should have clarified that I want both deleted. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You beat me to the punch again. --
ks123 ^contribs 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both per nom. Meeow.
Bubba hot ep 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both --Gabi S. 19:07, 15 December 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 this AfD was "Keep" as the AfD was withdrawn and the consensus also points to "Keep" Kind Regards -
Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Argo Tea

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

~~2nd nom.~~
~~crztalk 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Withdraw, looks a lot better - crztalk 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and per
Diez2 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It's not clear where any of this is sourced from, but if it's all the company's website, that'd meet
T 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I've added a list of independent references and four more external links to independent websites. Two of the references are from ABC news, one is from the University of Chicago paper, about Argo Tea making a large donation of white tea leaves to cancer research at the U of C Hospital. Clearly satisfies
WP:CORP. More references to come. User:Sebbeng 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not all the references you have listed are suitable for establishing notability, I would argue that all of your references are trivial or only touch upon Argo Tea and don't meet the requirements for establishing notability as set out at
Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I respectfully disagree with that. If nothing else, the first reference is a dedicated article from a newspaper in existence since the late 1800s. The article discusses how the company contributes to cancer research. User:Sebbeng 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Still believe this is a notable young company. It is worth keeping. I still believe the
WP:BIO alternate test of expandability (Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?) is quite relevant here. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Please, before voting for delete, try the links I've added to the article. Google News is just one source. Try these Write-up in the Chicago Maroon (University of Chicago Student Newspaper), Entrepreneur Magazine interview with Argo Tea founder Arsen Avakian, ABC News story about tea stores in Chicago, with mention of Argo Tea, ABC News story about Argo Tea. User:Sebbeng 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with
WP:CORP. They are a very young company. It took Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea 5 years to begin to gain real notoriety. I think for a 3 year old company they are off to a great start. Shouldn't this discussion be moved to a section of the talk page for the company. TonyTheTiger 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The reason the article was nominated was suggested lack of notability so any discussions concerning the notability of the subject really belong here. Kind Regards -
Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

nomination was for
WP:NN TonyTheTiger 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

CORP is a notability guideline.--
T 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

True, and the references provided satisfy
WP:CORP. The interpretation of "trivial", from that page is newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. None of the references I've provided are this, all of them discuss the company itself (or the founder as a notable businessman), some longer than others. User:Sebbeng 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

A more indepth interpretation of triviality can be found on the main notability page. (
Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

True, but AfD was brought up based on
WP:N, it seems to be a bit different from the general notability policy. [49] User:Sebbeng 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I believe the article satisfies WP:CORP. TSO1D 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added many more references to the main page. Much of Argo Tea's popularity is among college students, so a number of them are from University newspapers (all of them long standing and highly regarded). User:Sebbeng 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:V and WP:CORP now - it's a chain of tea shops in Chicago that has recieved media attention (and not just of the University press type either). Robovski 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Frankly, I didn't realize they were that popular, but the sources in the article are good enough for me. Zagalejo 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's nothing like AfD to get an article sourced and notability established quickly.--
T 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Robovski. metaspheres 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I first came upon this article today, and in its present state it seems obviously sourced, well-written, and notable. (Perhaps it wasn't before.) No, it's not a critically important article, but it's notable enough, and the article is nicely put together; it would be a shame to lose it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move on. 13 December 2006
(GMT).

Keep per Quadell. Also, I've checked with friends in Chicago that seem to echo the sources used in the article (I know that counts as OR and I wouldn't put it in the article, but it at least show me that it is notable within America's third-largest city, FWIW). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:05, 13 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Spanish Gibraltarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

This article was deleted under its previous name, then restored via deletion review, then deleted again under its current name, restored again, also at deletion review, and is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again... -
· 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Very weak keep and Rename. While the article has some POV and other problems, none of those are a basis for deletion. However, it needs some serious clean-up and the title must be changed. The article opens with the unverified unsourced statement that "The term Spanish Gibraltarians...is most commonly used to describe those inhabitants of Gibraltar who left (voluntarily or forcibly) the town of Gibraltar during the British conquest of this town from Spain" (emphasis added herein). The highlighted portions of that sentence are
unsourced. While the highlighted portion may have been the root of the dispute in past AfD/DRV discussions, this whole introductory sentence (or statements similar to it) may be why this article has attracted controversy. Furthermore, the title is simply too loaded or may be simply inaccurate. The inline sources in the article contradict the opening sentence (i.e. the term used in the links is "Spaniards in Gibraltar", not "Spanish Gibraltarians"). Something like "Spaniards of Gibraltarian origin" or "Spaniards from Gibraltar" may be a more suitable name. Alternatively, the first half of the article can be kept (with some rewriting) and renamed "Spanish exodus from Gibraltar" (or something better/more appropriate), while the second half about present-day Spaniards living in Gibraltar can be merged to Demographics of Gibraltar. Agent 86 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep/merge. Seems to be a valid fork of Gibraltar. Based on the ramblings of the previous AfD, there seems to be a larger POV dispute going on here. AfD doesn't seem like the proper place for the handling of this article. (c/p of previous statement) --- RockMFR 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Remaining POV issues can be edited away, but as I argued during the last AfD this article has a few clear references at the bottom (although references #4 and #5 can be happily dispensed with) and at least appears to have a limited mandate of explaining usage of the term. I'd like to see more line-by-line citation of course, but it's a simple and limited enough subject that I see no reason to delete it. Small historical ethnic groups deserve some attention, and this one at least asserts its own notability with a scholarly work and at least one newspaper analysis. -Markeer 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete deja vu, how many times do we have to debate this NONSENSE --Gibnews 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what if I say Echidna-strength keep! or something? Use arguments, not typeface please. - 152.91.9.144 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the THIRD time this has been debated, the article is worthless with the sole purpose of promoting arguments and edit wars. If you want arguments, here are some

1. This is a repetition of the article 'Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar' which was subject to a successful AfD.

2. The sole purpose of this article is to discredit the existance of the Gibraltarian people which the author simply dismisses as the present inhabitants of Gibraltar it is simple racism, promoting the often repeated Spanish POV that we simply do not exist as a distinct people.

3. The title is an oxymoron. The term 'Gibraltarian' is a modern one with a precise legal meaning, to qualify for being a Gibraltarian it is necessary to be a British Citizen. As Spain does not recognise dual nationality its rather difficult to be a 'Spanish Gibtraltarian'

4. The content of the article is rubbish, and it will result in an extended edit war the moment any Gibraltarian with a weak stomach reads it.

5. The paragraph The term Spanish Gibraltarian is also informally used, in the UK, to refer to those modern-day Gibraltarians who are primarily of Spanish language and culture, as opposed to British ex-patriates living on the territory. is a total fabrication according to the 2001 census there are 326 Spanish people resident in Gibraltar, the view promoted by the Spanish Government that the place is filled by 'British ex-pats' is untrue - the vast majority are British Gibraltarians, born in Gibraltar.

6. Its propaganda and racist rubbish, repeatedly trying to push 'being Spanish' down our throats is really offensive.

7. If it keeps coming back despite successful Afd votes to remove it, this puts the whole process of removing rubbish from Wikupedia in question.

Gibnews 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite.--Sandy Scott 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the 3rd Afd. Please refer to past Afds for reasons. I would also like to point out to Gibnews that the main source of the article is written by a Gibraltarian!--Burgas00 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was me thinking you wrote it, perhaps you could disclose your source. I'm willing to bet it was not A.Gibraltarian the famous banned user --Gibnews

Comment My brain hurts - in what way is this article different from the one that was deleted? Also, the restoration link isn't linking to the right article discussion. Robovski 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, there it is. Nevermind about the discussion link. Robovski 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much repeating what I wrote in the previous AfD - There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article
Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. --Oakshade 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete OK, I've taken some time to read up on the overturn and re-visited the previous 3 AfD discussions (yes 3). I still don't see why this needs it's own article. The subject is the very few Spanish inhabitants who did not leave after the British conquest of more than 300 years ago and the very few people who claim to be thier decendants (and thier non-notable organization, the Heirs of Gibraltar). There is a claim that the term Spanish Gibraltarian is a term used in the UK but then provides a reference from 106 years ago to support this. If this information is considered noatble, it should be in the main Gibraltar article or a related article (probably best in the History of Gibraltar article). The article presents a POV fork in the ongoing Gibraltar dispute and doesn't belong here at Wikipedia. This is over and above the basic poor quality of the article itself. Please delete the article, please advise me when User:Burgas00 applies to have the delete overturned AGAIN or salt this so I don't have to do this a fourth time. Robovski 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There are, of course, plenty of Gibraltarians of wholly and partly Spanish descent. There are plenty of Spaniards of Gibraltarian and British descent (there is, funnily enough, no attempt to create a class of "English Spaniards"). But this article is trying to create a class of person who simply never existed. A very few Spaniards lived on Gibraltar before it was ceded in perpetuity to Great Britain. They were not Gibraltarians, they were Spaniards. There was no such thing as a Gibraltarian until Gibraltar was created as a British Crown Colony. This is simply an attempt by those who believe that if you say something often enough it will gain a degree of credibility to try and undermine the status of the Gibraltarian people. Timbellina 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — Timbellina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

strong keep The arguments against keeping it sound totally like POV. We do not judge political claims. We record them. "true Spanish Gibraltans" vs the ones discussed here. POV if there ever was.DGG 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have been asked on my talk page to change my vote, on the basis of the political claims involved. This reinforces my opinion that we should have nothing to do with judging political claims. If a verifiable and notable group or tendency exists, we should write about it to describe it neutrally. DGG 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were no Spanish Gibraltarians in 1704, there are none today, if you call a Gibraltarian a Spaniard its a recipe for trouble. --Gibnews 09:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. there is nothing unusual to have articles about peoples in one country with some external origin:
Russian Germans, German Russians, etc. Spaniards in Gibraltar provably existed and look sufficiently referenced in the article to me. `'mikkanarxi 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete How many times do we have to have the same arguments? This article was already deleted before. What is this, keep at it until it gets in? It was wrong then and it's wrong now. There should be a ban on this sort of pressure bullying! Of course there are Gibraltarians of Spanish descent, but there are very few such individuals compared to those we might name Genoese Gibraltarians, Maltese Gibraltarians, Jewish Gibraltarians etc etc. Gibraltar happily is a place where one's ancestry matters not a jot. To introduce this sort of ethnic compartmentalisation would be wholly counterproductive to a society which finds it easy to erase from the common mind an individual's origins, and concentrate only what and who they are now. Gibraltar is mostly populated by British Gibraltarians. There is no such thing as any other sort of Gibraltarian. In Gibraltar there are no ghettos, there are no no-go areas for any individuals, there are no gangs based on ancestry, no socially unacceptable marriage partners. Kill this article once and for all, and have a prohibition order on it! unregistered user Ruiz 23:54, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Actually Spanish surnames are the most common in Gibraltar and are much more common than Genoese ,Maltese or Jewish names. The Jewish community of Gibraltar is relatively small, being no larger than that of Ceuta and much smaller than that of Melilla. Still, I dont see why they would not deserve an article which documents their history. I, in any case, would support it and contribute to it. In any case, I agree with DGG, political arguments evoking the greatness of the Gibraltarian people are not called for. This article was undeleted because the deletion procedures were faulty and not based on consensus. Furthermore the arguments given for deletion (OR, racism etc...) have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence. I would also recommend editors to sign in or register before voting so as to avoid suspicions of possible sockpuppetry.--Burgas00 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to throw around terms like 'sockpuppetry' you better be prepared to follow up on them. Who, exactly, would be a sockpuppet? Robovski 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a question of 'evoking greatness' its the simple fact that the people of Gibraltar are called Gibraltarians TODAY. In 1704 they were simple Spaniards and they left. You just can't accept reality. --Gibnews

