Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -

Adamah

Other than the translation, everything else is unverified or original research Avi 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All other statements lack good references-- lack ANY references. Agree that this looks like original research. Also, what little is present doesn't make very much sense, and may be nothing but a personal spiritual agenda from someone who has an ax to grind about obscure religious questions.OfficeGirl 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Adam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adds nothing to the Adam article. --Dweller 08:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dictionary or OR Arnoutf 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as OR. Beit Or 20:03, 23 October 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. MCB 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and

• Delete Keep but move to Wiktionary. As a person who travels to many foreign countries, I find this to be an extremely useful list. The only problem is, I wouldn't have been able to find the article in a search for its unwieldy title. -
  Amatulic 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The nom has said it has already been transwikied. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, you're right. I have struck out my initial comment accordingly. -
      Amatulic 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete per nom. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words -Elmer Clark 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the most encyclopedic and useful pages in the project, always ready to be added to with more helpful information for travellers. I will be sorry to see it go, since I really don't spend any time at transwikt. or whatever it is.
  ውይይት) 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm sorry, but liking an article does not make it encyclopedic,a nd certainly not "one of the most encyclopedic". Please provide an argument. That "transwikt. or whatever it is" (did you even click the link to Wiktionary?) is our dictionary sister project. It is for words and lists of words and their definitions. Wikipedia is not.
    t 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Am I required to "provide an argument" that meets your satisfaction? Isn't my vote going to be counted anyway, and can I do without the hectoring for voting the way I did? Are you trying to get my vote disqualified on some specious grounds, or are you just trying to intimidate future voters who might not want to be raked over the coals for speaking their honest opinion?
      ውይይት) 03:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

AfD is not a vote but a discussion. Of course you do not have to justify your opinions, but they will be given much more weight by the closing admin if you do. It's not a simple headcount. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... one of those deals where "some" people "count" more than others... Actually, I'm kind of sorry I got involved...

ውይይት) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A crude way to phrase it, but sure. "I like it" does not trump policy, which

WP:WINAD is. At any rate, the article is not actually being deleted, simply removed from Wikipedia as it has already been moved to Wictionary. Resolute 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No one counts more than others. In fact, no one counts at all. Only sound reasoning counts. This is why I asked for an argument.

t 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, how about because only a tiny fraction of as many people are going to bother keeping up with it, or ever even see it, at its "new" location? This is the kind of policy that can be ramrodded by a small number of people with an agenda, that just sickens me about wikipedia.

ውይይት) 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in spite of (or maybe because of?) vocal support above.
  Danny Lilithborne 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sounds like "spite" was more like the right word...
    ውይይት) 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nomination.Umlautbob 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete especially since it's already at Wiktionary.
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, also it does have a ridiculous title, probably making it very hard to find if you were looking for it. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination since this has already been transwiki'd. Beyond that, the title is misleading as many of these terms may be applied to foreigners, but don't actually mean "outsider, foreigner, or 'not one of us'" literally.--Isotope23 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thi is the reason for cleanup, not for deletion. A "title" may easily become misleading, if someone adds a buhcn of nonsense. But the solution is deleting the nonsense, not the whole article. Mukadderat 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep because the transwikied version has many red links, and therefore the whole thing has NOT been transwikied. That probably means that since most of the words in the list have articles on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, this article also belongs in the Wikipedia.--Endroit 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeletePeople are never going to search for this title in an encyclopedia.Merkinsmum 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Useful, informative. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin: if the article be deleted (seems like) please make a good name for a category and place all list items into this category, because this classification is useful. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Seeing side-by-side terms from different cultures is helpful. I don't quite understand how wiktionary would handle the article. Keeping it "as is" is not a dictionary way. Splitting into zillion word articles loses the cohesiveness of the info. `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is very insigtful to see that there is much more defenders of the List of sexual slurs. Tells something about the prevailing mindset of wikieditors... `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 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 --Tone 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of words to denote religious opponents

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and

• Delete Can hardly be any useful. Furthermore, looks like an inaccurate
  original research ("infidel" isn't used just for those who aren't Christians).--Húsönd 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If it is inaccurate, please write comments. Not everything in wikipedia is accurate. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, and it's our job to transform inaccuracies into verifiable content. I see that you corrected the statement "infidels are non-Christians", but still the article is vague and lacking sources. The information contained therein seems more suitable for Wiktionary.--Húsönd 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Husond.
  Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination.Gobawoo 16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mildly interesting to read, but "mildly interesting" doesn't equate to "keep". EVula 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Religion is an impoertant phenomenon. Of course this list is less interesting for an average internet kid than List of sexual slurs, which survived I don't know how many votes for deletion. But this list is useful and has encyclopedic potential. Colleague Dmcevit acted hypocritically. First he moved the article under the name "list of..." and then suggested for deletion. THe article is not a simple alphabetial list; it classifies terms in certain categories. Potentially elements may be commented, i.e., made in a kind of glossary. It is confusing to understand these words in different cultures, and the topic has rights to exist. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't addressed the reson for deletion. Is it not a list of words, with no potential to become more than that? "Useful" does not "equal" (That is quite an insult to all of our other non-encyclopedia sister-projects, Wiktionary included.)
    t 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The only reason for deletion I see is the opinion "has nio encyclopedic pootential" I addressed it by equalliy strong opinion "does have potential". As for insult, funny. I am not saying to delete them from wiktionary. Wiktionary may benefir for some structuring/classification as well. (Although I must note that unlike wikipedia, wiktionary is doomed to be dubious, because (a) it does not provide sources for word defitinions and (b) it seeems has way less eyes. But this is a separate story.) Mukadderat 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, why? The contention is that this is not encyclopedic because it is only a list of words and/or definitions (and not about a class of words), and is thus only appropriate for a dictionary. Could you please address this concern?
        t 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Comment It is very strange for me to point people from chrictian culture (or even possibly christians) to sources that clearly see the encyclopedic nature of this terminology/glossary. For starters I suggest you to look into the"Disparity of Worship" article from Catholic Encyclopedia. I started this article execting it attracts some attention and be expanded. Therefor I myslef did not call it "list of..." But evidently in wikipedia the major interest is sexual slang and barioous bilateral political bickering.

For example, an average person does not really see much difference between terms "heretic/schismatic/infidel/apostate". This article could have been a comparison of attitudes.

