Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 14 July 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus.

wat's sup 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

PassAlong Networks

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

Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Spellcast as blatant advertising (G11) and speedy-deleted by myself. I restored the article after a user contested it, and now I'm listing it here to see if we can come to some consensus on this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Nacosta

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

The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per

talk 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Organic Internet

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

This isn't in common use, no citations asserting importance.  superβεεcat  23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

wat's sup 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Trump Tower (Tampa)

Trump Tower (Tampa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Donald Trump has withdrawn his name, and it does not appear likely that the tower will be built.("Trump pulls out of plans for high-rise in Tampa". Orlando Sentinel. May 31, 2007) If something is built on the site, it will be under a different name, and an article can be started for that building, if it is sufficiently notable and sourced.

Donald Albury 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment.
    WP:NOT#CRYSTAL does not apply here. This article isn't, and shouldn't become, speculative. It is about the Trump Tower project in Tampa that exists, or did exist. The article is backed up with reliable third-party sources.--Absurdist 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Peacent 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Set Magazine

Wet Set Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Response I feel the urge to expel some of the material, and the article could certainly use some urination. But seriously though, I think that while the magazinine may or may not be notable, it at least merits a merge to Omorashi, as it isa very good example of omorashi being present in a context outside of Japan, and indeed well into the Western world. Calgary 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to disagree with the nominator here with regards to reliable sources for this magazine. Isn't this webpage a source of reliable source? Moreover, google shows up quite a number of hits for this magazine. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, didn't catch previous afd at alternative name. --Eyrian 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon fetish

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

Unsourced, nonnotable sexual clique that's been deleted several times before. --Eyrian 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, you learn every day. I had never heard of this one before, but a quick Google turned out thousands of hits. Check out the image search (with SafeSearch off, obviously). Looks like regular porn with, er, balloons. The large variety of websites covering this suggests it's not a joke, improbable as it may seem. And thanks to the nominator for making me discover the hugely entertaining article on Paraphilia :). I'd like to hear a shrink's opinion on this, but as far as I can tell this "balloon fetish" is for real. --Targeman 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Iranian names

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

List is too broad to be helpful. This list can never be satisfied. This article contains no references, no reliable sources, and therefore cannot be verified. This is entirely original research. the_undertow talk 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article is indeed badly written and unreferenced, and lacks three key features that should be expected in this kind of work: every name in its original Persian script with a transliteration and phonetic transcription. It looks as if this list was pulled from a name etymology website, so it might not be original research. And I think the subject is worth an article (many other languages have an equivalent one). So major improvements are necessary but I'd say the article should be kept.--Targeman 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect says that Iranians names are Persian names. I don't know if thats true. Sure, many people say that Iran is Persia, but there are many ethnic groups besides Persians in Iran, and there are many Persians not in Iran. NobutoraTakeda 14:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Anthony Peratt