Comment:Gibnews, you should follow a principle in life: Respect the names people have chosen for themselves. If those "Spaniards" who lived in Gibraltar (understandebly) called themselves Gibraltarians aswell as Spanish, let them be so. Just as Kurds in Turkey can be called Kurds as well as Turkish, Armenians in Lebanon can be called Armenian as well as Lebanese and the Palestinian diaspora should be allowed to call itself Palestinian even though Palestine does not exist as a state.--Burgas00 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Spanish Gibraltarians simply DO NOT EXIST. The people who lived in Gibraltar prior to 1704 were Gaditanos, i.e. from the province of Cadiz/Spain. The term Spanish Gibraltarian is an invention. The people of San Roque, where the main bulk of Spaniards who chose to leave the Rock after the conquest are Gaditanos and have always called themselves so. After the closure of the land frontier by the Spanish Dictator Franco during the sixties, most of the people of San Roque who worked in Gibraltar were dispersed to other places in Spain, therefore hardly, if any, original Spaniards who may have lived in Gibraltar prior to the conquest remain there. The town which was created next to Gibraltar on the other side of the frontier, La Linea (the line) was made up solely of Spaniards (or Gaditanos) from the surrounding areas, San Roque included which claims to house the real inhabitants of Gibraltar before it was ceded to Britain by Spain in perpetuity by the Treaty of Utrecht, who came to service the Garrison. Thus the same can be said of other little villages in the surrounding area. Galliano is not a Spaniard, neither is Hammond,they are both sons of Gibraltar of British Gibraltarian fathers and Spanish mothers. The fact that they have been described as Spanish is pure demagogy. In fact the offending contribution in Wikipedia can be construed as such, pure fabrication of a political nature. — Goey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Gibnews can you please sign this last vote please? I also dont understand how you can make statements which blatantly contradict the sources provided on the article. Another thing. How can the people from the region (according to your logic) be Gaditanos and Spanish at the same time? How can Londoners of Pakistani origin be Londoners and Pakistani at the same time? Isnt this a contradiction since Pakistan is not in London? --Burgas00 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You choose not to understand many things. However IF you are implying that I wrote the about, think again. Take a moment to read it as it debumks your article very well. --Gibnews 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wait who does that last vote belong to? --Burgas00 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)GoeygOEYAll I can say is one thing. If this article is an example of what Wikipedia has to offer, I will, in future never consult or advise anybody to consult Wikipedia on anything. This is a complete fabrication posted by someone with an axe to grind, and which, if taken as true by any student or person trying to find out facts about the Gibraltarians, would greatly distort their perception of who in fact are the People of Gibraltar.
As to your comment on Gaditanos...People from Yorkshire are called Geordies are they not? It does not matter from what city or village they are collectively called Geordies and they are all still in the UK. In the same way people who come from the province of Cadiz, which is where San Roque,La Linea, Los Barrios, Algeciras etc...come from are collectively called Gaditanos but they are still all Spanish. Gibraltar is not a province of anything, it is a British Colony so we are known and call ourselves British Gibraltarians. Spanish Gibraltarians are an invention of the author.Goey 11:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Goey 16th December 12.19 p.m.

Actually Geordie refers to a person from the Tyneside region of England and the adjacent areas, or to the dialect spoken by these people. The correct description of Gibraltar is a UK Overseas Territory not a colony, a term which brings unfortunate historical baggage.

I have mentioned this page to a number of Gibraltarians, so you will find their views turning up, albeit they may not understand the finer points of wikipedia formatting and style. I have been unable to locate a 'Spanish Gibraltarian' to comment, they are rarer than the Dodo with which they share considerable similarity. I just saw Bernardino León, he is in Gibraltar but is not a Gibraltarian. --Gibnews 13:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Gibnews and I will slowly manage to hack out a version of the article with which will be acceptable to all political sensitivities.--Burgas00 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see you have blanked the page. Looking up the references you cited they do not actually support 'Spanish Gibraltarians' It may be more productive to let it go and move on to writing articles about something real. However if it has served as a means of getting more Gibraltarians interested in what is recorded about their history, then its been a valuable exercise. It certainly shows how little others know about the subject.
I understand you can get the publications of the transborder institute free by writing to them, as you have a genuine interest in the subject that would be interesting, although they do contain a lot of nonsense from both sides of the frontier/fence. --Gibnews 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/correction/ The page is still there, for some reason it did not show itself, probabaly ashamed of the content. There problem is there is no evidence that the word Gibraltarian was ever used in connection with Spanish nationals. You manufactured it. However this is not really the place to discuss this and I note you have reverted my attempts to make a honest account of things based on what YOUR references actually say. --Gibnews 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gibnews, I am trying to engage you constructively on the talk page. Lets both make an effort.--Burgas00 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are a number of people who describe themselves as Spanish Gibraltarians and I have and more references to back this up. It looks like Gibnews is trying to push his point of view on wiki again - I suspect he is using sockpuppetery also Vintagekits 00:53, 19 December 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 was Delete/Redirect. Cbrown1023 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronMan

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

Unsourced, apart from a blog and an unbuilt website. Full of opinions and original research. I can't tell which parts of the article are vandalism and which aren't. As an invitation-only tournament, this seems intrinsically unnotable. ~~Delete~~ Redirect to Iron Man (disambiguation) as suggested belowgadfium 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a notable tournament. Possible
WP:COI. Someone typing this in could be looking for the comic book character, or info on triathlons. Redirect to Iron Man (disambiguation). Fan-1967 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - As Fan-1967. Fails
WP:SPAM. --tgheretford (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Fan-1967.
Danny Lilithborne 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and edit the dab page directly. We shouldn't link directly to
disambiguation pages. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Why not? I thought it was perfectly acceptable to have alternate spellings redirect to DABs. Personally, I'd put the DAB page at Iron Man and move that page to something like Iron Man (comic book character). Fan-1967 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iron Man (disambiguation) (don't forget the Ironman Triathlon!) per User:Fan-1967. B.Wind 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect or just Redirect to
reliable sources. If a redirect to a disambig page is not acceptable, work some funky magic to move the disambig page to Iron Man and redirect there! -- saberwyn 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's the popularity of the term in reference to triathlons (as well as that TV commercial resurrecting the old Black Sabbath song) that convinces me that Tony Stark should get moved to a new title and Iron Man should be the DAB page. Fan-1967 22:01, 13 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Moura

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

No notability, no verification. When googled, the Wikipedia article appears 2nd on the list, and before it is a blog page. All the TV shows that Moura was in are in red links, and the last major edit was back in October. I say delete.
Diez2 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject is not notable enough to warrant a page on the Portuguese WP, so inclusion here shouldn't be much of an issue. The pt: article for Levanta-te E Ri bakely makes mention of him. Caknuck 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
^(talk) 03:33, 13 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete I have real doubt about the significance/importance of this church. It doesn't seem as though it is important enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. It also reads like an advertisement for the church, listing everything from the address to hours of different programs. I would also make mentions about the lack of NPOV in the section Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough#Care House, but I feel that the significance and reading like an advertisement are the major reasons why I listed this for deletion. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with this statement: Care House is an expression of God's people at Good Shepherd Community Church showing God's love in practical ways to poor and oppressed in our community. It is grounded in the conviction that providing for the needy is critical to following God. --Adam Riley ^Talk 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exact duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_Community_Church_Toronto and is a Church Stub, giving information, and help to Scarbourites about this church. This is in NO WAY an advertisement, but just informational.
AllanVS 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Why does this page redirect to "
Diez2 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think I fixed it. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I was looking to delete "Good Shepherd Community Church, Toronto" and replace with this one (Scarborough), since the legal name is "GSCC Scarborough". If this page should be deleted because of listed times etc, then EVERY OTHER CHURCH PAGE will have to be deleted. Here are some other examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Baptist_Church#Sunday_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Anglican_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James-Bond_Church_%28Toronto%29 to name a few. By golly! They all sound like advertisements!!!
AllanVS 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for making note of High Park Baptist Church. It has since been tagged for deletion. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. Most individual churches are not likely to be notable enough for articles. NawlinWiki 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I looked at the other 3 articles mentioned by AllanVS, and nominated High Park Baptist Church immediately below. The other two seem to have historical significance. NawlinWiki 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have my doubts about
St. James-Bond Church (Toronto), but I do feel that St. Thomas Anglican Church has historical significance. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I do not see anything in the article that satisfies the proposed guideline
WP:CHURCH or other notabillity criteria, and the article lacks multiple verifiable and independent sources. Edison 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep well, if we are to follow the guidelines to the letter, then 90% of all church pages listed, should be deleted, as most of the information on them, are from internal documentations, and therefore, make each and every church listed here as 'advertisement'. Also, Althought written in third party, all articles have some form of advertisement to them. If I look up "Coke Zero" it's because I'm interested in learning about a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT. If someone looks up Microsoft Office, they they are looking up information, and, that is a form of advertisement. Perhaps, people need to stop being so petty, and let a church have an informational page listed.
AllanVS 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom at
RGTraynor 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm fairly certian that you're not allowed to vote twice. --Adam Riley ^Talk 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Every product does have some sort of advertising in it. It isn't that this article is blatant advertising; if that were the case, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. The problem with this article is that the church is non-notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), in order for a church to be considered notable, there is three criteria to be met. 1) Local churches are usually notable if the scope of activities is national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. While this church may attract members from immigrant communities (which is most likely true since half of the GTA is foreign born), it is not considered national or international scale. I doubt that more than a handful of people in Vancouver or Iqaluit are familiar with this church. 2) Individual local churches in notable denominations are not inherently notable, and do not warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability for the local church itself is established through reliable and verifiable sources. There is a link to the church website, which I will discuss in a moment. 3) Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. There is nothing listed that it did anything non local in scope. For example, I'm not noticing that it has any national press coverage, or even that there were any abroad missionary trips (although that wouldn't count for notability, either). You could say that the website is considered to be reliable and verifiable sources. However, under assertions to be rejected, Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article...[i]nternal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the church itself, or any denomination or other organisation it is part of. Therefore, the church website doesn't count. Even if you listed the website for Congregational Christian Churches of Canada, that wouldn't count either. This church does not deserve to have a Wikipedia article. I understand that you are concerned about other articles being able to exist. I suggest and invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where you can take a look at the criteria, and process of AdD, and invite you to even contribute by listing articles that do not meet qualifications, either. --Adam Riley ^Talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. See
Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette. Alan.ca 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Most local churches are non-notable. I see nothing here to suggest an exception. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong deleteAnd may we soon do the others. DGG 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It's very rare that a single church amidst a particular Christian sect becomes notable unto itself, and this is an example of one that has not yet done so. We are not a directory of churches; if you want that, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to say this of churches specifically, as contrasted with other community institutions. DGG 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Violates two out of three pillars of wikipedia.
No original research as it must be entirely written from OR as there are NO sources. Alan.ca 10:18, 16 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Park Baptist Church

High Park Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nonnotable individual church congregation. NawlinWiki 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a basis for an article here, but the claim it was a influential church in its heyday is not supported by multiple independent sources. The church has been around almost 100 years, but no real demonstration of historical importance in the community or the denomination, or notable members or pastors or doctrines or music originated there. I do not see anything in the article that satisfies the proposed guideline
WP:CHURCH or other notabillity criteria. Edison 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep verifiable --Sandy Scott 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It may be verifiable but it is also not notable. DCEdwards1966 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong deleteSame arguments as for the church just above. What an editor "think" is notable doesnt count. Whether the appropriate claims of notability are there & verified is what counts.DGG 06:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a notable church like Castle Church in Wittenberg or the Westboro Baptist Church. There is no place on Wikipedia for this article. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:57, 14 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Hispanics

List of Hispanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

US-centrist. The defition 'Hispanic' is used almost exclusively into the United States. If this list included Hispanics in the US only (like the article
Notable Hispanics) it would make sense, but it doesn't, so this is as senseless as a list of Western Europeans or a list of Anglo-Americans Mixcoatl 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
Danny Lilithborne 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, unpracticable Alf photoman 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable and already duplicated by the
Notable Hispanics article. Dragomiloff 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. Radagast83 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Hugo Estrada 22:06, 14 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James Kim (timeline of death)

Completely unnecessary. All incidents are already covered in
Crossmr 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page does have value. It is a fact that new stories reported that Kati Kim said the Kims took the right road, encountered a rock, and then backed up and took the wrong road. Having this objective information is helpful in understanding what happened. But whether Kati Kim's memory is accurate and whether that is in fact what happened is less clear. The difference between fact and uncertainly is not so clear in this case. And I would not be so sure that everything posted on the main acticle is factually true.
Crossmr, as far as I know, you aren't the owner of Wikipedia. If some people want to share encyclopedic information off to the side and that does not interest you, then don't waste your time visiting that page. But please don't frustrate the efforts of others to document in detail, as completely and objectively as one can, what happened. Thank you. --Rob Zako 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said I owned wikipedia. Information which is derived from original research and speculation isn't encyclopedia according to its policies. See
Crossmr 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, one purpose of the article is to assist research into what happened to James Kim. But it isn't true that "by definition" that makes the article itself original researc. The article is a timeline, i.e., a side entry to the entry about a newsworthy person who recently died. The side entry should stand on its own and should provide additional detail and information to those who are interested, for whatever purposes, beyond what is appropriate in the main article. Note that one standard definition of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive in terms of information." But please consider the artcile on its own merits, and if there is POV or OR here, please indicate where. --Rob Zako 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if the information isn't appropriate in the main article, its not appropriate for a side article. If you want to keep the information somewhere, take it back to the blog it came from and host it there.--
Crossmr 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