It would also be interesting to read why some dictionaries put the words "

• Keep. We have articles on all these terms. This seems a useful way of getting people to those articles. Could certainly be expanded with a longer introduction and more annotation. --JJay 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and Dmcdevit·t's reply to a keep vote. No sources or context to top it off.Arbusto 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary, and it would be hard to keep NPOV with the different connotations. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 27 October 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 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of surfing terms

• Delete Any of these terms notable enough to have articles can be put into Category:Surfing, the rest should not be here at all. -Elmer Clark 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TheRingess 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Elmer Clark.
  Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Johnbrownsbody 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.Gobawoo 16:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EVula 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wipeout per nom. Anomo 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG keep. This is a 100% example of a glossary for a very specific area of expertise, surfing. The nominator, by calling it "slang guide" pushes a wrong POV. This terminology definitions is highly useful for non-experts.
  • I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This quite plainly isn't the sort of thing that needs to be here, and has already been kicked over to the Wiktionary, where it should be. EVula 17:46, 23 October 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

Elephant (wikipedia article)

I agree with

--nkayesmith 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has now been put in

• Strong Keep. A fine and useful article on a topic of some note and weight. It also is funny, although as its main author I am perhaps not qualified to judge that.
  john k 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Since the info is already covered (and I like that, I enjoy reading about that sort of thing) let's let this one go, WP generally strives not to get too self-referencial, for good reasons. Better that the few articles on WP itself get very long than the whole project get too meta Dina 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sorry, it's a great idea, but it has to go. If it's any consolation, it will go on my sanctuary page.--Planetary 01:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I was figuring on moving it back to my user space if the consensus is for delete (which I assume it will be). But some day, we will look back on the couple of days in October 2006 when

  john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Unencyclopedic, self-referential. Not notable or useful in itself Bwithh 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Wikipedia article cannot, in and of itself, be notable enough to warrant yet another article. PKT 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely, even if you disagree that this particular article is such a case, one could envision the possibility that a wikipedia article is in and of itself notable enough to be its own article.

  john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

In all honesty, I can't envision such a circumstance. This isn't the forum for such a discussion, but if you can enlighten me pls. post on my talk page. PKT 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I agree it's funny (nothing wrong with that, see
  Amatulic 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I edited

  john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. This is a toughie, but the self-reference is too self-serving. Better to appear self-effacing and self-regulating, and thus preserve our self-esteem. A note in Stephen Colbert might be appropriate -- or it might not. I think the litmus test has to be: If you asked a regular watcher of Colbert about him, would she include "wikiality" (without you prompting her) as part of his bio? I think not. This article is only of note to us because it is about our encyclopedia. (That's what I meant by "self-serving" above.) --N Shar 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: this AfD is not a question about the content being notable; the incident is already covered in more detail at the appropriate place (

  Piet Delport 15:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete as self-referential nonsense. The Stephen Colbert thing is already mentioned in several other places, all of which are more likely places one would look. Resolute 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PKT. Montco 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole idea of this gives me a headache. Even if the Colbert/Wikipedia/Elephants thing were notable enough to warrant its own article (it's not), this would not be the right way to go about it.
  original research. -Elmer Clark 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What the Hell? Delete this crap now. Why does this even need a nomination? The very three-word title is grounds enough for immediate expulsion.UberCryxic 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Perhaps merge with one of The Colbert Report pages.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You know Wikipedia has spun out of control when there's a Wikipedia article about another Wikipedia article. Seriously, you've GOT to be kidding me. The relevant info should be merged to the article about elephants (i.e. create a section about "History of this article" in "Elephant"). 129.98.197.86 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The material is clearly inappropriate for the

  john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment Perhaps a page in the WP namespace would be appropriate? I agree that the material is important to Wikipedia users, which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for. --N Shar 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is one already: Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants. --N Shar 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Stop wasting our time and SHAME on Colbert for inciting vandalism.
  L0b0t 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep our sense of humor about the whole thing. If Wikipedia ever becomes such a serious enterprise that this article is egregious for its frivolity, then we can all get on our high elephants about it. In the meantime, I found it more pleasurable to read than 99 44/100 % of Wikipedia articles; surely that counts for something? Michael K. Edwards 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Encyclopedia Dramatica Bwithh 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. This article, though somewhat "meta", is at least about things that happened in the real world. It's also a gentle reminder that, not long ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&oldid=248857 was about par for WP in the absence of vandalism and PoV pushers. When the fancruft, vanity pages, and spam are gone, then it will be worth retiring the elephant that we can talk about.

• Strong Delete Wikipedia articles are getting Wikipedia articles these days? Stop it before it spreads. WP:Avoid self reference, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then write an article about the AfD about the article about an article... Opabinia regalis 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pretty much everyone advocating same. The information is better served by being in other articles (including those already cited) than this particular one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, any newsworthy information belongs in the Colbert article (if anywhere}. The Wikipedia "Elephant" article is not notable in itself. NawlinWiki 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. it boggles the mind to think how much time this person spent on something that they had to know would disappear. Maybe they can put it on their own personal website, if there are no copyright issues.OfficeGirl 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" so yeah, they could pop it on another website. Craighennessey 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold text that suggests a vote of deletion. I love metahumor, but this belongs in
  TC 05:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not everything stephen colbert makes a joke about automatically deserves an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete ....seriously? A Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article? No....no, no, no, no. Konman72 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that the quote at the top is from the original prodder,
  User:Piet Delport, not me. I merely posted a prod2 in agreement. That said, I still agree with the sentiment. While I'm a big fan of the Colbert Report (in fact, I'm watching it right now, as I type), the bit in question was a throwaway segment on one episode. Hardly notable, unless you're overly interested in Wikipedia. While I do not automatically object to the idea of Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article, it would have to be in a far, far, FAR more notable context than this. Xtifr _tälk 07:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete per
  ob 07:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. You've got to be kidding me- an article about an article in Wikipedia! Eliminate this article. No self referencing. If you have to, merge this into a page about Wikipedia pranks.
  Sr13 08:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and place in
  BJAODN. Good for a chuckle, but this violates several guidelines as pointed out above. Andrew Levine 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Quick (not Speedy) Delete and Close AfD before it becomes a circus.
  Danny Lilithborne 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It's OK as a joke but if we go down this road the project will become encrusted with this sort of thing. BTLizard 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it so hard Colbert feels it.An article about a Wikipedia article? TIME PARADOX. Save it in some form, though-very funny. Either put it in Bad Jokes or merge it with the Colbert article-not notable enough for its own. Umlautbob 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've been watching this whole charade, and been wondering... what policies does the article not abide by?
  WP:V is definitely satisfied. The only problem I can see is a notability concern. I agree it should probably go, but there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia policy that justifies the deletion. It might be there and I'm missing it, of course. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Self-reference. *drew 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although articles about Wikipedia's notable aspects don't necessarily violate the relevant
  Wikiality but not its own article. (So "non-notable/not encyclopedic/comedy cruft," I guess). TheronJ 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, and I guess if Colbert talks about this article on his show then we'll need an article about this article too? Recury 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, but let's cross the

  john k 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete/
  Piet Delport 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom; pointless self reference & really only exists to cover a one-off Colbert joke.--Isotope23 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Elephant, label it as an essay, and keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with related Colbert article.Gobawoo 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia should not have articles about its own articles, no matter how famous they become. Wikipedia internals have no place in main namespace. JIP | Talk 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What about

  john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I would just like to note that, as others have said, the potential problem with this article is not that it violates
  john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  WP:TRUTHINESS Anomo 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is an unfair accusation. The article is not merely verifiable, it is verified, in that it has footnotes and cites the source for all information provided. It is perfectly truthy.

  john k 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong delete and protect from re-creation, self-referential and
  at 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment you do realize those were mostly joke votes, right? --
    tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The article exists because, back in August, people were trying to get the stuff about Colbert into the article
    john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment If Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) is created, it should obviously say, "The number of Elephant articles on Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months." :) Xtifr _tälk 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Not necessarily, how long have
    tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It seems to me that such a claim would be untrue, and simply a sneaky way of trying to get Mr. Colbert's evil, wikipedia-hating falsitude into wikipedia through the back door. Only verifiable, well-sourced information about elephant articles on wikipedia should be included in this article, not "hilarious" jokes inspired by known wikipedia-hater Stephen Colbert. A true piece of information, I believe, is that the number of elephants editing wikipedia has tripled in the last 6 months, but I'm not sure that comes under the purview of this article.
    john k 10:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as a first choice, or, if this somehow survives AfD, strong merge to relevant articles anyway. I'm usually pro-fancruft, pro-self-reference, but heck, this article pushed me wayyyyyyyyyy past the edge. There's no excuse for this article; its contents have already been covered to adequate detail in other articles, and in
  the Post. I enjoyed reading the Signpost bit, but sure don't think this is notable enough for an article. We simply don't need this; All we need is a reference in Colbert and WP critique/history articles, and whatever self-referential documentation we have done. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The material on the early history of the article is not covered anywhere else. Where else can we learn that in 2001 the article described elephants as a "Large, grayish mammal"?