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

This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails

WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as nom; insufficiently notable. semper fictilis 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His research and name can be mentioned on the pages describing the subjects he researched. Notability does not "rub off" onto someone just because they found something notable, unless they did something notable to find that something notable (like Galileo or Columbus). NobutoraTakeda 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [3][reply]
with that policy, WP would be a kindergarten-level encyclopedia. 5 or 10 scientists, 5 or so explorers, possible 20 rock bands... The criterion you refuse to accept, "because they did something notable" is WP notability. But i shouldn't bite, today is your first day on WP. DGG (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[8]. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --Mainstream astronomy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --Iantresman 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relying on the self-identification of scientists and engineers leads to some absurd characterizations. I see a member of the Creation Research Society identifying himself as a scientist/engineer. Oh, look! A scientist from The Noah's Ark Research Foundation, one from the US Department of Transportation, one from the Empirical Church, USA, and the glorious diploma mill Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California. This site is a parody of itself. --76.214.223.142 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the criteria for
WP:PROF require more than being "above average." Peratt appears to be good at what he does, but he's no more notable than several of the guys down the hall from me. The stuff that Iantresman cites, for example, is normal for any professor at a Research-I university. Raymond Arritt 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
it is perfectly possible that several of the guys down the hall from you may be notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more likely that they aren't per the
Copernican Principle. Wikipedia has articles on less than 1000 astronomers living and dead. A common estimate thrown around in the community is that there are something like 6000 astronomers alive on the planet today, and something like 20,000 astronomers who have kicked-the-bucket. We're talking about 4 out of every 100 astronomers who are notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Even if we skew towards "recent-memory" inclusivity and assume that there are the same number of living and dead notable astronomical figures (highly unlikely, but we'll go with it), we're talking about one out of every twelve astronomers who are notable. Twelve just happens to be the size of a medium astronomy department, so Wikipedia right now is catching on average about one astronomer per medium-sized department. Therefore, your argument above is akin to arguing that Wikipedia is grossly unrepresentative of notable astronomers. I don't think that this is the case at all. --76.214.223.142 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It's a better bet to assume you aren't special than to assume that you are. There was a recent article about the local application of this principle in The New York Times. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I fail to see how your "statistical analysis" has any bearing on whether or not Peratt is notable. It's like saying, well, since we haven't included EVERYone, no one else should be added, ever, despite being notable. Seems to not quite make sense. Now, I'm not arguing that Peratt is more notable than others, or that competency=notability. However, he has contributed quite a bit or documented notable research to plasma physics & astronomy. Whether it's more than the "average" researcher, hard to say. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument was made by DGG that a few scientists down the hall were notable. However, as is pointed out below, it's more likely that a few scientists down the hall are not notable. If Peratt is really equivalent to "a scientist down the hall" then by the simple statistical argument he will likely not be notable. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might also point out that it it seems to be the intent of many here to get "delete-happy." I tend toward being an 'inclusionist' rather than a 'deletionist.' If a topic is notable or a person is notable and people want to know more about the person or topic, it should be included. Keeping in mind that WP should be a NEUTRAL representation of people and things "out there" in the world. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peratt's views or others' views of Peratt should not automatically disqualify an article about him. IE, if someone has a problem with catastrophism and someone else uses Peratt to justify their viewpoint, that's not Peratt's fault, and he and/or his article should not be blamed or ostracized because of it. That's POV and agenda pushing (indirectly attacking an opponent's idea through unrelated or minimally related means). It would be like saying "Christians use the Big Bang to justify creationism, so we should remove the Big Bang article to undermine their Creationist position." That type of reasoning is ludicrous. I'm just saying that "agendas" should be weeded out. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, however believe that the article should be NPOV, and any unsupported claims, or material not related directly to Peratt, his work, his notable/verified beliefs or accomplishments or discoveries should be removed from the article, and a better more comprehensive, more NEUTRAL article should be molded from the old one. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is troubling that Peratt's views keep coming up because I agree with you that they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If anything I see a slight bias in application of this on the keep side with certain voters saying that we should strive to keep articles about unconventional ideas or accomodate those who are on the fringe by giving them a pass for