What exactly is a "side entry?" As far as I can tell, this page is an article in its own right, just like
Rubber or Iran. How can you say it's "ok" because it's supposedly "off to the side?" I don't get it. Tragic romance 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The article's lead graf specifically states that it is for the purpose of reconstructing Kim's death which will almost by definition lead to
WP:Undue weight. MKoltnow 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete all but admits to being
Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Completely un-encyclopaedic level of detail. Even if you think this guy deserves an article in the first place. - fchd 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-admitted OR and even if it wasn't, it woudl be unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. Edison 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything that needs to be said can be contained in the main article. this level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If a forum wants to collobaratively speculate and research information about the death of James Kim, they can use any one many free web hosts to post up a page, but wikipedia is not such a web host. -- Whpq 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty evidently OR, and the timeline really doesn't add anything to the prose in the main article.--
T 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is already an article on James Kim, and all this information is there, formatted or not. You can't just create an "alternate" article because you don't like the formatting on the main one, can you? Tragic romance 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly annotated James Kim article covers it all, apparently, making this timeline article redundant. B.Wind 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-notable events do not get dozens of frontpage digg stories. unless however keven rose altered digg algorethm to give over-attention to his lost friend, but keven would never do that 72.36.251.234 06:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite this AfD, there's ongoing discussion at the
T 09:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, what should we call this, newscruft? Why is any of this notable? There's an article about the family, that's more than enough, this timeline is taking trivia to the extreme. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:45, 17 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Grace

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

This article appears to fail
WP:MUSIC. The artist has placement on one movie soundtrack, no released albums, no news coverage I have found, one regional tour as an opening act, and a bunch of myspace.com views/listens. The cursory search engine search turned up nothing promising. Erechtheus 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Response to Deletion Nomination for Alana Grace Article

Keep: Alana Grace first came to notice in 2002, at the 2nd. Annual Nashville Grammy Showcase, when she was a finalist in a competition hosted by the Nashville Chapter of the Recording Academy, chosen by music industry professionals from a field of 500 entries. [51]
In 2005, she had a song, “Black Roses Red”, on the CD soundtrack for the movie, “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” (a movie which grossed over $40 M). This soundtrack included a number of well-known artists such as Chantal Kreviazuk and Natasha Bedingfield. Reviewers singled out Alana Grace’s song as one of the stronger tracks on the CD.[52]
Her song attracted widespread attention, to the point where she was invited to sing it on national television (on the “Today’s Rising Star” portion of the Today show on NBC): [53]
She is signed to Columbia records, and will be releasing her debut CD, “Break the Silence” in early 2007. Four of the songs that will be on that CD appear on her MySpace page, and have already been played over 400,000 times. [54]
In the past year, she has given a number of concerts in California, [55] and has done several charity concerts elsewhere, sharing the stage with artists such as Faith Hill and Tim McGraw. See: [56] and [57] and [58] She was also featured in the 8th. Annual Nashville Grammy Block Party: [59]
In 2005, Teen People magazine (with a circulation of 1.4 million), named her as “the next Alanis Morrisette” and one of the top 9 new artists to watch for: [60]
User:JD_Fan 13 December 2006

Keep per JD Fan. She meets
WP:MUSIC criteria #9, Has won or placed in a major music competition, as JD Fan pointed out in the first paragraph of his response here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment That is a major competition? It would seem to me that major would have to be interpreted to be of the same magnitude as a major award (criteria 8). A local contest with entrants in the hundreds certainly doesn't compare to American Idol or even Star Search. Erechtheus 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, well if you don't like that, how about criteria #10, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show? My vote is still keep. Dismas|^(talk) 12:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The competition in question was held by the Recording Academy, the same organization that runs the Grammy Awards. As noted on their web site: "The Academy has 12 regional chapters throughout the country. Members who join the Academy are placed in the chapter closest to their residence. Chapter offices represent the Academy on a local level by working within that region's music and recording communities and addressing its needs through education, advocacy, professional development and events. In addition, the Chapter serves as a conduit for other members to meet, network and address the concerns of the recording industry both nationally and locally." [61] This competition was organized by the Nashville chapter of the Academy. Placement in the competition is determined by industry professionals, which can provide a major boost to the careers of the musicians. After being a finalist, Alana Grace secured a major label recording contract (Columbia) and placement on a major movie sound track. Her song was one of the emblematic songs in the movie and was also one of those featured in the publicity for the sound track. [62] Certainly, lots of people heard the song: the movie grossed $40 M at the box office, and $38 M in video rentals - not bad for a movie that was unabashedly a "chick flick" and which appealed mostly to a female audience. User:JD_Fan 15 December 2006

Keep, if she's been in on a nationally broadcast morning show, in a contest run by a leading industry association, and in the soundtrack of a major motion picture, she's a lot more notable than many people we keep. Of course, the article does need cleanup, but still, that's no reason to delete the article. -- Zanimum 18:26, 15 December 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 was Speedy delete not so much "no assertion of notability" as "positive assertion of non-notability. "New and emerging" indeed... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld

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

Delete. Looks like spam from someone's nn philosophy project. Recent Changes for their site has about three active participants. They have 77 users total. -- Zanimum 20:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes close to being religioncruft.
Danny Lilithborne 20:37, 12 December 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 was delete. --
desat 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Power of Many: How the Living Web is Transforming Politics, Business, and Everyday Life

The Power of Many: How the Living Web is Transforming Politics, Business, and Everyday Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The power of many: how the living web is transforming politics, business, and everyday life, this is a book by a redlinked author, with an Amazon sales rank in the hundreds of thousands, making no apparent claim to anything other than mere existence. Yes, we can verify it exists, but I really don't see that as anything like enough. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. ghits and Amazon reviews are useless. Leibniz 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More bookspam. Should be speedied, if it weren't for the previous afd. Article has been around since August 2005, but hasn't gone beyond a marketing stub despite previous afd Bwithh 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it ever sells more than 10.000 copies we can recreate the article Alf photoman 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, if it does sell, then I'd think probably no-one would object to the article being recreated down the track, provided its with sources and so forth. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sybex is an imprint of John Wiley & Co., one of the top book publishers. Keep books published by non-vanity presses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 13 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padunkle

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

Not
WP:NFT; de-prodded with comment "I objected deletion of the article. Regardless of whether it is a game made up in a day or not, it is still information. What about hide and seek, we probably made that up in a day, and I'd bet theres an article on that." Pan Dan 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable, a sub-sect of stll a small thing. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Padiddle. I had no idea that "Padiddle" was so widespread (Ahh... memories of my freshman year in college in Canada.) This is a non-notable variation that doesn't warrant its own article. Caknuck 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think there's anything verifiable to merge. Pan Dan 22:34, 12 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyborgLog

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

Fails
WP:WEB. Non-notable made-up word. No reliable sources given, but general nonsense and a couple external links to blogs. Femmina 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A blight on the face of Wikipedia. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:RS. --Quirex 06:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - CARPE2004 Schedule page you privided a link to does not have the word "CyborgLog" in it. Until now it only fails
WP:RS and I could go on by pointing you to the risible amount (around 400) of unsimilar results on google, all of which are from blogs or blogspam. - Femmina 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment it doesn't have to mention that word, it is the same topic. You wouldn't expect academics to use slang. If you think it is an inappropriate title etc then suggest a renaming. The point is that this article is not about a silly word it is about the topic of "glogging" (god that's a lame name, Stephen Mann should be ashamed). You can't claim it fails
WP:WEB. --Quirex 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I've added some specific papers to the external links sections which EXPLICITLY use the word Glogging! And one isn't written by Mann or has Mann as a co author. It is in a trustable trade journal, IEEE Multimedia and is a reliable secondary source. This combined with all the peer reviewed work makes this term both
reliable --Quirex 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment So you admit that this particular word ("CyborgLog", the one we are discussing about, not "Clogging" or whatever) is just blogger's lingo and it does have no merit whatsoever on its own. - Femmina 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no I've looked at the articles and they specifically mention Cyblorglog; glog is a shortened term for it. You should go and look at the articles too. What I said before about the topic etc was before I went out and found the new references which specifically mention the name cyborglog and use the name. The article has changed, please evaluate the changes w.r.t. the policies. You still have yet to deal with the new references. Look if you want to carry out this
WP:WEB but in case where all three of these have been established you will be arguing outside of Wikipedia policy to delete materials. Unfortunately for you and your cause (which seems like reasonable cause since more blogging related pages are vanity anyways) you have chosen a topic with the academic backing of at least 1 tenured professor who's work has been written about in notable academic magazines, journals and conferences. --Quirex 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment We'll see what others have to say, but it looks like this article is so non-notable we're the only 2 people on earth who care about it. Your "new sources" all have the same guy as author, Steve Mann. - Femmina 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frank Nack is not Stephen Mann. This article had been up for VFD before but I noticed you didn't notify anyone from the previous debate or any previous editors. Worry not I have notified them. --Quirex 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think
WP:NEO. The topic is verifiable there are papers which both use the term and are about the term. These references are not studies about the word but about the topic using this word as the topic. So the debatable part here is if the last reference not written by S Mann is just using the term or is about the term. The term is verfiable but the widespread use of the term is questionable as most literature is associated with S Mann and the University of Toronto. --Quirex 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Wholly unnotable, despite the tergiversations above to claim otherwise. Eusebeus 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism: arguments that the word has been used before are flawed and is not a critiera for inclusion on wikipedia. Skrewler 23:05, 15 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Zen

Dark Zen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

User:Nat Krause has proposed deletion of this article, stating "Importance is marginal at best. Basically, just a website." — coelacan talk — 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is apparently important enough that E-sangha, a very large online Buddhist forum, makes a point to ban linking to Dark Zen websites from the forum. Here is a general discussion of Dark Zen on that forum, and here it is compared, perhaps overdramatically, to
WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." — coelacan talk — 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Discussors are referred to the discussion that has already gone down at Talk:Dark Zen on this point. To sum up my opinion, criterion 3 is supposed to involve materials being redistributed by an outlet that is itself very well-known; but the Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun is even less notable than Dark Zen is.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So its claim to notability is being a web pest? I do not think that is good enough. --
12 December 2006 (GMT) 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - There are some indications that this is a vanity press, per "This work is published by the author's own publishing company" for a very similar title. - 152.91.9.144 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark Star Publications" is certainly a Dark Zen vanity press, although it's interesting that Amazon has chosen to carry some of their publications. It's unclear whether or not the various names of the authors associated with Dark Zen are actual people or alter egos of the founder.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:WEB. Extremely marginal Buddhist group, known largely from the postings of its founder on various internet forums. (One might want to check out a few of the more interesting materials on their website, though, in particular Hollingsworth's blog. Just don't believe everything he says—or anybody else.)—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Dark Star Publications does not appear to be a vanity press, nor owned by the Dark Zen people. Although they are out of business now, one can see their old website at the Internet Archive, and their submission requirements seem too discriminating for a vanity press. Lists of publishers, like this one, say things like "not recommended" but nothing about vanity publisher although the same list assigns this label to other publishers on the same page. That list actually says they are an imprint of "Romance Foretold Inc.". I do see what that one comment on Amazon says, but it appears to be an unsubstantiated insult. — coelacan talk — 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark Star Publications" seems like a rather obvious name, and I would be somewhat surprised if it turned out that the one you have found records of is the same one that published the Dark Zen-related books. Looking at their submission requirements, it appears they published fiction, and it gives no indication that they might want to publish Buddhist meditation manuals.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did like to publish "dark" stuff, though. They might have made an exception. Since they emphasize the "dark" over and over, I don't think it's a stretch to say that "Dark Zen" could be published by this company; in light of the publisher's focus the collision of the two names doesn't appear to indicate anything "obvious" to me. And surely calling this fiction wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination. ;) — coelacan talk — 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also if they are separate companies then they were both operating in 2001 and this would presumably have been a trademark problem. — coelacan talk — 01:48, 13 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Shei