  john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think most people are voting this be deleted because of the precedant it sets. All other instances of articles about articles are about the incident, not the article itself. As I humourously attempted to point out above, allowing articles of the format

  tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Many people are voting on dubious bases like verifiability. And I don't think that avoid self reference actually deals with this issue - articles that are explicitly about wikipedia subjects are allowed to mention wikipedia. As I've said several times, I think the only clear issue here is notability. It seems to me that, having been discussed in various mainstream media outlets, the wikipedia article on elephants is arguably notable enough to have its own article. Certainly the information about Colbert has been judged to be notable for discussion in other wikipedia articles. This article, then, provides more context on the elephant article which was Mr. Colbert's target, thus allowing people to more fully understand its history before the Colbert incident, for instance. Now, this is arguably ridiculous (clearly everyone else seems to think so, and if I am honest with myself, I suspect that I think so as well), and if we want to have a policy banning wikipedia articles on wikipedia articles, that might be a prudent idea, and this deletion discussion might provide a good precedent for enacting one, but there is, so far as I am aware, no specific rule of that nature at the moment, just the normal notability requirement. As to Uncyclopedia, it sucks. A few days of this article being on actual wikipedia is far more amusing than just about anything on Uncyclopedia, which is almost universally prevented from being funny by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" problem.

  john k 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not questioning whether this article is verifiable or not (it probably is), or if the topic is notable (based on news visibility, it probably is). All I'm contesting is whether we need an article of its own on this topic, and I'm not citing any other criteria in this debate but common sense. My view is that this is mergeable material at best. Not every newsworthy incident is worth a new article. I'm definitely

  WP:BLP policy. That was a major news event that had implications. Elephant case was a minor segment where some random... TV guy or something... tells folks to vandalise Wikipedia and Wikipedia takes normal precautions. In the end of the day, nothing new has happened, except that now we have an injoke. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Fair enough. I had no expectation that this article would survive for very long on its own, and most of my comments here have been more playing the devil's advocate than anything. I'm satisfied that there's a consensus to delete. Would it be acceptable if I move the page back to my user space and then delete the redirect?

  john k 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: prehaps such be renamed/merged to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense:Elephant (Wikipedia article) and added to this category Category:Wikipedia_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense,there are april fools jokes among others mention also there is this Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants --Sirex98 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & #REDIRECT Just had skimmed through the long list of votes and comments earlier, Feel a little embarrassed I didn't notice Piet Delport comment above that it was already in BJAODN :),I have to say the article is funny but this is an encyclopedia, I'm not against humor which why I believe it should be locked & redirected to it's BJAODN entree, for us to keep it is saying that in the future we sanction such articles as being valid, People can still read it, just in another location. It wouldn't be proper as a standalone article. ~~=Sirex98= 12:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already been added

  Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete but giggle I think the sentence "Elephant" is a Wikipedia article about elephants. is deeply funny. I urge the community to keep this somewhere, not in the mainspace of course. But I think it's a refreshing meta-comment. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is so fucking awesome, I can't believe its been on Wikipedia for months. -
  n 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Actually, for less than a day, when you exclude the time spent on

  Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, that's a crying shame. -

  n 02:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It has now been on wikipedia main space for approximately 5 days. After 1 day, a proposed deletion notice was put up. I took that off a day later than that, and somebody almost immediately nominated it for proper deletion. It has been up for deletion for three days now. Wikipedia springs into action fairly quickly on such matters, it would seem.

  john k 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Ahahahahahhahaha! Sorry, delete. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I love the hilarious self-reference, delete.
  WP:POINT at its finest. - Sikon 17:57, 22 October 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 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Spiteri

Delete. There is nothing particularly notable about this person in terms of

• Delete. Vanity article. -
  Amatulic 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I don't see evidence that this person meets
  WP:BIO. --N Shar 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lack of Google hits or claims to the contrary in the article lead me to believe that this guy does not pass the notability criteria for academics. -Elmer Clark 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. A no brainer. 129.98.197.86 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. EVula 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficient evidence of prominence in field.Gobawoo 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Shadow1 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above (suspect of self-bio posting) Arnoutf 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, vanity post. Xdenizen 01:25, 25 October 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. -

Who is the better boxer?

Subject is a single episode of a minor comedy/reality show. Main article Kenny vs. Spenny provides adequate coverage for the series. PKT 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sure I see the point of this article's existence, especially if it's redundant with the other article. -
  Amatulic 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, although this is sort of interesting. No one questions South Park's right to have articles about every episode. Where do we draw the line? If a show is notable enough for an article, are its episodes as well? Is there another, higher, bar a show has to meet for its episodes to be worthy of articles? I doubt there's any written policy here, so I'm going to have to go with my gut, which says that whatever the criterion is, this show doesn't meet it. -Elmer Clark 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actually some of us DO question having so much damn fancruft in the encyclopedia (articles for EVERY South Park and Simpsons episodes) but little fanboys keep making new articles.
  L0b0t 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (copied from KvS episode discussion page) Agreed. To warrant its own page, I think an individual episode of a tv series must have specific cultural meaning (ie. was highly controversial and caused great public debate, contained a significant television "first", etc). This episode was very funny, but not significant in any way. Wolfchild 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No documented notability, in terms of multiple press articles.Gobawoo 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete While I'm generally for episode articles (I loves me some Firefly), the show doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. EVula 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Kenny vs. Spenny main article Arnoutf 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Arbusto 21:27, 22 October 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. -

Yet another article for a Confessions on a Dance Floor album track from Madonna. There are no plans for this to be released as a single, or as an A-side remix, nor is there any music video. The song is not notable enough for its own article; it should at the very least be merged into the album's article. eo 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's nothing to merge, once you remove the unsourced speculation. EVula 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft.
  L0b0t 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As mentioned, if it's not a single, it shouldn't be included as an article. AQu01rius (
  Talk | Websites)  02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:28, 22 October 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 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Milano

No evidence that subject meets

• Delete. No sign of notablity is given in the article. Quite amount of movies, but that's how pornographic actors/actresses are. AQu01rius (
  Talk | Websites)  02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs to be expanded, however she is very notable and passes the Google image test bring over 1000 related images. Only issue is that she lacks a homepage. Valoem ^talk 04:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still fail to see how she meets any of the guidelines. Note this quote from
    Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic_actors)
    :
    • The "Google Test": The adult film industry uses Googlebombing to influence rankings on search engines for current performers' names. As a result, the Google test is not suitable to determine the notability of a performer. This is especially the case for performers whose work antedates the Web. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand it seems Google test is not applied to Pornographic performers, however she does pass an image test which many less notable performers do not pass and has respectable filmography. Valoem ^talk 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm neutral on this one, but please note that
  WP:BIO, which she may or may not meet. -- Necrothesp 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non notable. Un referenced. Is very probably a vanity page. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 13:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough evidence of notability.Gobawoo 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alyssa Milano? Melissa Milano looks like Alyssa and her name sounds close to Alyssa. Anomo 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the relevance of that is ... what exactly? Valrith 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect he was suggesting it could be the same person! -- Necrothesp 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), this is what it is for. Having a lot of images on the web is common for porn stars, and 21 or 34 films is not that much, considering that most take 3 days or under to film, and half will be compilations from previous films. Back when it mattered, the dividing line for notability for modern US mainstream porn stars was 100. Find some articles about her, and she'll meet WP:BIO. Otherwise, follow the IAFD or AFDB links, and you will find not hundreds but thousands of other stars just like her. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 24 October 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. -

Mystic Council

The article is fan-created lore, that does not exist what so ever in the game world, and is presented as if it is in the game. The articles numerous grammar mistakes not withholding.