not Wikipedia's place to right great wrongs such as this. --Nondistinguished 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Weak Keep Peratt is a figure in the specialty of "plasma cosmology" which is not necessarily regarded as mainstream, as an examination of the links in the article on him will show, and in the past those associated with this movement have aroused a considerable amount of possibly POV discussion on all sides. This presumably accounts for some of the comments in both directions expressed above. I want to reexamine his record systematically.
Some non-mainstream figures have in the past been considered important at AfD, based on the non-academic notability as shown by popular books, and press mentions; this seems not to be the case with him, so he must be evaluated on the basis of academic accomplishments.
The practice, since there is no formal "precedent" at AfD, in evaluation of academics is that all full professors at research Universities brought to AfD have always been considered notable, because of the work they have published and the peer reviews they have undergone--all instances where these have been investigated here in detail have been found notable, for at least the last 6 months. This correlates to the WP:PROF criterion of being highly respected by ones colleagues for ones body of work. If the astrophysicists at say, Princeton or CalTech regards someone as distinguished enough for their top academic rank, I think we'd accept their judgement. However, Peratt is not a professor at a research university. For some reason the bio in the article is somewhat sketchy: a full one on the website of IEEE is at [9]; (I cannot account for why it was not included in the article; we normally regard information from such sources as reliable for factual career details unless there is evidence to the contrary) He is a scientist at Los Alamos, and his previous career has been there and at Livermore; it is difficult to correlate positions at these labs with academic ranks, so this cannot be used as a preliminary criterion.
So we go by the publications, honors and awards. Being the editor-in-chief of a major peer-reviewed journal has been held highly notable--this are the prestige positions for the most distinguished; IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is an important mainstream journal from the most important scientific society in the general field of electrical engineering and related subjects. But he is he is not editor in chief, but rather one of the 15 associate editors. This by itself has not always been considered enough for notability, though sometimes it has been, in connection with other factors. He holds several awards as listed on that page, but no really major honors. Publications are judged by citations. Using WebofScience, as customary, I find he has 69 publications included there, not all of them peer-reviewed papers--about half seem short comments or editorials. However, they are not highly cited: the five most cited are cited 24, 18, 18, 18, 17 times He has 9 papers cited 10 or more times, for an h index of 9, not particularly impressive. However, he has two papers in Physical Review Letters, the very most distinguished physics journal.
On balance, this is borderline. The associate editorship is almost enough for notability, the publications are relatively weak. Put together I would call it a Weak Keep.
I want to add a word about possible prejudice: I have such high respect for the scientific establishment that I have devoted my career to its service. But this does not diminish the importance of the non-mainstream people for a comprehensive encyclopedia, for by confrontation with these views, progress is made. I am, frankly, very suspicious of the attempts of those in any establishment to exclude those without: I call it negative COI. I do not think this article should have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is good, DGG, up until the last paragraph. I think you are doing some defending of the marginalized, perhaps in the capacity as a devil's advocate or a fan of the underdog. This is not a good rationale, however. There are plenty of non-mainstream advocates that are notable (e.g.
William Tifft, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge) who deserve encyclopedia articles. The accusations of negative COI are unwarranted, otherwise the rest of these scientists would be here at AfD too. Peratt just happens to be one of the second tier scientists with an interest in non-standard cosmology who is simply not very notable and he only has an article because there is a "positive" COI at work by people fighting mainstream cosmology here at Wikipedia. Peratt hasn't proposed any new ideas in cosmology since his toilet swirl galaxies (Rocky Kolb's description, not mine). Indeed, the only claim of notablity Peratt has is that he advocates a rather marginalized view. Pretend that the guy didn't advocate such views, would you be arguing for weak keep then? --76.214.223.142 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
comment I did two things, & I separated them. I analyzed, and then I stated my conclusions. My analysis is intended to provide data to be helpful to the discussion, regardless of the conclusion people reach from it. I think my data accurate, & I will defend the method and the criteria. But my conclusion is only my own evaluation overall, and each of us will have his own. I do not mean to imply that if you accept the analysis you should accept the conclusion. I separately state the factors for the conclusion--for people to follow or not as their independent judgement thinks best. (& when I say weak, I mean that I put forward the conclusion as an hypothesis, & regard the alternative as possible also--I think others use it that way as well.)