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

Article about a NN person, fails both
WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I suggest that it should be kept. Several articles are linking to it. The article is still informative. Several web pages were about her a few of years ago. Facts about her can be found in "The Bare Facts Video Guide 2001 CD-ROM". Perhaps someone has access to it. Longhairadmirer 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding articles on Wikipedia that link to this one: two are lists (List of Playboy NSS models S-Z and List of women with very long hair) one of which is AfD'd, and the other three are all relating to this very AfD. Tabercil 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see anything about her in the article, just a list of magazine appearances. Only Web pages I can find are of the "insert random name here" type. That sort of thing belongs in List of Playboy NSS models S-Z. Delete or (second choice) merge there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article as it stands now does not present anywhere near a strong enough argument for her to be considered notable, and given the relative sparsity of info that comes back if you google her name, expanding it might be difficult without doing original research. Tabercil 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not demonstrate subject's notability as it pertains to
WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:07, 18 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Occam's Razor (The Band)

Occam's Razor (The Band) edit|[[Talk:Template:Occam's Razor (The Band)|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (View AfD) NN band, one self-released album
SkierRMH 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails to show or assert
WP:MUSIC --blue520 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
ShadowHalo 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Shadow. TSO1D 22:23, 12 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan Railway

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

A Global highway is not likely to be built in the near future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is simmilar to the Global Highway article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global highway. Natl1 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to William Gilpin (governor) (the creator of the concept). --- RockMFR 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Article needs expansion and references, but it was a notable proposal (and book) in its day and notable as an example of 19th century transportation futurism, and it's not crystal-balling, since it's not an active proposal . Hasn't even been looked at by WikiProject Trains yet. The fact that "Global Highway" got deleted doesn't mean that every remotely similar article should be tossed up for deletion. What's next, AfD's for articles about Jules Verne novels? Doesn't really belong with the William Gilpin article either, this article should be categorized with rail articles, other than this proposal, William Gilpin isn't a notable railway personage. Tubezone 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tubezone. Encylopedic and historic concept. --Oakshade 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable historic projects still are notable. WP covers more than the 21st centuryDGG 06:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not trying to argue that WP covers only the 21st century. --Natl1 20:25, 14 December 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 was Keep. Agent 86 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Strait Bridge

Bering Strait Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

This page is for a bridge not likely to built in the near future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is a part of the "proposed" Global Highway already deleated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global highway. --Natl1 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Natl1 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't exactly call this crystal-balling. I'd rather compare it to something like Nuclear warfare. It's a concept that has been studied and theorized about, but hasn't really happened. The Bering Strait bridge isn't really a planned/future subject in the sense of most crystal-balling. Reliable sources can be found for this (Discovery Channel stuff, local legislative proposals/studies in Alaska and Russia, etc). --- RockMFR 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious and speedy keep Yes, it's merely a proposal, but like the Second Avenue Subway it's widely discussed (and has been for a long time), notable, and has reliable sources for references, unlike the "Global Highway" (which is mainly the concept of a small advocacy group and Reverend Moon, it seems). The bridge might become part of the Global Highway, but the bridge proposal was around for a long time before the Global Highway idea was hatched. Tubezone 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, on account that it's a great article of something that will probably never happen for simple economic reasons. Not really crystalballery, as it was proposed and even planned, according to the article, just never really materialized. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep This is the kind of fascinating article that makes Wikipedia great. Well written article about one of the most important transportation "gaps" in history. --Oakshade 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, interesting subject and is bound to happen some day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.190.15 (talk • contribs)

Comment - should this be named
Bering Strait bridge (uncapitalized "bridge")? --- RockMFR 19:16, 17 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barabus TKR

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

Non-notable vapormobile. Back in July, a company called Barabus Supercars Limited brought an automobile to the 2006 British International Motor Show. They claimed that the vehicle's twin-turbocharged V8 produced 1005 horsepower, making it the fastest car in the world, and would be available for less than half the price of the previous fastest car. They announced that they were taking orders and then promptly disappeared off the face of the earth; their home page went down in mid-August and there has been no news about them or the car since. Interiot did some interesting research and posted about it on the talk page. The whole thing appears to be either a hoax or a failed business venture, and not a notable one. TomTheHand 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple.
Interiot 23:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I agree it's probably more likely than not that Barabus TKR will never be released. Nonetheless, we should still have an article on it—it appeared at a notable motor show with some press coverage and was never seen again. That makes it a notable hoax/failure—notable enough, at least, to have an article for people who might turn to Wikipedia and ask, "Whatever happened to the Barabus TKR?" Philwelch 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you just said, we don't really know what happened to it. We may have a hunch, but there are no reliable sources that we can use to present any firm conclusions. (even saying "it was never heard from again" is just a little
OR
, since no RS's have repeated that, and if an RS ever did publish it, at least they'd call the company first to confirm. It's remotely possible that Barabus is quietly negotiating with rich middle-eastern buyers, or an auto magazine could have recently published some information and the people maintaining this article haven't run across it yet.)

Also, the article has always had a dearth of reliable sources, so I'm not sure how much there is to keep. I think
Interiot 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
We could use Waybackmachine to source the website going offline. I wouldn't support a merge because this seems like a decently short article anyway. Even as is, it reflects the lack of evidence of anything pertaining to this car post-August. In short, Wikipedia is more informative, more useful, and just plain better with this article than it would be without. Philwelch 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Dinoyseus has been wikistalking me. Philwelch 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to participate in the AfD process? Dionyseus 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're following me around specifically. That's wikistalking. There are plenty of other AFDs for you to comment on. Philwelch 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Interiot. I don't think this car will enter production and there's not enough info to write an article that covers the subject properly. I think it was just a failed business venture that doesn't need an article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly does the article we have now *not* cover the subject properly? Philwelch 19:39, 17 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Nori

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

Created in May, tagged with {{
WP:PROF, de-prodded, re-prodded today. It's supposed to come to AfD if it fails prod even once, but I guess we all kept forgetting to check the history and never realized that it had already been prodded! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless by the end of this AfD there is evidence of notability beyond what we can find on Google (which is very thin) Alf photoman 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails provisional proftest. My fault; I should have checked history. Hornplease 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, no sign of passing
WP:PROF. 1 result in arXiv.org, 3 in JSTOR. (Guilty as 2nd prodder.) Pan Dan 14:26, 17 December 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 was Delete (no notable information to be merged into Samuel Adams). Cbrown1023 01:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Samuel Adams

Old Samuel Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Being the father of someone famous is an insufficient assertion of notability. TomTheHand 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Well said. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't like to generalize about parents of important individuals not being notable that, but in this case the individual appears to be non-notable in my view. TSO1D 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? If there are sourced, relevant stuff it could be in the article on his son. Otherwise delete. Ned Wilbury 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Dionyseus 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it would hardly be the first time a not-independently-notable family member was merged into the notable family member's article. Stilgar135 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Are we to fill up an article of a notable person with his/her entire non-notable genealogy tree? Dionyseus 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Are we to assume that it's better for a person looking for "Old Sam Adams" to get no response than to end up at a relevant article? Stilgar135 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Why would anyone look for "Old Sam Adams"? As far as we know the only notable thing about him is being Samuel Adams' father. Dionyseus 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It's certainly conceivable, since somebody decided it was worth an article. He's definitely a bit player in American history, and if you think that people don't come to Wikipedia looking up bit players, you're mistaken. More to the point, your hypothetical doesn't work. Mentioning his father's name and occupation, which helps to indicate his social status, is a far, far cry from including a geneology. Stilgar135 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy meeting you here. "Wikistalking", anyone? Philwelch 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may propose a speedy merge (I deprodded this and should have merged it myself), let's do that. The two or so sentences in this article (geneological information only) can probably go into his son's bio. Philwelch 01:30, 13 December 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 was Redirect. Cbrown1023 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdran and Sky'ree

Kurdran and Sky'ree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

It seems total rubbish and fancruft. Official WarCraft lore does not contain any of this Fogeltje 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Warcraft character also already has a entry here. --Fogeltje 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Warcraft characters. --- RockMFR 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the Redirect proposed by above user. --Fogeltje 16:05, 18 December 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 was Speedy Delete. Cbrown1023 02:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam mchombo

Sam mchombo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SkierRMH 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedied per
db-nocontext}} Cbrown1023 02:02, 20 December 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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria Supermarket

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

This article about a supermarket (not a supermarket chain) does not make an adequate assertion of notability according to
WP:CORP. TomTheHand 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Factual, referenced article. While this isn't a big important corporation, it's at least as notable as a local high school, which seems to be the bar for notability. Philwelch 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence it is notable or that it satisfies WP:CORP. Not every business needs to have an article. Edison 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just because it is factual and there is a source (being the store's website, and nothing else) does not make it encyclopedic. It fails to establish any notability (including the criteria of WP:CORP) and appears to be an enterprise with a single outlet. We don't need an article on every grocery store. Agent 86 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Dinoyseus has been wikistalking me. Philwelch 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commenting immediately after Philwelch does is a highly effective way of highlighting wikistalking.Ga rr ie 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:CORP and unlike local high schools - it isn't a school so WP:SCHOOL doesn't really apply.Ga rr ie 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable. Just because the schools policy is crazy as a coot doesn't mean we have to repeat the insanity with shops. WMMartin 17:07, 14 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Joe

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

Non-notable musician, vanity page. --Light of Shadow 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean up. This was a real band that should be on Wikipedia. I've seen them live before and remember their music videos on
Much Music. Most of the stuff in this article is real but it's so poorly written. They were a band from Newmarket, Ontario. They had a few singles, which got a lot of airplay in Canada around 1997 to 1999. Skidrow and Mistake were definitely their two biggest singles. They were often featured on Much Music's Indie Spotlight, which is the same way Alexisonfire got popular in Canada. As for the rest of the article, I can't say whether any of it is true. This band deserves at least a stub as there are other far less notable bands on Wikipedia. Can this please be kept as a stub as they are notable for their 2 singles, which did recieve heavy airplay.Sarnya

Weak delete. Article is a complete mess in its current state. If the band is notable, then some sources need to be provided. The joke image doesn't help. --- RockMFR 23:13, 12 December 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.
James D. Nicoll

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quranic reasons for terrorism