Originally mistakenly posted by 69.139.67.186 on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mystic Council on October 16th, so reposting it here for him. Derktar 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh and Delete per original research and uncyclopedic content per Talk:Mystic Council, Derktar 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Badly written fanfiction? Oh, there's nowhere else on the Internet to put that. Opabinia regalis 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article belongs in Wikistory, not Wikipedia. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 13:16, 20 October 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 Nominator withdraws nomination given provided verification from Bartleby's. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zig (Judaism)

Unverifiable; relevant Google hits only lead back to Wikipedia. Either very obscure or made-up. For what it's worth, "Zig" is also the name of the spaceship in the the popular meme All your base are belong to us. Either this is an obscure Talmud legend or a hoax. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Google for "zig rooster eclipse talmud" led me here, which seems to indicate that it was in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable as far back as the 1890s. Does that make it notable? Not sure, but it's definitely not a hoax. DS 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep That's good enough for me. However, I'm still trying to figure out how you found that....I tried that Google search again and didn't get the Bartleby hit. (I do get that hit if I remove "rooster" from the search, which never occurred to me). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:49, 20 October 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, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonic Felon

Hoax and total gibberish. Prod added and removed by article's creator (!) after someone added more nonsense. Andrew Levine 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete nonsense / obvious silly hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete swiftly as utter nonsense. --71.141.247.213 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to log in! This is my comment. --N Shar 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete complete nonsense. Opabinia regalis 03:19, 20 October 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 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zegunder

Does not meet

• DELETE- this appears to be a vanity article, more suitable for MySpace than Wikipedia OfficeGirl 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:MUSIC T REX_speak 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. EVula 03:57, 25 October 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. Mangojuice^talk 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripey Zebras

Does not meet

• DELETE This appears to be nothing more than a memorial to a deceased friend. Neither the band nor the deceased lead singer qualify to be included in an encyclopedia. May he rest in peace. OfficeGirl 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Borderline, but the one link suggests that there was a sufficient amount of music media coverage for their time. The Google test is less useful for 80s era bands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree its harder to judge with news articles or google, since by definition the subject matter is no longer current. It appears though that Stripey Zebras was important at the time. Alpharigel 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far from meeting
  WP:MUSIC, and delete Autumn Poison too. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I was a member of Stripey Zebras but didn't create the article (so its certainly not vanity on my part). It was some anonymous contributor, I have no idea who, presumably an old fan, so somebody obviously thought us notable or interesting enough for inclusion in wikipedia. I have however edited the article, mainly cleaning it up gramatically and adding a photo from my own collection. I've also had people get in contact with me who remmeber the Stripey Zebras who I hadn't heard from in over 20 years becaiuse of this article who remember us fondly. My personal take is that although we never sold loads of records, we were an important part of the cassette culture scene and had quite a cult following at the time. We were part of a pre-internet era (early 80s) that would otherwise be undocumented apart from dusty fanzines in peoples attics, and otherwise forgotten. Isn't (part of, at least) the point of wikipedia to keep such history alive and accessable? Besides one can read about 'notable' bands like U2 or Queen anywhere... quercus robur 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, no, although I just noticed that
    WP:MUSIC as long as the article is sourced. And R.I.P. to Bwithh's crab. ~ trialsanderrors 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thats the sort of thing I like to see on wikipedia (Deep Freeze Mice)! As for Sounds and Smash Hits, we did feature in a minor role in both of these publications (in the latter a 'chart of crap band names' I think...), but we were far more featured in various fanzines of the time. I agree that it would be nice to cite sources, but unfortunately I cleared out my rather vast collection of fanzines when 'decluttering' a few years back... Most of them ended up at Dial House so maybe next time I'm there I could have a dig through and find a few references??? quercus robur 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminiscence Ah... Southend-on-Sea... I have so many icky icky memories of the "water" and the "beach". The crab we brought back to live as a pet in our London garden was very much doomed. Sorry, crab. Though you were probably doomed anyway. Bwithh 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on comment above, although I can't judge notability. A couple other articles link to this one, though, so it's probably worth keeping. -
  Amatulic 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete Keep nothing in
  AMG, but the reference to cassette culture is intriguing. If the assertion that they were "important in cassette culture" can be verified in any way, I would consider switching to keep. Ok, I'm willing to be swayed. I'd still prefer better documentation, but I'm willing to give people more time to track some down. Xtifr _tälk 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Week Keep On the border too. Early punk history is difficult to pin (there wasn't alot of scholarly documentation done of this genre at the time). There seems just enough historic evidence of notoriety. And as this band doesn't exist anymore, it's not another band publicity attempt. --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This movement is under represented on Wikipedia anyway. Cassette culture, so much more exciting than file sharing! - Coil00 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:29, 22 October 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. Mangojuice^talk 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Sectes

Non-Notable, book in French language. It does not even have an article in the French Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, let's give this article some time to develop. It's a definitive work on the subject in France, by experts and leaders in their field. Smeelgova 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note:Smeelgova is the creator and primary contributor. Yomangani^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then perhaps Smeelgova will heed the message that the article needs verfiable references and will go get them for us. Can't we assume good faith? That's no reason to negate his or her participation in this discussion.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but it really needs some work. There needs to be some information on how the book has been received by the public, by other experts in the field, other works that have used this book as a reference, etc. OfficeGirl 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above user is editing Wikipedia since Oct 17, 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

counter-comment indeed but I see no evidence that it is a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further counter-comment: the "above user" has spent considerable time reading and becoming familiar with Wikipedia before joining and contributing, is a published author and an attorney (and there will be no Wikipedia articles proposed with me as the subject). Being a new member is not criteria for excluding someone's participation or suggesting that the person's votes and comments should be disregarded.

As you may note from the history, the Kabbala article entitled "The Seven Worlds" was proposed for deletion in June, 2006 and it was kept for the very reasons that I have suggested here, though from aught that appears there was no hope at all for the article. I think there's good hope for the Les Sectes article. In years past I have worked on cases with a skilled exit counselor. In my exposure to the field I learned the marks of a reputable resource, and this one looks legit. There's a very good possibility that this book is indeed a leading resource in the field, depending on how it is actually being used.