But in answer to the question, I say freely that I have a strong personal bias against marginalized scientific views. I don't want my bias to be reflected in WP-- I therefore deliberately counter this bias in my evaluation--I consider that is what NPOV means. Others think differently. AfD is for consensus, and I accept the results of it. To obtain good consensus, the different views should be expressed so that those who may not have strong views on the matter can see the range of reasonable opinions. When I think an article unsupportable, I say delete. When I think it so unsupportable as to be obviously, a speedy delete or a prod, I do that. I deleted a speedy for an academic yesterday, and nominated another for speedy, and several for prod. . Beyond that, you may follow my reasoning or not--just as with everyone else's reasoning.DGG (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. Even-handedness is appreciated. Awareness of bias is the first step to adopting a neutral point of view. If we can't perceive our own biases, we can't keep them from coloring our opinions or expressions on WP. Took me a while to learn that one. But I think I have, finally. Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I tend to think, as you appear to, that all voices should have a certain say in things on WP, so long as they're presented neutrally. I'll grant that's sometimes hard for people who come from a particular POV to write about it NEUTRALLY. But the point being, if we
    WP:ASSUME, everyone has a right to exist on WP to some extent. Granted, the material should be presented evenhandedly, but thats' what good editing is about. Not promoting a POV, or suppressing a POV because you disagree with it (in itself a POV-pushing violation, which I think happens more frequently on WP than is preferred or proper). Hope that made sense? Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
All voices do NOT deserve a say at Wikipedia. People have a right to contribute to Wikipedia, but unless the voice they are contributing is verifiable and notable, it does not deserve a place at Wikipedia. That's why
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Nondistinguished 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Question
      WP:PROF mentions the alternate criterion: the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor. In using this, what group of academics do we take the average of? If we take the average of all college instructors, including instructors at 2 -year colleges, people at primarily teaching institutions, and people near the beginning of their careers, then according to DGG's count, Peratt has published more than average. If we take the average of full professors at good research universities he has published less than average. Cardamon 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Good point; I've raised this question on the Talk page for
WP:PROF. A strict application of "more notable than average" would give us articles on 49.999% of all college instructors, which is plainly unwarranted. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Obviously if one uses it in too broad or too narrow a sense it becomes meaningless--the way I use it is of tenure track faculty at research universities--which more of less comes out to full professors vs associate and assistant professors, in US terms. this matches the results of afds in general, where very few US associate or assistant professors have been held notable, and almost all full ones at Research universities have. In the UK its a little different, because Professor there is only used of the equivalent of US/Caanadian heads of department. Senior Readers, the next rank down, have often but not always been held notable. (an alternative way, which gets about the same result, is all full professors at US universities and colleges, in which case the ones at research universities are the upper third or so. DGG (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Peratt comes close to the level of "full professor". If application of
WP:PROF is really heading in the direction as you say it is, then this may very well be the death-blow to claims for his notability. --Nondistinguished 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep based on the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award" as shown by the previous link as required by
    WP:PROF Corpx 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Are you aware of what the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award" is or how difficult it is to get it? For example, hundreds of scientists won the award from LANL in 2002: [10]. Los Alamos gives out this award like candy while Argonne, for example, usually gives only about half-a-dozen or so per year. The IEEE doesn't even recognize the "Distinguished Lecturer Award" as being worth listing and, in fact, Peratt is not listed as having any award from them, despite the fact that they list hundreds of award recipients. [11]. Almost anyone can trump up a "dubious distinction" award. Does every
National Merit Scholar deserve an article? Surely not. --Nondistinguished 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
— Nondistinguished (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bucketsofg 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, IEEE does have a page about Distinguished lecturers, but it doesnt list the recipients. I searched around for other winners of this award in 1999 and couldnt find anyone else. Corpx 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every member-society of IEEE is allowed to choose their distinguished lecturer each year. Often the boards choose the editors of the particular society's transactions. Not a particularly meaningful "award" in that case. --Nondistinguished 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the books that he has authored? Dont you think they give notability for him as an academic? Corpx 01:36, 18 July
  • No, they don't. These books range from obscure texts to compilations of papers, nothing rising to the notoriety described in
    WP:BK. Publishing books in scientific fields is not considered the crowning academic acheivement: writing well-cited papers is what distinguishes them. Since these books are not themselves notable, it is hard to see how the author of these books can gain notability from them. --Nondistinguished 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial references covering the subject.
    Burntsauce 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Corruptor (Age of Mythology)