Quranic reasons for terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Most of this content is already in the
POV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment-I suspect that this article was created to give a more broad look at the reasons Islamic terrorists often give for their, well, terrorism :/. Since it was just created, I suspect Mohammed's comments have been used as a starting point for further expansion. However, I have to admit, i'd rather hear the creator of the page's side first so that my suspicions don't just prove baseless :/. Homestarmy 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vehicle to post a list of verses that has been repeatedly inserted on various pages Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that an article is poorly cited or POV is usually not an argument for deletion, but rather an argument for expansion. If this article can be expanded and cited to establish notability, then it should be. If it cannot be so cited, then that should have been the argument for deletion, along with some indication of why it can never be better cited. — coelacan talk — 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though my nomination may not have been clear on that point, the article itself is; it's a list of verses cited by a convicted killer as justifications for his actions. As Tom Harrison noted, this exact list has been posted to other Islam-related articles before. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the lists repeated removal from those articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be just that. And the article name is inherently POV. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No brainer delete. Is this the banned User:DAde rearing his disruptive (putting it politely) head? (→Netscott) 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong and speedy delete or rename to stuff cited by lone lunatic and then delete. --Striver 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep My reason for its creation was that it allows people to have Quran-based arguments on the justifications of terrorism.--Patchouli 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the Quran needs help in that regard, but it almost encourages terrorism. Might I suggest a different name? --Dennisthe2 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective as Hell. 1) Title assumes that that Quran gives justifications for Terrorism. I suspect a lot of people would disagree. 2) It assumes that the acts of violence implied are 'terrorism' and the perpetrators 'terrorists'. I suspect those parties would see it differently. 'Quranic reasons for resisting Western Oppression' anyone?--Sandy Scott 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above.
ITAQALLAH 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
ITAQALLAH 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and Rename. Merge useful, cited, content into article entitled Scriptural justifications for terrorism (Islam) which would be a subset of religious terrorism. Obviously there would be versions for the other religions as well. Despite the offense mainstream adherents of a given religion take at "Satan quoting scripture" so to speak, the rationale extremists give for their extremism is interesting and a valid subject. <<-armon->> 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a re-naming. There should be some article explaining the rationale of militant Islamists.--Patchouli 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK but but just to clarify. A long list of quotes from one guy lacking context isn't what I have in mind as a proper article. I think it needs a lot of work, but as it was afd'ed 9 mins after creation, I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. <<-armon->> 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Pick a name. --Dennisthe2 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per
Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The word "terrorism" in it self is controversial enough to not be used in a article title of this context. --Striver 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A very POV oriented title. No religion teaches terrorism. --- ALM 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word terror itself appears in Quran numerous times.--Patchouli 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word terror appears in other texts as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie has a point, just because you can find a place where the word terror is mentioned, doesn't mean its the same sort of thing as modern terrorism. Homestarmy 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran directs and orders YOU (human beings) to use terror against the enemies of God[64]. This is why
Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman who interpreted the Quran literally is in jail for.--Patchouli 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Article name itself is a POV. --Soft coder^Talk 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Armon. Closing authority should discount all votes citing "bias" or "subjectivity" as reason for voting delete, as these are not valid reasons for deletion under WP policy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX are valid reasons for deletion, the latter applying in this case because the subject is inherently POV (as I said before, no different than creating an article about Biblical reasons for terrorism). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete: This is original research. Quranic verses against blunt terrorism are too many to mention here. Religions do not allow terrorism, and simply terrorism is a recent phenomena and its definition remains evolving and vague. Quran was written 14 hundred years ago and hence trying to associate its text with modern, evolving terminologies, is pure original research and is not acceptable. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 09:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename: Suggested new title: Quran and Terrorism. Also expand this article. It should not just be a collection of verses. --Matt57 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per OhNoitsJamie. frummer 03:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't suggest keeping or renaming it. The "reasons" listed in the article belong in the
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, as he is the one who made the arguments. The current "Reasons" article states, "There are many examples that incite Muslims to resort to violence," then goes on to list the verses from Taheri-azar's letter. There's no evidence or citations that these "reasons" are broadly accepted or posited by anyone else other than Taheri-azar. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, per what you said in the nom, there is indeed a need for Biblical reasons for terror though perhaps you can find a better title. Therefore, please keep this one so long it improves, and also create the biblical one. frummer 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ohnoitjamie. We could have a NPOV article on this subject (presumably with a different NPOV title) but this isn't it and there's no indication that any of this is salvagable. JoshuaZ 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content is fine but the title may not be perfect. Any suggestions for a better NPOV title? It is the Title of this article which is causing the problem. --Matt57 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - none of the quranic verses cited (or in fact any) advocate terrorism - " violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals". Wikipidian 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quran advocates terrorism explicitly. To look at some of the verses and say otherwise is like saying
2+2=5. Of course, some Muslim clerics will deny it because their jobs is on the line and for self-interest considerations.--Patchouli 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18). See how easy it is to pick and choose verses to justify killing innocent civilians, though if you examine the evidence as a whole I'm sure you will find verses which show overall that Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not advocate terrorism. Inshallah (God-willing) if this remains I will create a response article - Quranic reasons against terrorism. Wikipidian 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Quranic reasons against terrorism would be a great idea. — coelacan talk — 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The word
Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. There is a page on
Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, a person with mental conditions. There is no consensus that he is a terrorist. Big part of materials are just copy from the article on this person. This article is just a POV pushing by User:Patchouli. Gorbeh 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Also there is an article on Islamic terrorism. User:Patchouli's IP needs to be blocked as the user is constantly vandalizing articles and pushing for POV. Gorbeh 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per above. Shams2006 01:49, 20 December 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 was keep. --
desat 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James D. Nicoll

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

A usenet poster of little known notability, I'd suggest delete Timon 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BIO. No sources other than his own usenet posts. Ned Wilbury 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as by Ned Wilbury Alf photoman 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does well on search engine test. Many independent sites reference the English language quote, including wordspy.com and linguistlist.org. His book reviews are also reprinted on a number of independent sites including cloggie.org. He is discussed/referred to (not just named) on high-ranked blogs such as scalzi.org and http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/

Keep IMHO per User:dd-b Dd-b 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's fairly well-known as a reviewer and blogger.Paul Drye 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's no less significant than most of the other personalities in the usenet people category. The entry is also useful in that it describes the background behind the "Nicoll Event" meme.

Keep per above, but needs better sourcing. --Calair 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Sanguinity 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above plus above average in the sense of usenet notability - Skysmith 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sourcing, etc; the English quote has also been used in a recently published novel. -Lhall 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I run into that death-defying idjit in many nooks and corners of SF fandom and publishing, and his English language quote is even more famous than he is. It is regularly attributed to even MORE famous people, which means that it has arrived as a quote. If Patrick Nielsen Hayden gets an article, so should James. Zora 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saving a newsgroup is a noteworthy thing, and it's worthwhile to publicize a method for doing it. Nancy Lebovitz 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth it for the English quote, which has taken on a life of its own; he's someone people might look up, as they will others to whom quotes are atributed if they don't already know the name. (People aren't likely to look up Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln when those men are quoted, because they already know who they are. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. -- Metahacker 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above; in addition his impact on Usenet is just as deep (if not as broad) as Kibo, and has had problems with quote attribution that this article could ameliorate. -- Anton P. Nym 216.191.213.114 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. -- Torquebomb

Keep as per above. --Zeborah 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. James Nicoll is at least as significant as many other people given entries on Wiki, including myself as an author. -- Ryk E. Spoor —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 72.226.98.189 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep. If James Nicoll isn't of enough interest to the public to be a subject, then "Usenet personalities" isn't of enough interest to the public to be a category. And now that he has public visibility as a reviewer of books, his permanently-recorded position in public life isn't even entirely dependent on electronic media alone. Finally, his famous aphorism is reproduced in all media, usually without its originator's name attached, and each instance should be counted as an instance of the appearance of "James Nicoll", whether attributed or not. -- Del C 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've seen the authorship of the English Language quote debated many times, simply because the true author is a relative unknown, so it's of practical use to have a source page for him. (Disclaimer: I'm a friend of the subject) -- JoeNotCharles 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This sort of person is what Category:Usenet people is for. He is quite notable within that realm. Bryan 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even aside from the Quote (which alone ought to get him over the notability threshold), he is well-known in the science fiction publishing community. Spikebrennan 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. DAllen\^talk 16:52, 18 December 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.

Big turn

The result was Speedy Delete Gizza^Chat ^© 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per
WP:NFT Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. —Moondyne 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable / nonsense
Ollie 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Stephen Turner. Johnlp 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this AfD debate may be informative here. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - definitive
WP:NFT as per Stephen Turner, above. Utter non notable tosh. --Dweller 09:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete complete nonsense. --Roisterer 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. JPD (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete infantile drivel. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:56, 14 December 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 was Speedy Deleted G12 by User:Syrthiss --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter in sagittarius

Jupiter in sagittarius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Astrologer wants to text dump her essays here. I disagree. As a synthesis and analysis, with predictions, I believe it constitutes
Original Research under Wikipedia terms. (Also seems clearly part of self-promotion by this person.) Fan-1967 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as a {{
db-repost}} of a speedily deleted article, which is a copyvio of http://www.terrynazon.com/Jupiterinscorpio.html. Twice-deleted by myself and Nawlinwiki. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. Probable copyvio - the website this was taken from says nothing about permission to use this. There is no evidence that User:Tnazon is the person who originally wrote this essay. --- RockMFR 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete violation of copyvio & repost- so marked
SkierRMH,08:43, 13 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chad buckler

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

Probably NN guitarist -- the band he played for, Lachoza, was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lachoza) a long time ago, but this article talks about a contract with a label, so I thought we should look into it again, so I changed speedy to an AfD. Mango juice^talk 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources showing notability are found. All music guide has nothing on him. And, cmon, he's just a bass player, not even a musician. :) Ned Wilbury 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, espeically as the main article was removed.
SkierRMH,08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete I will find more credible sources and cites for this article. Sniggity 16:21, 13 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eragon deluxe edition

Eragon deluxe edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Variant edition of a novel. Little more than a paragraph long, doesn't deserve its own article. No categories and links from other pages.CyberGhostface 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Delete nothing here that distinguishes it from the main article - different versions of books are usually not notable.
SkierRMH,08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Everything said I agree with. Feel free to delete! Oceana 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated before, variant editions of novels do not ordinarily merit their own article. The content of this article could be merged into the main Eragon article, but I seriously doubt whether this article's content is significant enough to do even that. --Kyok o 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Comments

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in The Simpsons

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

The contents of this article do not belong in an encyclopedia, it is mearly simpsons trivia. It's just a list where people get naked, and thus, isn't an encyclopedia article. Newspaper98 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Previous AfD discussion can be found here.)

Keep why not? I'm sure someone is interested. Although I'm not sure how you reference it.--Sandy Scott 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Interesting" does not make something encyclopedic.
Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Agent 86 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The topic is covered thoroughly. This is one of the most popular animated programs of all time with a considerable child audience. The extent to which nudity is tackled in the programme given the present US discomfort with the subject is a strong basis for such a list. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even so, this page isn't anything like an encyclopedia.
unsigned comment was added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep. Seems to me the goal is not to be like another encyclopedia. Plenty of information is trivial when you don't need it. See
Wikipedia:Trivia is more inclusive. WarBaCoN 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Consider for a moment, would an article highlighting all instances of nudity in cable television cartoons be valid?
unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete Trivial fancruft. The Simpsons are clearly one of the most notable cartoon shows ever, but that doesn't mean we need articles for every conceivable aspect of the show. Unless significant sources can be found that show that this topic itself is notable then it shouldn't be here. --The Way 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with a suggestion to the creator to add a section regarding the "contraversies"; otherwise, well documented list.
SkierRMH,08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for four-fingered bugeyed roadpaint-yellow-skinned fetishists.
Danny Lilithborne 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Totally non-encyclopedic, though I wouldn't be surprised if this is kept like all the other garbage articles. metaspheres 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The Simpsons is one of the most popular, long running television series in history; it has cultural value, so of course many aspects of the show will be examined. Silly for some? Apparently so, and I'll defend your right to think so. Delete-worthy? No. Siyavash 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of trivial information. The topic of "nudity in the Simpsons" has no wider relevance relevance whatsoever (unlike the topic of Nudity in Superbowl half-time shows). Demiurge 18:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely un-encyclopaedic, and to boot this is a list and not an article. Thethinredline 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simpsons-cruft gallore! If you want to add this stuff, find your own webpage or a Simpsons-wiki. Wikipedia is
not a list of all things that have ever existed, or everything to ever grace the Simpson. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The very reference given repeatedly as reason for deletion makes no mention that this should be deleted (
unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 series bus routes, Sydney

100 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD
)

WP is not a directory, plus information is already provided in Buses in Sydney page. This page is redundant. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all of the same nature:

200 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

300 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

400 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

500 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

600 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

800 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

900 series bus routes, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC

Comment - The related pages wasnt transcluded properly, so its been done now. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question of concern is how often these are changed. In the ACT, the bus routes are changed every couple of years.Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
300 series bus routes, Sydney shows that a substantial amount of content can be sourced for a particular region. The smaller articles might be ripe for a consolidation though. Joestella 06:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Capitalistroader raises a good point. Individual routes shift around to a limited extent, but the broad regions are static. From next year, Sydney will have 15 bus regions, each with a lead operator, at which time the bus route articles (excluding NightRide) can be retitled on the basis of region. Joestella 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information only exists on the above pages. The Buses in Sydney page is being developed with a regulatory and social focus. The route pages have an infrastructure and operational focus. Joestella 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more work on the articles. Matt ke, if you're serious about wanting these deleted, visit each (there's only 10) and make nominations on that basis. Thanks, though, for the impetus to improve them, they were a bit thrown-together when you found them. Joestella 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I put up the nomination, there was route information in Buses in Sydney. You can't delete it and say it's not duplicating. It is not fair to remove things there and then invalidates my reason for AfD here. I will, and only remove my nomination if you were to provide reasons and suggestions here, not editing nominated pages and invalidates some of my reasons. And how can other users keep track straight away if everyone has to trace back every edits you did whereas it'd be easier if you can put your suggestions here.
Anyway I've seen what you've done, and the article name has nothing whatsoever to do with infrastruture. It's still violating
WP:NOT. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If that's the way you feel, I apologise for being "not fair".