And aside from the two articles "

exit counseling" which are duplicative and desperately need to be merged, and the article entitled "cult" which is a cesspool of competing definitions and agendas, there isn't enough cogent information about this rich and active field available on Wikipedia. It's a topic which has affected our society and culture, what with the Jim Jones tragedy, Heaven's Gate, and the controversy that surrounds groups like the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. It's good to have more information like this, and I think the article deserves a chance to be developed. We can always revisit the question of the article again if the requested documentation doesn't turn up soon.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. I can't see any reliable sources to prove this is notable. Yomangani^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since the book has not been translated (as far as I know) it's clear that there is little chance of finding reliable sources in English that discuss the notability of the book. In French, however, you do find some [4] [5] [6] among others. It's also worth noting that the author has some notability in France as the guy to interview when you want an anti-sect sound-clip. Because of this, I would tend to believe that the book barely meets the proposed criteria of
  WP:BK although I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I am however puzzled by the purpose of this article: this book does not have an English translation and is very much about the situation of sects in France so its overall value in the English Wikipedia is pretty low. Furthermore, the translation of chapter titles should be considered as original research. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for now. It has only been created 14 days ago; allow it some time to develop Arnoutf 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Unless valid sources are provided.) Sfacets 06:22, 23 October 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. -

Radisson Hotel Admiral

Notability not established on a "low level" hotel. Metros232 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some claim to notability is added to the article. This doesn't seem to fall under CSD A7, as "an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content," but it should really be a speedy candidate. --N Shar 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  ob 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even notable in its neighbourhood, let alone in Toronto or Canada. --Charlene.fic 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable hotel.Gobawoo 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another hotel in downtown T.O. Non-notable. PKT 19:31, 21 October 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. -

Hectic watermelon

I don't think this band has asserted notability. Previously speedied, author contested on talk page of article so I'm bringing it here to make sure. Great band name, though. NawlinWiki 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hectic Watermelon is a featured band & album on Abstract Logix (see http://www.abstractlogix.com/features_view.php?idno=92 )
Furthermore, the band has also worked with the prominent Jerry Goodman of The Mahavishnu Orchestra.
Before you delete, do some research on Abstract Logix & Jerry Goodman/Mahavishnu Orchesrta. --Pencilbox-production 03:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not appear to meet
  WP:MUSIC. Leuko 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Their debut album "The Great American Road Trip" was also mastered & engineered by John Cuniberti who works mainly on Joe Satriani albums.
--Pencilbox-production 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be nothing but a promo sheet for the band. There are no secondary references used and no references are given for what little is there. This material belongs on a MySpace page. This article is not a Wikipedia article. OfficeGirl 05:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure that a producer connection (e.g.
  WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I withdraw my argument. By request of the band Hectic Watermelon, please remove the Hectic Watermelon page.
--Pencilbox-production 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per db-author. Leuko 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:42, 23 October 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. -

Last Knights

Non-notable online browser game. Fails

• Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anomo 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Combination 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertions of notability, no third-party sources and reads like a poster chil for
  WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Kinslayer 10:31, 23 October 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. -

Loick Pires

Non-notable biography; 6 Google hits Nehwyn 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per A7 of
  WP:CSD. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - hopelessly non-notable. Completely unsourced. Speedy, anyone? MER-C 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Kill it with fire. Umlautbob 10:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Also, no way to tell what country he plays in. Sounds like copied from some publicity blurb which made sense to the original target audience.Gobawoo 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that this article seems the work of a new

single-purpose account that contains the player's family name in the account name. --Nehwyn 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 22 October 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. -

Dragon's Fury

Appears to be the subject of a vast astroturfing campaign. It was written in large part by the author, User:Jeff Head, and created by a user whose only contributions deal with it (User:Killa Dilla) -- just take a look at the history. It read like an advertisement before it was NPOV'd. I don't think it's notable enough to be here, though it's hard to tell because of all the self-promotion and astroturfing on Google. I don't know what the policy is when it comes to something so vigorously promoted by the author, but something tells me this is not notable, especially considering that neither the author nor his publisher have articles, nor do the so-called bestselling authors that wrote the foreword. If someone can prove that this is notable, fine, but it seems like marketing. Andre (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interesting campaign of self-promotion. According to the author's website he is the "best selling" author of Dragons Fury. Yet the series ranks at 765,271 in books at Amazon[7]. It has numerous blog posts and reviews at sites of unknown provenance that read like adverts—there's an online review by none other than the author at some site called allreader[8] (popups). Appears to be heavy self-promotion. Searching Worldcat, no book in the series is in more than 3 libraries, which is very low [9]. The real kicker though is when you Google the publisher, Alpha Connections, and you find that that is the author's name for his web development service from his personal website. Not only does not meet
  WP:BK, but trespasses on multiple grounds listed there as indicia of non-notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No independent non-trivial third-party reviews. The writer is not himself notable. No non-trivial literary awards. Self-published, as noted. Fails
  WP:BK. Also, I point out that all his Amazon, B&N, and Chapters reviews are by "customers" who have never reviewed anything but Jeff Head books. Nice Astroturfing there. --Charlene.fic 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete glad to see people using
  WP:BK! But you have to add to it a very strong vanity concern. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 22 October 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. I did a sloppy job, just a redirect; the old text is in the edit history if someone wants to figure out a better way of merging.

Silas Sterne

Not notable. Guideline at

• Merge Actually, just be bold and do it. No need for an AfD process. Pascal.Tesson 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above Arnoutf 21:37, 20 October 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.

The Day My Bum Went Psycho

Not notable. Although this is a published book (2001), and appears to have a sequel, there is no evidence of notability. No prizes were won, no new literary schools were begun, etc. The guide at

• Keep US Amazon sales ranking is about 15,000 which is pretty good for an Aussie children's book. (The US editions use "butt" instead of "bum".) Seems to have been widely reviewed, especially in Australia. Looks like a well-selling, pretty popular book, whether award-winning or not. Fan-1967 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The authors of these books is Andy Griffiths. His article is not long at all, and any comments about his literary style are appropriate there. Sales rank of 15,000 is very, very good for an Aussie children's book, but that does not convey notability. Compare a sales rank of 10,000 for The Random House Book of Poetry for Children which hasn't gained notability, it is not even mentioned in the article on Jack Prelutsky its editor. Bejnar 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your opinion of the author's literary style or ability is quite irrelevant. (Otherwise, surely we would delete Jacqueline Susann.) Significant sales are, in and of themselves, notable. Fan-1967 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not mention my opinion of his literary style. It is not the relevant consideration. The author's notability is not in question. Bejnar 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've certainly seen it in stores around the UK, with a title like that you tend to notice it around the place. Seems to be selling reasonably. Ben W Bell talk 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the book is (or was, at least, it was published a while ago) very successful in Australia and I'd suggest that the average school library would have a copy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep believe it or not, this book, and the series it is part of, is notable. New York Times Best-seller alone should be enough, maybe you're being fooled by it being a Children's book? FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not suggesting getting rid of the Andy Griffiths article. I do agree that a best-selling children's author deserves a place in the Wikipedia. However, I don't think that every book he writes deserves its own article, or maybe even not any particular book. Read the literature criteria. Bejnar 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd have no real problem with making a single article for the series, but I do think that it's better form to have an article for the books seperate from the author, especially when they have more than one series. Call it a style preference, but it just looks better to me. FrozenPurpleCube 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with just merging this to the author? I see no reason to get rid of it (or a redirect from the title), but where is the advantage of having an article on a children's book apart from the stubby bio of its author? As it seems to be going to be kept, I suggest that the nominator
  boldly makes the merge after the AFD has closed (you could have done so without the AFD). You can keep the categories at the redirected book title, to make sure it is found more easily. up+land 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Successful book from a major publisher, found in just about every general-interest bookstore, library, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That book is pretty successful in Australia, we were told to read it in year 7 at school also I know that the library in the shopping centre near me has at least 2 copies. It did win the Children's Choice Award [10] which is included in the article that it won (but without references).
• Keep for now although I wouldn't oppose a smerge and redirect to Andy Griffiths. According to Griffiths' web page, the book has won several awards - if someone can document those by a reliable source, the page should be fine. TheronJ 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough per Amazon sales ranking. How many copies sold?Gobawoo 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a best selling childrens book in Australia see [11]. A Google News Archive search shows reliable sources see [12]

Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've heard of the book, but didn't know who the author was, which'd suggest the book may have as much notability as the author. Andjam 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Book is extremely well known in Australia.Raffles mk 06:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, highly popular children's book. I even still have a "The Day My Butt Went Psycho" keychain! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Andy Griffiths. Lankiveil 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep. Well-known Australian children's book. Cnwb 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, prize-winning book. Natgoo 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable book for children--
  talk 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- notable book. - Longhair\^talk 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable book in Australia. It was a 2004 bestseller (over 100,000 copies sold in Australia), with sales on par with The Da Vinci Code in that year[13]. Previous versions of the article list some Children's Choice awards the book won, but the current version doesn't. No literary schools founded on the book I'll grant you, but I'm sure this will happen soon - is this really a criterion for notability? --Canley 00:46, 23 October 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. There is significant consensus for this when you count the keeps and merges together, but no clear idea of how exactly it should be merged. But that can be worked out by ordinary discussion, no need to come to a verdict now. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumageddon: The Final Pongflict

This book is not notable. It won no prizes, it started no literary or cultural movement, and apparently even in Australia it is not well-known. Like its predesessor The Day My Bum Went Psycho it is nothing special. Wikipedia is not a fan-space for every book published. Bejnar 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Matlock would not be impressed. Merge per discussion below. Though Matlock is still unimpressed. Fagstein 07:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Why do they bother? BTLizard 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but someone should write something about this book into The Day My Bum Went Psycho, which is up for deletion above. This article is not really suitable to be merged but the book deserves a small writeup on the aforementioned page. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Could be mentioned in article about author.Gobawoo 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into article about the author or the The Day My Bum Went Psycho. Alpharigel 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This book like its predecessors was a best seller in Australia. A Google News Archive search shows that there are reliable sources available about this book see [14] Alternatively, merge with Andy Griffiths or develop a page on his Bum series which was a trilogy consisting of this, The Day My Bum Went Psycho and Zombie Bums From Uranus. [15] Capitalistroadster 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge) sufficient news coverage and sales to be notable. I hope that the use of scatology, or the target age of the audience, hasn't influenced people's opinions on notability. Andjam 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is noone in Australia who hasn't heard of these books. Raffles mk 06:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, except me, obviously. Lankiveil 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • How?? This series of books has been heavily promoted in pretty much every bookshop in Australia for decades. Now that TDMBWP has been kept, perhaps
    WP:POKEMON applies. Raffles mk 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep, well known sequel to two highly known children's books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, book is not notable enough to have it's own article, but maybe some of this material could be added to an article on the author. Lankiveil 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, don't merge. This book is not notable enough to keep (unlike) The Day My Bum Went Psycho. And frankly, there's nothing there to merge. Worth a redirect to The Day My Bum Went Psycho or to Andy Griffiths. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep debuted at #9 on the New York Times bestseller list (as Butt Wars: The Final Conflict), shortlisted for the Australia Children's Choice awards (which haven't been presented yet). I think this is notable enough on its own, but would not object to a merged article on Griffith's "Bum Trilogy". --Canley 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Mukadderat 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's a notable book. Maybe merge it, but don't delete. - Lex 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - as per Canley.
  JROBBO 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge merge article into one on Griffith's "Bum Trilogy", per Canley Bejnar 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to article on trilogy. For those Australians who haven't heard of the book, I think they need to look at their own demographic profile. Have you heard of any children's books (other than Harry Potter) - is it because you have little to do with children? If you are over 12 or have no children yourself, please check with some (Australian) friends or relatives who are or have children before commenting on Australian children's literature topics or perhaps qualify your response. More or less on the same line as 'i've never heard of this', from computer geeks on the other side of the world isn't a good criteria for deletion at AfD for Louise Crisp [16] The "I never heard of this" argument needs to be tested against, are you in a position to comment, with respect nationality would probably not be enough. For people on the other side of the world, on what basis are you commenting, what research did you do?--
  talk 21:36, 29 October 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. If there is anything salvageable here, I couldn't pick it out. Of course a well-sourced criticism section could be added to

Criticism of MLB on FOX

This article is a complete mess of POV,

• Weak keep Well, it has a lot of sources, which is good, but as the nom pointed out they are mostly to forums and other non-
  reliable sources. I am hoping that it can be salvaged, but that is a slim hope. Konman72 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, posts by random fans on blogs and message boards are as bad as no sources at all. Remove that, and you have nothing but OR. Andrew Levine 08:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV City. I'd almost vote for deletion just for the article not defining what "MLB" stands for. Astonishingly, there are some people in the world with internet access who are not American. --Dweller 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very POV. There are just random criticisms, honestly you could have an article like this about everything. Blogs are not reliable sources.--BoyoJonesJr 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything good to MLB on Fox, as there are some valid portions, but I'm not sure it's a whole article. However, that it is criticism is not a good reason to delete, as that alone does not mean it is not fair and balanced. FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 20 October 2006
• Merge anything salvageable to MLB on Fox. A lot of this does ring true, and I know I've seen print sources that echo some of the complaints in the article. Just found this, for example. Zagalejo 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Fox article.Gobawoo 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge everything (reliably) sourced. It's completely true that a lot of people complain about Fox's sports coverage... and with good reason, because it sucks. But that's not really a reason for keeping the info- the fact that multiple well-known sources have spoken of their hatred of Fox's coverage (especially of baseball), however, is. Hell, we could write a huge article just about how much Bill Simmons despises them. -- Kicking222 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total POV fork, overly cited, we don't need 5 cites (or even 1) just to say someone is pregnant. Tony fanta 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I laugh at all the citations to non-reliable sources in an attempt to make the article look like something other than one long biased rant. TJ Spyke 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. FOX'S MLB COVERAGE SUCKS! Make no mistake, it is awful. But that doesn't make an unreliably sourced rant Wikipedia material. As heartened as I was to see this article written by people who I assume are like-minded fans, there's only a handful of salvageable stuff. Whatever's available from reliable sources can be included in a paragraph in MLB on Fox. SliceNYC 00:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or merge. Arbusto 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OsFan 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Kicking222. Although I've generally liked their broadcasts, MLB on FOX is still definitely not without its controversy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:31, 31 October 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. -