The Corruptor (Age of Mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Vandahaal is an

P 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Shell Kinney (G11). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salon pod

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

Appears to be a non notable invention. Looks like it got a little attention in a local newspaper and radio show, but otherwise nothing. Sort as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability notability tag has been up since Oct. 06 Daniel J. Leivick 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is also a copyright violation. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe): I think that this page could be kept, if we found more information than is currently in the article. --Onceonthisisland 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Neil (comedian)

AfDs for this article:
Chris O'Neil (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bit actor. Only source in article was IMDb page, and a search of Google and Yahoo turned up no reliable sources.

96 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liak Teng Lit

Liak Teng Lit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A stub about the CEO of a hospital in Singapore. Does not assert notability beyond things one would expect of someone in his position. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

wat's sup 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rav Wilding

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

Simply not noteable. Fails

WP:N. Dalejenkins 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I removed the unsourced content and added a link to the very brief profile on the Crimewatch web site that cover the remaining material. FloNight 12:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article still fails the very basics of
    Burntsauce 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Priory Green Quadrilateral

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

A local first-aid group; the article fails to establish

notability and reads, in parts, like an advertisement. Kwekubo 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Woodland Badgers

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

A local first-aid group for children; the article fails to establish

notability. Kwekubo 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to Test Card F. But what of

Test Card J? 8-O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Bubbles the Clown

Bubbles the Clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

The sources are not about the clown, but the card. The clown is not notable in itself, possibly?-Bubulina8888 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Test Card F. Dalejenkins 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Merge - The clown by himself is questionably notable. The nominator brought up the point that the sources in the article primarily focus on Test Card F. The best soloution to this situation that I can see is to Merge with Test Card F as suggested by Dalejenkins. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with -- Test Card F this sinister clown is a British cultural icon (of sorts) yet much of the article focus on the card not the creature. Bigdaddy1981 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. While we're at it, Carole Hersee should also be so merged. JulesH 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep as per

WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jim Smith (NASCAR)

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

Fails

Speak out loud! 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW

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

I believe this is or may be a neologism. Fastfinge 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with
    List of internet slang phrases, although it is of interest to note (1), List of internet slang phrases already lists JW as meaning "just works", and (2), the author of the article attempts to justify the addition of the F ("fucking") to the acronym, leading me to be suspicious of the article's factual accuracy. I'm going to do a bit of googling and see what comes up. Calgary 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable term. JulesH 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't merge into
    List of internet slang phrases unless non-trivial sources can be found.--Absurdist 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Supported by FOUR ghits[18], all collections of acronyms rather than primary occurrences on Usenet/Blogs. Don't replace it with a redirect to my userpage please :-) JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:NOTE; independent non-trivial sources, in other words not blogs, have to be discussing the abbreviation. Edited. --Charlene 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism of
    WP:OR and without any cultural refs. Bearian 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Deleteas per JulesH Harlowraman 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Isobel (framework)

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

This article was created by one of Amorrow's socks, I looked for independent sources but found it hard to find any at all. The few Google hits for isobel and "knowledge management" include a goodly number of unrelated items and I did not see any decent independent sources in there. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable open source project. Sourceforge reports that the project is in "alpha" status[19], and has had roughly 1,000 downloads[20] since the last version was released at the end of 2005. JulesH 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just a thought... I should probably declare a COI here, in that I am part owner of a company that sells information management software. JulesH 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomCandyfan 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hopkins

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

Fails

The Apprentice (UK),a reality television show. She has been featured in the press, but so do all reality tv stars. Apart from the content on the show, the article just contains tabloid rubbish. Anything noteworthy should be merged with The Apprentice.Legalbeaver 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7. --Deskana (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Ojamajo Doremi

Rainbow Ojamajo Doremi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a

WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Rancho High School

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

Not a notable place. Biased. Malan89 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. Nandesuka 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carlet