I get the sense that your problem is the presence of route numbers in the titles. I invite you to suggest alternatives, but I think the article names I've used are the best thing we have to divide the enormous network into manageable pieces. When the Unsworth reforms are complete, we can shift the articles into numbered MoT "metropolitan bus region" pages, and name them accordingly. In any case, a problem with the title is not grounds for deletion. One of our articles,
WP:NOT
.

No-one could dispute that some of these articles need work, especially
WP:NOT. Joestella 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Good this discussion is going somewhere positive. And for 300 series, as I pointed out, if the article is about "Buses in Eastern/South-eastern Sydney" there's nothing wrong with it. I know route numbers are based on regions, but to base on regions and to base on routes are different things which gives different ideas for other people (a page about routes vs a page about a certain region). I'm sure with an appropriate name for the pages (I'd suggest regions), then there's no need for deletion. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand the difficulties, but seriously someone would have a go at it even I didn't nominate if routes is the way of grouping. An open discussion on wikiproject Sydney should be of help I guess. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Suburbs is an easy one. But Western Sydney is effectively half the city by population, and the South and South West, plus the Northern District centred on Ryde, lack proper common names. I'm more inclined to use consistent nomenclature. Next year, there will be scope to rename the pages after MoT regions. But these will probably take the form Metropolitan Bus Region 5, Sydney unless MoT comes up with names. Whether region numbers would be better than route numbers is debatable. Joestella 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I belive that the information on these route number pages is best consolidated and left on the Buses in Sydney page as it was prior to its recent removal. That was the consensus opinion when we went through this a few months back when very similar articles to these were nominated and sucessfully deleted. Quaidy 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteAs
WP:NOT etc.Ga rr ie 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Do Not Delete -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- Over time these articles have potential to evolve into a series of articles exploring the history and development of each bus route. John Dalton 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If there's so many bus routes, having individual articles for each series is OK, in my opinionInsanephantom 08:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of these articles have some good information and can be improved. I wish the categories could be changed though so that they weren't so arbitrary. They should be changed when the new bus sectors come in to be more consistent.
JROBBO 12:56, 18 December 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 was delete per
desat 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable local political campaign group. No references cited, of the two links in the EL section, one isn't working (domain name expired) and the other doesn't mention this group at all. Their only claim to fame, according to the article, is the introduction of a bill that wasn't even heard and consequently failed. Akradecki 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn group. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete moving to speedy
SkierRMH,08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

DO NOT DELETE I think this article is worthwhile as OBAR has had a long standing history in Oklahoma. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 64.250.215.98 (talk
)

DO NOT DELETE This article is about a historical group that has will have its fourth bill introduced this legislative session. The external link has been updated. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Okies (talk • contribs). — Okies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
outside this topic.

NOTE: This editor created the spam article Oklahoma Coalition of Independents (OKIES) which was deleted via this AfD and has been recreated and is currently tagged for speedy. This clearly is a conflict of interest and an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Akradecki 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP With the additional material that was added, I think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. --Jmbranum 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user appears to have an undeclared
GRBerry 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of meeting the primary notability criteria. No evidence of meeting the proposed guideline
GRBerry 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per no explanation of notability, just use of sockpuppetry to
WP:NOTE. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:35, 18 December 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 was delete. I was tempted to restart and semi-protect the AFD given the many apparent
desat 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of bands beginning with the word "lemon"

List of bands beginning with the word "lemon" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(contested PROD). List of stuff whose justification to avert being
an arbitrary collection of info
is decidedly
original research. There was lengthy discussion on its talk page that seems to be a stalemate between deletion on policy grounds vs keep for primarily softer reasons. DMacks 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've already stated my reasons on the talk page of that article. - Mewtation 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before we have lists of bands for every fruit and vegetable. This article is an excellent definition of trivia, which
wikipedia is not. Agent 86 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is nothing inhrerently arbitrary about the list, it is a flaw in the current version of the page. Additionally, while the justification is decidedly original research, it is not a difficult thing to remedy. You can't expect a tree the minute you plant the seed. --68.184.14.73 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Note: 68.184.14.73 has been blocked for continued trolling[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with a list like this one, and I doubt this pushes us down a
unsigned comment was added by Foxxinnia (talk • contribs).— Foxxinnia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
outside this topic.

Keep It's a helpful list, and I truly don't see how this list can be brought into question, considering how many "non-notable" lists there are. I voiced my appreciation for this list on the previous talk page. Would the list be more acceptable if it was opened up to all bands/artists with "Lemon" anywhere in the name? AriasSerathe 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— AriasSerathe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete indiscriminate and arbitrary list, with the fuzziest of justifications. From the intro Having "Lemon" at the beginning of a band name is a good way to suggest that the band is some way wacky or that they maybe couldn't think of a name for a while and so strapped two random words together. Either way, any band that begins with the word "lemon" is clearly off-kilter in some way and worth noting.
Wikipedia is not for oddball theories concocted while sitting around the dorm common area at midnight. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have found numerous lists on Wikipedia that have little to no practical usefulness, e.g. -
genghisdani 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

In the previous talk page, DMacks states: "To find new and exciting music, that's completely not the role of WP at all." If that's the case, I fail to see the purpose of such lists as this one or this one. AriasSerathe 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful though, as someone else responded there, that might be a justification for removing this page and then moving on to remove those as well rather than keeping this one. DMacks 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And? If the community decides one way or another, that's fine. Need I remind you that this page is a discussion, not a ballot? Unless this person is a total ass, they should be able to respect that other people may disagree with them. If the deletion of this list is decided upon, I can only hope for consistancy in the deletion of other articles. Jhalkompwdr 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong delete for the obvious reason that this is an indiscriminate collection of otherwise unrelated names. The list has zero encyclopedic content. -- Kicking222 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAFT - emphasis on the "D". Note, BTW, that none of the bands listed begins with the word lemon. Their names all do, mind you... Grutness...wha? 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Genghisdani is correct, this list is no worse than List of three-letter English words. Thank you for pointing this page out to me, it will also be marked for deletion soon. Djma12 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denying internet-goers the ability to access this list would be like denying human beings the right to access a list about bands whose names begin with "lemon" on wikipedia. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 75.177.156.242 (talk) — 75.177.156.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits
outside this topic.

I find it curious that there are so many votes from users who have no other edit other than to vote on this page Djma12 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely arbitrary. --Wafulz 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The only reason to delete seems to be that no one would have thought to create it, and therefor there is no real reason to delete. When in doubt- keep Yoiu17 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the most arbitrary and pointless lists I've seen on the AfD. On another note, I smell sockpuppets... --The Way 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this list. Like many lists, it may not seem relevant at the moment, but soon, it'll be filled with many bands whose names begin with the word "lemon." I know that, if I were to create a band with my fellow musicians, I'd love to be able to see our name in lights someday...or, at least, on Wikipedia. --tasogare51

Comment Can't this be speedied? It's clearly deletable and the sockpuppets are everywhere. --The Way 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was an attempt at speedying it but a stalemate was reached. See the talk page. Nivi 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - If this is kept, it would open the door for lists of bands beginning with any word in the dictionary, since there is nothing notable about bands starting with the word lemon. VegaDark 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt the earth and then create a list of bands beginning with the words salt the earth.
SkierRMH,08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strongest Possible Delete, Screw the Rules I Have Money I am shocked at how many sockpuppets are on standby to keep this crap.
Danny Lilithborne 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This list is a compilation of information, and lists topics which have already been deamed 'noteable' by Wikipedia's rules and regulations. It contains no origional research or biased material (neither of which is even possible in such a simple list) and deleting it would only start a new fad of going after any page of which the topic dosn't nessacarily serve a purpose for all users. Wikipedia should be able to serve the minorities as well as the whole group, as all this information is useful to someone, as has been proved by other equally obscure lists. -- 82.110.220.88 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet more listcruft. A shame it couldn't be speedied. Squeezeweasel 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was actually looking for a band that had lemon in it, the lemonheads. I could not remember what there name was and whup! here's this list. —The preceding
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT. Prolog 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:NOT an indiscriminate etc. etc. Yay, puppetfest! Sandstein 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, of course. Because this page isn't worse than a lot of other ones, as the above mentioned List of three-letter English words and many others. I can't see why there is this policy to remove everything, my opinion is that more pages are better. You find them useless? Don't read them. If even only one person finds this useful, it is worth to stay. 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Keep Expanding from the previous comment A better example of how this article is no worse than any others is list of one letter english words which is a list containg only 3 items and a collection of references that are obviously mentioned extensivly elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list has far better standing as a list and therefore if this has to go, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of notably 'worse' lists to be found on Wiki. --
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Now that I've said it, let me also say this: a list article that has more edit links than entries in the list needs to be rethought even if the subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This is trivia about three levels below acceptability in Wikipedia
since Wikipedia is not an indescriminate repository of information. Delete. B.Wind 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete I noticed this page yesterday, but didn't put it on my watch list because it had already been tagged and couldn't possibly last more than a few minutes. Imagine my surprise to see an AfD for it pop up on the recent changes list. It's just random information that has no real value to offer anyone. --Onorem 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing. How can you claim that this information is not beneficial to anybody, and still maintain the thought that a list of one-, two-, or three-letter English words is? How can you suggest that a list of musicians fitting into certain genres is more notable; that a list of video games beginning with the letter 'F' is more practical and useful than a list of bands containing the word "lemon"? I've already discovered many new bands because of this list; it's rather ignorant to state that nobody benefits from such lists. Now if you'd please quit making such empty claims and instead come up with actual support for your argument, perhaps a decision could finally be reached. And to the rest of you, quit shouting "sockpuppetry!" like mindless peons. It doesn't make you look intelligent or clever; just pretentious and clueless. Just because there are multiple people speaking out about an issue that YOU find to be "daft" doesn't mean that they're all the same person.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
As stated before, the articles on 3 and 1 letter english words are also being tagged for deletion. Djma12 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever stated that a list of 3 letter English words is useful...although some boggle and/or scrabble players may disagree. If you honestly believe that a list by genre is the same as a list of bands that start with "lemon.", I really have no desire to try to reason with you. By the way, people wouldn't be crying sockpuppetry if there wasn't so much blatant sockpuppetry here. --Onorem 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I seriously doubt that the admin who will close this AfD would appreciate the personal attacks by
keep it civil! B.Wind 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It didn't seem to me as though AriasSerathe (who had some very good points) was attacking anyone. Arias was merely stating that the continual calling of "sockpuppets!" was getting repetitive, as it had already been stated many times before. Arias was not attacking the people, only the people's actions. - Mewtation 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As lots of comments above, completely indiscriminate list of information. One of the worst examples of list articles (and I hate list articles!) I've seen. One of the entries (The Lemonheads) doesn't even start with the word "Lemon". - fchd 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, "The Lemonheads" DOES start with the word Lemon. Words like "the" and "a" are removed from the beginning of a title when it comes to classifications. Let me guess, you look in the T section of an encyclopedia when looking for "The U.S. Civil War", or the T section of a rental store for "The Legend of Zelda"? 72.201.77.164 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no it doesn't. It begins with the word "Lemonheads". The band is not called The Lemon Heads. It's like saying that The Mothers Of Invention start with the word "Moth". Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Satori Son 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kill it with fire. Corporal 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes Baby Jesus cry. I find it humorous that this debate is even occuring. --Guess Who 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, as a devout Catholic, am strongly offended by this blasphemous comment. --
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
I'm a devout Christian, and I found the statement likely. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Not encyclopedic, and not even necessary, since search engines exist, and anyone who wants this information --or any similar information--can easily get it. I do not know the basis for the energy being expended.DGG 06:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is essentially useless given that several unsourced bands with no wikipedia articles are also included in the list (they link to blank pages). These are bands whose
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Eqdoktor 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
yes it is —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 68.184.14.73 (talk
)
an indiscriminate collection of information i mean --68.184.14.73 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we trust an anonymous user over a Wikipedia policy page because?
Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