Erik Bragg

Non-notable actor, appears to have only three bit parts in movies. Previous version of article was redirect to The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, expanded a little without actor information and speedy deleted (tagged by me), returned with more information, tagged for speedy and denied. Gogo Dodo 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am the one that tagged it for speedy, but that was before more information was added that clearly warranted the removal of the speedy tag. That being said, this person still fails to be important enough to have an article and fails
  WP:BIO. Indrian 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Classic case of non-notability. Yes, he does appear in the IMDB database, but not as anything more that a bit player starting out. Maybe in 20 years he will be a well-known character. Bejnar 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:BIO. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Make sure to protect deletion. Arbusto 21:33, 22 October 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, this is stupid. (g1, a7) NawlinWiki 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Stupid! Pain, Lame and Crude

Total crystal balling, no net searches back up the existance of this film in production, and just to really annoy people the "Temporary site" becomes a pop-up magnet full of spam and porn sites. Ben W Bell talk 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources. Unverifiable. Fagstein 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probable hoax. if not then its crystal balling. Storm05 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most likely hoax Arnoutf 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Hasn't happened, or else is a hoax. PKT 19:23, 21 October 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. -

Oswaldo Castillo

Like the firs time: Non notable regular movie reviewer on a radio show, fails

• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO. Scattered mentions on Google/Yahoo results, most of those unrelated.--Húsönd 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not enough to satisfy WP:BIO.Gobawoo 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:34, 22 October 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 October 26 2006...Live from the Wikipedia Headquarters, this is the AfD and delete. -

List of The Daily Show contributor appearances

Original research. Cruft on top of cruft. No sources. Fagstein 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for the love of God! Nuke it from orbit: kill it as original research, and if it's tied to a specific source, kill it as being utterly redundant. But kill it before it metastasizes. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you, but there might be better ways phrase AfD !votes in the future. - Lex 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non encyclopedic fan obsession --Dweller 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pointless fancruft. BTLizard 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruftcruft.--Húsönd 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ugh. --MonkBirdDuke 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Daily Show cruft. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. --Charlene.fic 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful info.Gobawoo 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please. It gave me a headache just looking at it. No one will learn anything from this garbage, and besides that, it's garbage.OfficeGirl 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be an article of
  trivia with no encyclopedic value of any kind. --tgheretford (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Love the show but this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dimitrii 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that this article isn't encyclopedic. - Lex 16:09, 25 October 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 to Texas Tech Red Raiders, minus the lyrics. Mangojuice^talk 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Raiders, Fight

Test AfD to see if other school anthem articles should follow the same fate - Doesn't need its own article as per

• No, it doesnt merit its own page. burn it. Amists...
• Merge and redirect to
  unsigned comment was added by BradBeattie (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete As per nomination. Pursey 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the school's article.Gobawoo 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BradBeattie. ENeville 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ColourBurst may be right and the lyrics aren't terribly encyclopedic anyway, but keeping the redirect makes sense. ENeville 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MErge as above Arnoutf 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current content is unmergable because of copyright violation of the lyrics (my guess is that the school would still hold it). ColourBurst 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I think the paragraph above the lyrics could be merged into the Texas Tech Red Raiders article, if the lyrics can't. - Lex 16:12, 25 October 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. -

Playerworlds

Non-notable software; prod removed because "software was released in 2002 and is still being updated". Pak21 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Player Worlds is an identical page --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh ... that makes absolutely no sense. Shannara
  • What would you like explained? --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shannara has been going around deprodding and removing afd notices from articles claiming that they are vandalism. Please note that I've marked the identical article Player Worlds with the AfD bundle. --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no
  WP:SOFTWARE). Shannara, AfD tags are not vandalism if they're made in good faith. However, removing them before the nomination period ends is vandalism (see the subsection "avoidant vandalism"). ColourBurst 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Mukadderat 17:43, 23 October 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PostalWatch Incorporated

Non-notable -- and probably defunct -- group. Media references dredged up are all trivial -- the group is NOT the subject -- and all but one from trade publications, to boot. Calton | Talk 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While PostalWatch was active, it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story. As for the reference to trade publications, these publications have the same commitment to accuracy that daily or weekly newspapers do, and often have circulations larger than many small-town daily newspapers. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story.. Noo,that's not how journalism works -- one also has to wonder about the source of your glimpses into the mindset of journalists in general, but never mind -- being a quote mine for a few stories =/= important organization. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has sources and would be interested to postal service employees. Alpharigel 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As an ex-postal employee, I say no, not really of interest. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails
  WP:ORG. No non-trivial sources showing encyclopedic notability Bwithh 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Reliable references and sources (independent trade publications are not trivial) and shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Without even touching the question of whether trade publications are notable, "trivial" here is referring to the coverage. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to
    WP:ORG, these are not "internal documents". --Marriedtofilm 14:58, 22 October 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transversal Corporation

non-notable corporation. Been around for < 10 years, few google hits, no claim to fame or anything that passes

• Keep I believe it should not be deleted, as Transversal Corporation has existed for 8 years (1998-2006) and is part of 'the Cambridge Phenomenon'.Djcmackay 08:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC) David MacKay[reply]
• Keep - Why should a company have google hits to pass WP CORP?? Transversal has been featured in newspaper and magazine articles about the Cambridge Phenomenon. 'No claim to fame?' How about 'a dot com company that is still going strong?' In my opinion, Wikipedia should be inclusive, full of factually correct content. Deleting this article will upset me, and I'm a fairly hard-working Wikipedia contributor. Why does Peripitus push for a slim low-content Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcmackay (talk • contribs) 2006-10-20 08:46:12

Comment. You can't make two identical contributions to the debate. ... discospinster _talk 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - I moved the first comment from the article's talk page... the second keep is his bit - Peripitus (Talk) 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The article reads like spam, although they have won an award. I can't find much more than that. If there are newspaper and magazine references, they need to be stated in the article. ... discospinster _talk 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make the article seem more like spam by adding 'transversal featured prominently in a Grauniad article about the Cambridge phenomenon', but for people who want this information, here are scans of the Grauniad magazine:

page2 page1 Grauniad Monday 29 November 1999.

Seriously, I think that it is worthwhile for some site on the internet to document what it is that makes for successful internet companies. In writing the article I was not trying to write spam. Rather, the point is: 'transversal are a success because they came up with an internet product whose value is similar in value to human staff, so companies are willing to pay for that product at a rate similar to human salaries'. If wikipedians genuinely don't want this sort of interesting information, where else should it go? Djcmackay 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) D MacKay[reply]

• Delete I don't see anything in the article or in a quick check of the company's Web site that would indicate that it meets
  ScottW 22:41, 20 October 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. -

Unmaintained list of redlinks and badlinks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-20 08:27Z

• Delete - I think this is best suited for a category. MER-C 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed. And the category should include only "notable" companies, not every last one. -
  Amatulic 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per MER-C. I agree that the category is sufficient to tag notable companies.
  ScottW 22:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and categorize the notable companies. ColourBurst 23:02, 20 October 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 defaulting to keep. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ramp