AfDs for this article:
Louis Carlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. Since first AFD and the merge discussion much of the text in this article is now duplicated in a subsection of the National Union of General Workers article
  2. Person is not notable outside the context of the union
  3. Person is not notable in Japan
  4. Page seems to be promotional for the Union
  5. He is the deputy General of a small Chapter of the Union
  6. The Union itself is borderline notable with only a few hundred members

At the very least this page should be redirected to the Union page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is the second time the same editor has nominated the article for deletion (first time there was no concensus leaning towards keep), this time on the heels of a unsuccessful merge. The person is notable, and the article contains sources for everything contained in it. Statisticalregression 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously a notable person, passes
    WP:V. Everything in the article is sourced, doesn't seem promotional to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep notablity established and referenced. More than just a branch official. On further examination of sources it appears that some of them reference only the union and others only the march -- moreover, none establish that he is the organiser of the march (which attracted just 300 participants) - delete. Bigdaddy1981 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/MergeA virtual unknown outside of a extraordinarily small group of union activists in Tokyo. Maybe 300 max. Apparently persons who know the subject are using the internet to promote their friend or fellow union member. Nothing prevents these advocates from setting up their own home page in honor of Mr. Carlet---but it's inappropriate to use the Wikipedia for this kind of activity. And you will notice none of the "keep" posters have put anyone else of the same level of significance into the Wikipedias. Spellin 13:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin[reply]
  • Strong keep. - As per Ten Pound Hammer. David Lyons 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge I haven't participated in previous discussions, which there have been two, and I am open to the suggestion that process is being abused in this situation. However, while I hope one day Mr Carlet becomes notable and more power to him and the union, however, sources 2, 3 are self written and 5 is nothing more than an advertisment for the union's march, source 4 has nothing to say about Mr. Carlet. Like I said, nothing against the union and Mr. Carlet and I am sure he can be an excellent source as for reports, but I can't see why he is notable under
    WP:BIO at this time in his career. Sorry, Mr. Carlet. XinJeisan 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Close without prejudice. Apparently this AfD may be a
    WP:POINT problem per this [22] (scroll down to near the bottom). --Charlene 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
However, it should also be pointed out, that the recent exchange about deleting or merging this entry, arose shortly after it was attempted to have a "controversies" section ADDED to the alleged notable's Wiki entry. At the time, in fact, it was StatisticalRegression who decided it was not appropriate.
That was a single unsourced comment that violated BLP, if the AfD was done in retribution to the removal of that material see here then there's all the more reason to close this AfDStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is odd that Mr. Carlet is allegedy notable enough to have an independent entry. Yet, because he is a virtual unknown in the mainstream media (Japan or anywhere), you won't find any countercriticism on him personally---virtually no one knows who he is.
So getting back to the Controversies section, why is that NOT worth including, if this person is so well noted (even if that would just be among a handful of foreigners in Japan?)Spellin 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just review
WP:BLP and discuss the issue on the articles talk page, bringing it up here is not appropriateStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It is simply brought up in the context, that there would not be many independent media sources reporting any contoversies, on someone who is not notable. Not to dispute whether such a section is merited or not. Additionally, reviewing the material and your comments regarding Sparkzilla, it is difficult for me to see how you are applying an even hand with this entry and its debate. From the other discussion, it appears you simply want to limit Sparkzilla's influence, regardless of whether the poster has made good points. You even go so far as to insinuate the identities of OTHER posters when you challenge what Sparkzilla does within the Wiki community. Please do more reading of the Wiki rules, and not just make broad references to other users about them. Such a break might be worthwhile.Spellin 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deputy general of a union. If WP:V and WP:RS apply, remove to stub or cleanup--ZayZayEM 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Ooops... only a subsection head eh? Delete unless there is something else they are known for--ZayZayEM 04:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Kendo the definitive guide