You win. Obviously I only created the article to see what would happen. I'm surpristed it has lasted as long as it has. Delete it now if you want to. I do, however, hope that it takes down many of the other stupid lists that plague Wikipedia with it. Jhalkompwdr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete post haste. This. is. stupid. Almost nil encyclopedic content. Also not something an average person would probably search for. Ever. Maybe if the list had over a hundred entries, but it doesn't, so delete. 'Nuff said. - t3h real adam d. 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree the page is, in its current state, somewhat silly, I question then why the word
List of Pink Floyd trivia which is band specific, and there's the List of literary characters with nine fingers. I'm curious what line differs this from them. --Metal Man88 10:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The Next list is helpful, in the case that someone is looking for NeXT the computer company and doesn't know how it's spelled, or N. EX. T the korean rock band. That page serves to help guide people who do ambiguous searches. The List of Topics is helpful in obviously finding articles related to a subject. However, the list of bands with date references could and probably should be deleted, and the Pink Floyd trivia page should probably be merged with the Pink Floyd entry. - t3h real adam d. 18:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon. Lemon lemon lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon... lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon ! --Xkeeper 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: DELETE)[reply]

Delete stupid. bogdan 10:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) 68.184.14.73 11:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition accepted per bogdan. -
· 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Eqdoktor and others, and
WP:NOT, Delta Tango • Talk 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If this AfD fails then we've truly opened the gates to the orchard. Orpheus 11:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what next, bands beginning with 'The'?--Sandy Scott 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With Extreme and Violent Prejudice, For Hell's Sake Do I even have to justify this vote? How about this: let's extrapolate. If one were to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'lemon,' " one would obviously also have to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'orange,' " and the word "apple," and so on. Then, one could argue that vegetables should also be allowed - then all plants. ("List of bands beginning with the word cedar"). Then someone would argue for lists of bands starting with any living thing, and then of course, inevitably, some industrious individual argues for inclusion of all "Lists of bands beginning with the word X." What with the vast number of words in the MC♠ 11:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh my gosh what the heck delete - per all of above. The obvious sockpuppetry for such a quick article is horribly puzzling. Is this listed on a website somewhere? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:29, 18 December 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 was delete. -
Mailer Diablo 13:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Windows 3.15

Windows 3.15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Totally unsourced, basically nothing on Internet search engines about this, and frankly, it's news to me; I work on Microsoft Windows articles extensively, so surely I'd have heard of it by now.
Warren 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Contradicts sources stating that Windows 3.15 was a Japanese version of Windows 3.11.
Themodernizer 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
no original research --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom -
SkierRMH,08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Most likely a hoax
FirefoxMan 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Abstain I'd like to know if this is real or not. Maybe some research is due. I asked the article's creator but they didn't answer. Anomo 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the article's talk page. Uncle G 19:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links are dead. Anomo 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Still planning to abstain?
Warren 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Original research. —
ShadowHalo 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The article cites no sources. The URLs given on the article's talk page no longer work, but the pages are currently still cached by Google Web. Pulling them up, it is clear that the articles linked to are actually talking about Windows 3.1J, and that the substitution of "5" for "J" is a transcription error of some kind. None of the sources support the content of this article.
Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as hoax. Windows 3.15 was a Japanese version of Windows 3.11, a fact not even mentioned in passing in this article. Neil916 (Talk) 18:44, 14 December 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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Broughton

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

Second nomination, malformed Afd, reason given by nominator when also prodding the article was "Violation of policy for biographies of living persons, previously deleted, not notable". I'm just trying to help so I can delete that old deletion discussion from back in March on this page, so I abstain Dina 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reread, what I said was a bit confusing so to clarify: The orginal nominator prod-tagged the article and then transcluded a nomination onto the Afd page (I think s/he thought this would result in an Afd discussion). It should have resulted in a redlink, but since this article has been nominated before, instead it resulted in a repost of the first Afd discussion for this article, closed as a delete (?) back in March. I didn't want to delete the old nom without properly completing what I believe was the editor's original intention. Cheers. Dina 02:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. The article was originally deleted in March 2005, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Broughton. 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) John Broughton (not a relative as far as I know)

If it was Afded and delete was the result why are we doing it again? Nothing new here. An Afd should also be completed on the other non notable organizations created by this activist through sockpuppets. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Leave this article please. Anyone who's run a major and historical organization such as Airspace, and run for office twice as a candidate for a major political party, has grounds for remaining on Wikipedia. Yes the article is not that well written, and some of it is pretty minor stuff in the greater scheme of things, but it's of interest to many. It could use more supportive links but not all history is out there on the Internet to link to. The Airspace and UBC issue is well known in the Vancouver media, getting at it unfortunatly means paid accounts. --RoxMorgan 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also-ran candidates are not notable. Airspace and UBC are both relatively nn local groups, ergo connection with them would not garner notariety.
SkierRMH,08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Mr. Broughton is quite well-known in regards to tobacco issues in BC, and Canada. In addition, BC is about to gain international prominence in this field, as its groundbreaking lawsuit against tobacco companies has passed all legal obstacles save a possible Supreme Court challenge, and will soon go to trial. See, http://www.tobacco.org/news/232105.html 21:10, 13 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.225.96 (talk • contribs)

Keep: With some of the other stuff I've seen on Wikipedia, I think one of the issues here is if Wikipedia will be a relevant and useful resource at the provincial and state level. Obviously, the action being taken by governments against tobacco companies, and the players in that issue are of value, as it is of value to note the thinkers and notables on urban transporation and other issues. It seems to me that this kind of approach is one of the key benefits of a web-based encyclopedia. Jaimie McEvoy, writer and historian. 205.250.151.188 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (I am the original nominator) The non-notability of his political activities was established the last time this page was deleted. The non-notability of his activism is established by the fact that there is no independent information on him anywhere that I can find, only articles written by him and published (mainly) on his own page. The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject (
Alexwoods 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Bob was the president of Airspace during the period when the conflict between tobacco and the health lobby was the hottest (smoke-free areas, tobacco sponsorships, cigarette sales to children, etc.). He did an excellent job of keeping the heat on, constantly in the media presenting the pro-health/anti-tobacco viewpoint. 24.83.93.246 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not Notable, only 36 ghits for this specific person, and many are wikipedia mirrors. Not notable by any wikipedia standard. Please note that sending people to wikipedia to vote will not save an article. Generally, editors with less than 100 or so edits are evidence of astroturfing a vote. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD G4, reposted content that was deleted as a result of an articles for deletion discussion.--blue520 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AFD only talked about being a candidate; so I'll go out on a limb and
GRBerry 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep:
wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for Dec. 12. He has presented no evidence whatsoever to support his libelous NDP pedophile accusation. Prescottbush 16:47, 16 December 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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths

View AfD
)

This is the second nomination, but virtually all keep opinions in the
talk/_contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - "It's a hard article to maintain" is no argument for deletion; if that was the case, George W. Bush would be a goner, too. Also, the deletion arguments for this article are backed by "I don't like it" arguments, which are pretty lame, too. And when you get down to it, what else is there to support the existence of any article except "I like it" - although stated as "it's important" to imply that this judgment is objective. - DavidWBrooks 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, I never said anything about the difficulty of its maintenance. Please consider my argument, which is that the list is theoretically unverifiable. This is a direct appeal to Wikipedia policy (unlike yet another "I like it" argument).
talk/_contribs) 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Mortality statistics are available and from those I think you can determine whether a death is unusual. Granted the most unusual deaths are likely caused by rare diseases like progeria, but still I think it's doable.--T. Anthony 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what mortality rate is to be set for a particular circumstance of death? Is it 5% of all deaths (millions to add to the list)? 1% (still millions)? .01% (we might be getting to hundreds of thousands at this point...for each circumstance)? Even if there are such accessible figures, there is no way to set a non-arbitrary standard based on them.

Secondly, statistics exist on cause of death, not "circumstances concurrent with or immediately preceding the death." For example, Pope John XXI's cause of death is getting crushed by debris (or maybe it was just asphyxiation). He shares this fate with millions. What is "unusual," I'm assuming, is that he's a pope and it happened in scientific laboratory. Ergo, he's on the list. But such conjunctions of circumstances can make anyone's death unusual: so and so's great grandfather was the only white, male, left-handed American citizen who died in the state of Texas on a Thursday afternoon by drowning in a body of water containing more than 38ppb of benzene. Grandpa now has instant parity with the Pope.