To the best of my knowledge, "ghost ramp" is a term only used by

• Keep I'd also never heard of this expression, but it's irrelevant who uses the term, only notability of the term is relevant. Not many people who don't follow cricket use cricket's jargon (see Leg bye), but the words are notable nonetheless. I found 60,000+ Google hits for "ghost ramp freeway" and another 18,000+ for "ghost ramp motorway". Notable. --Dweller 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected. Neutral per Night Gyr below. --Dweller 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your google test is flawed. The words "ghost" "ramp" and "motorway" are all common, but don't necessarily refer to ghost ramps. a search for the specific phrase "ghost ramp" (with quotes) only turned up about 1200 hits, and with "-wikipedia" added (to remove mirrors), only left about 400[18]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, there's no clear sourcing for the definition of the term beyond being a roadfan neologism. Only 400 online occurances with no
  reliable sources readily apparent to define it, rather than simply use it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Perhaps then the article can be renamed "Abandoned Highway Segments".... or something along those lines... Route 82 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it still faces the OR issue, though, because the only source for a lot of these is a photograph of the ramp in question, which says nothing about whether it is actually abandoned or why it is in the current state. It's a shame, since it's an interesting article, but I don't see proper sources for almost any of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main issue is more the lack of sourcing than the impossibility of sourcing, IMO. When I put in the effort to find sourcing for the Houston items, I had to drop one (out of five) because I wouldn't be able to produce a source. (One more was dropped because it has gone under active planning for completion.) --Mr Wednesday 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since I am working at a computer that rejects cookies and therefore cannot sign in. The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramps" are synonymous and have been use long before there was an Internet (the definition can be found here, for example, in addition to several travel books; the State of Washington uses the synonym here). As far as
  WP:NOR is concerned, those ghost ramps/stub ramps mentioned in the page that have external links most definitely do not constitute original research in the Wikipedia definition. This this the most liberal interpretation of WP:NOR I've seen in my time with Wikipedia - if this interpretation is upheld, then 90 percent of the road articles (and 100% of those with current exit lists) violate the policy as well. Furthermore, if we are now defining neologisms as terms being used by only a certain segment of the population, we'd better be very well consistent in that interpretation... and delete about 99% of the technology articles - or anything dealing with a very specialized topic - as well. From this person's viewpoint, this is right on the edge of a bad faith nomination, particularly in light of over 150 external links and references in the article.147.70.242.40 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Count of references means nothing if none of them are

reliable or support what the article is actually claiming. List of YTMND Fads had hundreds of linked YTMNDs but it was still original research to identify things as fads. Unless you have sources documenting that these ramps are in fact abandoned, it's original research to link and satellite photo and claim it as proof that the ramp is abandoned. As for the glossary, all it says is that "some definitions of commonly used words and phrases on AARoads," it doesn't say it's an accepted term beyond that website or with any particular history, or even that it's the best term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: (Before I even get to my reply, I should point out that its synonym "stub ramp" has been used/cited in legal opinions, including this one from Australia). Now, are you saying that photographs showing their existence are OR without the documentation of their history? If that is the case, all this article would need would be a more emphatic presentation of the references to their histories. This can be done without having to resort to an extreme measure of an AfD... as quite a few of them are already there, just not presented in a fashion that seems to be preferred by some editors.147.70.242.40 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Stub ramp is the accepted legal term, I'd place the article under that title and have no problem with keeping it. It just needs a greater trimming to emphasize the identification in other sources of these ramps as abandoned. Most of them don't have that sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the article should be moved, but not deleted. The article needs to be pruned and renamed. There is some interesting stuff here, like the I-70/I-95 interchange that got cancelled and the ramps that were partially built. Much of this is not relevant. Now as for claiming there's a stub ramp, IMHO aerial photography to show out-of-use ramps and whatnot is fine, pictures are neat to, but to claim where a half-built ramp would go would need a source. For example "There are ghost ramps on I-65 in Huntsville for both north- and southbound" or something like that, Google map it. To continue "these ramps were to be I-365, but was cancelled" needs to be sourced. There are no ramps there, it's an example I made up. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but rename and fix up. There is interesting information here which probably desrves an article - the main problems seem to be verifiability, OR and neologism. If a better, non-neologistic name can be found, and the other issues can be addressed, then this could make a reasonable article. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page was nominated IIRC for a renaming and it failed due to a lack of consensus and argument. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the simple reasons that it is both interesting and informative. A few more sources would help, but I don't see any need for deletion. --Chris24 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: This is an informative article that contains sources (e.g. aerial images provide documentation and cannot be considered 'original research'). Now if the entry lists a reason why the stub exists (outside of where it is at), then a proper cite should be attributed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • How are they not original research? Looking at a photo shows something that looks like a ramp, but saying that it's abandoned is our own analysis of that photo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are a pretty clear indication of ramps that lead to nowhere. There's obviously a reason that all of these ghost ramps exist and the fact that they do exist (with associated proof in the form of satellite pictures) is not debatable. For someone to say the ramp was built and the project was cancelled is not original research, though it may be unsourced. Unsourced statements are not necessarily original research. Just request sources ({{fact}}) on anything that you think is not properly sourced. Sparingly use the {{OR}} tag for speculation only. Ufwuct 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not original research because an aerial image clearly indicates that the ramp is no longer used and is abandoned. It doesn't take a genius to see that if you see an abandoned ramp, or a graded path, that it was to be for a purpose. That itself is not original research.

Now if you go on and state, "This ramp was abandoned due to XXX factor and this XXX factor" with no sources, then that IS original research. Big difference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A graded path could have been a railroad, or a power line access road, or an underground pipeline... --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. There is enough indicators for the most part that one can determine if it was to be part of a ramp. An inspection via a topographic map usually helps in this respect, as does careful analysis of the aerial image. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets into "careful analysis" you're doing research. We need reliable sources that come out and say it, not expert eyes looking at photographs. We're not here to reanalyze cold war spy photographs and write our own numbers for the size of the soviet arsenal. No one can verify the information without duplicating the expert abilities, and even then they could end up disagreeing, which comes down to a battle of credentials--exactly the sort of problem that we're trying to avoid by requiring

WP:NOR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep because the article contains informative and interesting information, for road geeks at least. Again, maybe we could come up with a better name for the article, but if we can't, that doesn't mean that the information within the article should be discarded. The alternate names for ghost ramp are given in the first line of the introduction, so a reader unfamiliar with the term ghost ramp should recognize one of the other terms. Ufwuct 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks like there might be consensus to rename the article and remove all unsourced entries. Do people agree or disagree with this? --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we can't come up to what kind of "source" you would require. An aerial image is enough of a source for the vast majority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An aerial image will not show whether there are current plans to build anything there. --NE2 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it need to. A ghost ramp is a ramp that is abandoned, no longer used. Why would we need to list 'current plans' for each one when it is unknown for most? If there are plans, good, cite them and include it. If not, no worries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that that is the definition of a ghost ramp? Do you have any reliable sources that define it? However, even accepting that definition, how does one know from aerials that the ramp is abandoned? --NE2 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set defination outside of several articles that have stated "ramps to nowhere" or "stubs" or "ghost ramps." But I suppose it is a descriptive title that is far easier to manage and state than "Highway reminants that are no longer in operation". One can tell from aerials when a ramp is abandoned, it doesn't take a genius to see that [19] contains a ghost ramp. Or that [20] was originally a terminus just by judging from a topographic map (the article contains a factual source as well). If you can't tell what's abandoned/disused and active from an aerial image, perhaps that indicates you are just pulling for air here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

avoid neologisms. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities... and if the term has been in use for over four decades, it might not have "recently been coined," unless we wish to argue and nitpick on the definition of "recently" (while we're at it, shall we also debate of legitimacy of the Wikipedia definitions of "obscenity" and "smut"?). The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" predate the Internet by decades - and, unless there has been a change of definition in the last few years, neither involved the abandonment issue. AARoads.com summarized it best: they are roads (and ramps) to nowhere.147.70.242.40 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]