Finally, if one might then say that only notable people should be included on the list, then this doesn't help much. Like with the pope and non-notable grandfather examples, it merely takes sufficiently bold research to include every dead, notable person by virtue of conjuncting enough circumstances roughly concurrent with his or her death to make it also unique.
talk/_contribs) 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
From 1959 to 2003 there was 3696 lightening deaths in the United States.[68] This is 84 per annum, which would make it at maximum 1 in 15,000 deaths. The rates internationally might actually be lower than that due to the US having more storms than many nations. Anyway I think situations that rare or rarer can be dealt with on a list of notable people without becoming too large. Objecting to individual cases on the list doesn't say much about the list itself or whether a death can be rare/unusual.--T. Anthony 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's no way to set some objective standard where an algorithm decides what goes on this list; it will have subjectivity and concerns about POV. But the same thing is true for everything in wikipedia (does this Pokemon deserve an article? this high school? this band?) but we seem to muddle through. -DavidWBrooks 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable; I feel the threshhold for an article like this is that it should be exhaustible and that it shouldn't be too long. This seems to fail that. Furthermore, its inherently POV and likely has OR problems as well. What is 'unusual' to one person may not seem so to another. One may try to counter this by defining unusual as being "not many people have died this way" but surely there are countless numbers of ways in which only one or two people in all of history have died. There is no real way to have concrete criteria that avoid POV and OR issues. --The Way 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and The Way. Amusing and/or tragic as many of these deaths are, it's unencyclopedic to link them in such a way. A large number of these deaths only become "unusual" because they happen to have befallen a prominent person or because they occurred in an unexpected manner (there's an American President listed who died of indigestion, which was probably a common enough way to die at the time, but presumably his death is "unusual" because he died of it or because it's not something that we tend to die from or whatever), which opens up more cans of worms than can be gainfully dealt with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to List of notable deaths. Agree with nominator that "unusual" implies this is inherently POV. However, this information is encyclopedic and should be kept. "Notable" leaves less room for POV as there are wikipedia policies defining what notable means, including requiring things like third party sources, which all entries on this list should have. VegaDark 10:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that really helps either. People are notable - and many of the people in this list are patently so - but their deaths are not necessarily. As I read it, "notable deaths" would only cover the small sub-group of people on this list who are not notable for any reason but the fact that they died in a possibly unusual manner (the pizza deliveryman with the timebomb and so on). The majority of this list is more along the lines of "List of the manners of death of notable people", since the actual fact that Pope John XXI was crushed to death (for example) only becomes notable when it was Pope John XXI being crushed to death and not anyone else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's verifiable, interesting information. Isn't judging 'notability' also a POV judgment? Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection to keeping this, is the uncertaintly of the unusual criterion. Would innovative suicides and murders qualify ? Where is the cut-off point ? -- Simon Cursitor 12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are rare enough forms of murder or suicide I'd say yes. Well unless they are just slightly different variants on a common form. (Like say using a hard to find sleeping pill to commit suicide or being shot with a gun that had Hello Kitty stickers on it) And there are things on here that truly are rare "freak" forms of death. Check Ray Chapman, Sherwood Anderson, Georgi Markov, Keith Relf, Vic Morrow, Joseph W. Burrus, Brian Wells, or Timothy Treadwell. Then tell me which of those is not a rare/unusual way to die. I think this list is full of invalid examples, but a valid list can be formed from it.--T. Anthony 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are. Or all of them are, depending on how conjunction-happy you want to get. Ray Chapman died of a crushed skull. Millions and millions have died of this. But wait, he died of a crushed skull–crushed by a baseball! We've narrowed it down to (say) hundreds, and he's, perhaps, the only notable person to die of a crushed skull, crushed by a baseball (though I'm going to go ahead and doubt this, too).
talk/_contribs) 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You're either being stubborn, snarky, or literal to the point of absurdity. You really think all skull wounds are the same, none more unusual than the other? Are you making that evaluation as a doctor? Still if I buy the premise how weird is that? People who die in outer space just die of asphyxiation, people who get eaten by bears "really" just die of blood loss, etc. But didn't strike you what these people actually died of rather than just "the only thing I want to pay attention to to make my point."--~~T. Anthony 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Baseball related deaths are generally children. From 1973 to 1995 88 such deaths were reported.[69] Although tragic this is still less than 4 per year and I've never seen any evidence that it's more common in adults. Children's bodies are often more fragile, but even then 38 of the deaths were apparently from being hit in the chest. This was the single greatest baseball-related fatality cause. Therefore baseball related death is unusual.--T. Anthony 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to warn you against making further
talk/_contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I was a bit confused by your response, but I tried not to attack you as a person. Criticizing an attitude of one message isn't criticizing you as a whole as you are apparently a very bright person. I tried to limit my disagreement to that. Still it did come across meaner than I like so I'll strike out the first post.--T. Anthony 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now as to the issue itself I don't feel I was being arbitrary. The lowest accidental death rate I find is the Bahamas with 17.9 per 100,000 people. Using the "1 per 2000" notion in rare disease an accident that kills less than 17.9 per 200,000,000 per annum I think could be rare. This translates to kinds of accidents that kill less than 537 people per year. A similar method can be done with suicide and homicide.--T. Anthony 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but focus more on the uniqueness of the occurrences: a fatal beaning in a major league baseball game; falling off a horse and impaling the head on a nail; a heart attack in the middle of the field in the midst of a National Football League game; execution by having molten gold poured down the throat; a U.S. President dying as a result of medical malpractice (although it wasn't considered as such at the time)... B.Wind 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, these are examples of allegedly unusual deaths, not a method to determine whether one is. Not one person voting keep and no one editing the article has been able to provide a method. No one has even given an arbitrary standard, which would at least be a start. The reason for this is simple: there's no possible way. When people use the term, what they really mean is that they find a death and the circumstances surrounding it interesting. So, technically, the article title should be "
talk/_contribs) 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't need to be "alleged." Some forms of death truly are rare and this can be statistically determined. I think doing so is more work then anyone on the list is willing to do, but it's not in itself impossible. For example we have an article called Rare disease. The term is not POV, it is an actual medical term. I think by the same standard a "rare accident" could be one that effects less than 1 in 2000 accident victims. Perhaps this would be better as List of people who died of rare diseases and rare accidents, still I don't understand your insistence here. That said I apologize again for being overheated yesterday. I was confused by your response, but I was out of line if I hurt you.--T. Anthony 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a death caused by medical malpractice (to take one example) even "unusual" or "interesting"? The sad truth of the matter is that there are more deaths caused this way than I think anyone would want to contemplate. Indeed, not too far north of where I live, there's a particular doctor who's accused of causing a phenomenal number of deaths in this manner. The only "unusual" or "interesting" aspect of a President dying that way is that (much like our crushed Pope), it was a President who died that way and not some average Joe. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I stated the uniqueness of the occurrence. Unique means one of a kind. There was only one President who died as a result of medical malpractice, only one major league baseball player who died of a beaning in a major league game, only one known instance of a person being executed by having molten gold poured down his throat, only one person in recorded history to having been adjudged in a coroner's inquest has having laughed himself to death. The actual definition of uniqueness is strictly NPOV: there is only one instance of it occurring under those circumstances. Most on the current list would not fit that criterion and would have to be weeded out, but at least there is an objective criterion with a standard definition. B.Wind 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one president to die from cancer (
talk/_contribs) 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
First are you certain there is only one President in the entire history of the world to die from cancer? Did you check
President of the French Republic, President of Mexico, and President of the Philippines to name a few? Second the President thing was only one example. Do you know of other Major League baseball players, in any nation that has a Major League, who died of a beaning? Can you name anyone else at all killed by a baseball strike to the head? (Or from molten gold or poisoned umbrellas or whatever) I hope this does not seem mean, it's simply what I feel are valid questions.--T. Anthony 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Then they're the only Presidents of the United States to die from these things (though there's a reasonable chance that Grant is the only president of any nation to die of throat cancer). If we're limiting by profession (e.g., professional baseball player), then this should be admissible. The slippery slope follows thus.
talk/_contribs) 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Very well. Do you know of any other notable person in any profession to die of a baseball hit to the head? (Or molten gold or poisoned umbrellas)--T. Anthony 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know of only one person to die of having molten gold poured down his throat, but there have been other people who died of having other hot liquids pour down their throats. Considering as relevant the composition of the liquid pour down one's throat is an arbitrary choice made in order to reach a desired conclusion, much like first considering profession to be relevant and then considering it to be irrelevant. Continue to
talk/_contribs) 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't agree it's arbitrary. In mortality statistics deaths by botulism are treated differently than deaths by tetanus even though both involve infections from bacteria in the genus clostridium. The effects of the bacteria are quite different as is treatment. Likewise the effects of molten gold on the body would be different than other liquids due to differences in melting point, composition, etc. Still I think we're never going to reach common ground here so I hope you have a good weekend and again I apologize if I insulted you earlier.--T. Anthony 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Explain how unusual is strictly POV. It can be used objectively, since unusual states these deaths do not normally occur. The list is maintainable, since unusual deaths, by nature of being unusual are not happening in such a large number (especially in terms of actually being notable) that it is impossible to keep up. Now to answer some concerns that anyone's death can be made unusual - that is just absurd. The circumstances you listed, drowning in a lake (we're assuming your great grandfather wasn't doing anything incredibly strange) is not unusual. Even with the modifiers you presented, it doesn't become unusual. The modifiers don't change the fact he died in a usual manner. Just because there isn't a strict set of standards doesn't make it POV, it just means any strict set of standards would fail the article. For instance, look at the listing for David Bailey. Is that not unusual. Could you, under any circumstances, claim that dying by having a rat urinating on someone not be unusual. Not hypothetically. In reality, can you claim that, and if you were, could you explain how that is usual. Many of these deaths are notable enough to be passed down through history or be reported by news, so clearly, the list has a lot of merit. --THollan 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the question becomes at which point we say that a given death is "unusual". In Bailey's case, I'm no medical specialist, but we'd need to see just how common an infection of leptospirosis is (let alone one which turns fatal). The article on that condition implies that vets have been known to get it, but actually digging up some statistics would be the key. Is an unusual cause of death something which only 5 people have been the victim of, or is the number more like 100 or more? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leptospirosis deaths seem to be not that rare in parts of the Third World. Checking the modern world I find Hawaii seven people have died of it in the past decade.[70] That'd be about 1 in 10,000 deaths in Hawaii I think. I couldn't find the rate for the US as a whole. Make of all this what you will.--T. Anthony 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, I see he was Irish. In the Republic of Ireland 175 confirmed cases occurred in the period from 1986 to 1996. Death rates were not listed and actual figures of cases might be four times that number. If true this means 70 cases per year in that period.[71] Mortality rate is 25%, according to sources I found, so we could estimate 17-18 per year. That's assuming rates have stayed constant since then and they may not have. Again interpret that as you will.--T. Anthony 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the specific cause of death may not be unusual, but the circumstances (i.e., the rat urinating on him being what caused his death), would be what makes it unusual. To me, the biggest problem with trying to come up with a set standard for what is a usual death and what is an unusual death is that it would be automatically fail the purposes of what it is trying to validate. It also ignores the fact that it is either the cause of death, or the circumstances leading to death that make it unusual. You can't say that many people are dying from nose bleeds. If that was the case, we'd be dropping like flies. --THollan 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep entertaining, though the documentation is variable. Why should I deprive others of what I enjoyed myself? I know some more good ones to add as well.DGG 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With great regret, because it's a wonderfully entertaining article, I have to go with Delete, because no clear methodology is provided for specifying what this article should contain. I find the contents of the article to be notable ( virtually by definition ) and verifiable ( links to the appropriate articles ). But unless there is a clear methodology for determining what goes into this article, it is POV. That different people's POVs may prevail at different times does not address this problem. Show me a way to make this article NPOV, and I'll change my opinion, but for now I don't think it should stay. WMMartin 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst looking for something else I found the
List_of_important_operas. This seems to me to be equally POV, but in a recent discussion the consensus was not to delete. I wonder if we can come up with a good way to address the general issue of "lists of interesting, important or unusual things"... WMMartin 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
comment In some cases, there are standard brief reference sources, and one with an appropriately concise coverage can be chosen, & an article can be limited to the ones in there--or to some selection thereof, or to at least all the ones in there plus what one can justify. To use such a list as a limiting source is almost certainly fair use, just the information is being used --to reproduce the list unchanged is almost certainly not. There may be lists of things according to ratings: It may be necessary to stop an an arbitrary number. This also applied to the general use of list of notable Xs. For odd things, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has some--although there is no documentation in Brewer whatsoever, so it does not make a good source for content, it can serve as a list of things to include. The early eds. are public domain. Similarly with standard almanacs, and the like. A limit to works mentioned in (whatever) is anothr way to do it. The choice of the place to take the listing from can be debated, on the article talk page, and thankfully not here. DGG 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - absolutely cannot believe that this is being listed for deletion. It's factual, verifiable information. Please stop AFD abuse. Trollderella 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this article may be hard to maintain and prone to squabbling, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Verkhovensky 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria that Dstanfor has added into the lede - that the cause of death must be mentioned in the person's wikipedia article, or be the subject of an article itself - is, I think, an excellent filter that should go a long way toward addressing legitimate concerns about arbitrariness. - DavidWBrooks 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great article, should be kept, no further comments. Effer 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is entirely subjective. Because one person finds death by cholera (Tchaicovsky) unusual, it does not mean it should be posted here. Eddie Willers 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abuse of VfD; it survived one, and because an individual was unhappy with those results, we now have to endure another?Mistergrind 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original AfD took place in May. This would be abuse of process if the original one had taken place a few days ago, but 7 months is a legitimate length of time to wait, particularly given (as the nominator has mentioned) that the original AfD involved a series of invalid arguments. Just because an article survives AfD at one point doesn't mean that, some time later, it can't be renominated and even deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- it could be handy someday. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it, in some unusual, although utterly subjective, way--Sandy Scott 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - people forget that "unusual" is a workable criterion for matters such as dying. If more subjective than others, the list is not as subjective as to validate its deletion. Dahn 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehement keep - I admit, I like it. It's entertaining. Furthermore, while of necessity not based on as strict criteria as other articles, the deaths listed here are generally sourced and generally unusual to the general reader. For me, that's a good enough reason to keep it. Plus, I might point out that the list has undergone extensive pruning in the past few weeks, so there are people who actively maintain it and prevent it from spinning out of control. Biruitorul 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been trying to edit this list for a week or two now. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think we'll be able to iron down clear criteria for adding something to the list or not. It's too soft an idea that you can't really put a clear line on what belongs and what doesn't. If some of the people voting keep can go to the lists' talk page and help iron out criteria, I'd say keep. But with it's current status, I'll have to say delete. Dstanfor 15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what can you define as 'unusual'? It's unencyclopedic, and would be difficult to maintain. --///Jrothwell ^(talk)/// 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked. Unusual is usually defined by frequency of occurance. It's pretty easy to set that objectively say, by using the 1/10,000 figure as a cutoff. Trollderella 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the above discussion. Aside from the problem of arbitrarily choosing a cutoff point (note that 1/10,000 will include every lightning death in the history of the human species), there is the issue of what counts as a relevant circumstance to the death, which are chosen or not chosen depending on how interesting they make the description of a death sound. All of this is
talk/_contribs) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't really understand how it is original research and not just making an editorial decision. From what I gather, original research is me publishing my own findings on Wikipedia, so let's just say - percentage of people who die when they suffer a nosebleed. Edit - Also, just because there is some subjectivity to the matter doesn't mean it is not suitable for Wikipedia. For instance, a debate on notability, you have are making a subjective opinion at the end of the day. The point is, the list isn't subjective. Unusual isn't the same as strange. We could safely say it would be unusual for my speakers to burst into flames while playing music at a low level. --THollan 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
depends on what you're doing for criteria for inclusion. if you use the statistical method suggested, to prevent original research, someone's going to have to find a source listing unusual death percentages. If they have to find many sources and combine them into one article, that's seems like original research to me.
Then virtually all articles are OR as they may require "finding many sources and combining them in an article." Still possibly a different compromise could be done. In the media "unusual death" is a reported term. So I suppose we could say "List of deaths deemed unusual by the media" as our opinion of what's unusual would not be taken into account. (This seems unnecessary to me, but I'll put it out there)--T. Anthony 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly, IMHO. There's no algorithm that will determine what goes in and what doesn't in some "objective" manner; the consensus of people who work on this article is the best we can do. If that doesn't seem to be good enough, then people should vote to delete. - DavidWBrooks 11:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep: Information can be entertainment, it is the only reason I am here - I am also more informed after reading this. I understand that this is a fuzzy set, but the entry tends towards the comprehensive.

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_12&oldid=1081094635"~~