Kendo the definitive guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book written by an apparent non-notable author. Article was prodded; prodding was immediately removed by creator. A few days later, no new changes. -WarthogDemon 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, book isn't notbale if author isn't notable. Author doesn't appear to be notable, so the book should go. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, no real assertion of notability independent of the game itself. Shalom Hello 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and merge with the Kendo article. Bearian 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delete and merge" violates GFDL. 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the AfD has been superseded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall 2. --DarkFalls talk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BulletBall

It even has its own website! http://www.bulletballgames.com/

Why do you feel the need to delete articles? It's not hurting anybody, it's not clogging up the main page or search. -- N3k74r42

  • You do realize that they can't possibly assess every single article at once? There are over a million articles. That article you just linked could rightfully be deleted, it's just that no one has time to find every single non-notable article and put it up for deletion. By the way, it may not clog up the main page or search, but allowing articles on everything non-notable (e.g. Mike Davenport, Bulletball) makes organization impossible, and clogs up the hard drive ($$$). By the way, "non-notable" isn't my silly opinion, notability is coverage in a reliable non-official source... like a news site. If -one- news site talks about Bulletball, it's allowed to have an article. Unfortunately, it's just an invention that's become a fad on LUElinks and 4chanebaumsworld. --Teggles 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you want a list of more non notable inventions mentioned in a list? The list would fall under
Douglasr007 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Lists are consistently used to merge non-notable information, forming a notable article. It's not indiscriminate because they are a primary factor of a notable television show. --Teggles 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the proposed list would not fall into
WP:NOT's indiscriminate section. Did you even read it? --Teggles 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of lists on here have been deleting deleted for two main reasons: 1. The list falls under
Douglasr007 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It does not fail verifiability, the reliable source is American Inventor itself. Other sites have also discusses inventions. They have not significantly covered them though, which is why a list and not individual articles are ideal. Also, this does not fall under indiscriminate information in
WP:NOT. I urge you to read the section, because it makes no mention of any of this type of information. --Teggles 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per 101010 Will (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delayed Decision - It has now gained notoriety within multiple online and offline communities. There is clearly something developing as a result of his appearance on American Inventor. I propose that we allow that to develop for a short time, two weeks to a month, and revisit the deletion issue. It is gaining notoriety and is inadvertently gaining traction and steam because of it. --Mystalic 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article does achieve widespread popularity (which it hasn't; 10,000 hits on Google), it can be recreated. Waiting it out is a bad idea because we don't know what will happen - imagine if we kept every (currently) non-notable article because it "might" develop into something big - it'd be a mess. --Teggles 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders off set episodes

EastEnders off set episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Per

WP:NOT#PLOT, an article full of trivial and unsourced infomation. Dalejenkins 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

1812 Overture in popular culture

1812 Overture in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is a

directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common with one another past using the same piece of music. The bare list of uses tells us nothing about the music, the composer, the instances from which the list items are drawn, how those things relate to each other or the real world. Because the information is of no more value in the main article for the piece, strongly oppose the inevitable suggestion that any of this be merged anywhere. Note that this AFD has nothing to do with whether or not the 1812 Overture is itself notable; it clearly is. The AFD addresses whether the list of every use of the Overture in a movie or TV show is suitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Still very hotly debated. See
    Android Mouse 19:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs with very long names

List of monarchs with very long names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hopeless list of "longest names of monarch" without any references. In miserable state since created in 2006. I don't think it is useful or encyclopedic. Renata 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find this very amusing. If I had such a name, I would be very scared when it came time to fill out an application, apply for a driver's license or make dinner reservations. the_undertow talk 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaah, OK :). Although I would imagine royals are rarely asked to fill forms or organize their dinner themselves... ;) --Targeman 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty much every royal from anywhere in the world would have a long name like these, so it's really not a particularly discriminate list. As currently written, it's more just a case of "Oooohhhh, look at these names!" which doesn't seem like a good basis for an article either. It might be amusing, but that's not a reason to have an article on it. Additionally, I'm not sure that "Wiki [sic] is, for the most part, aimed at children". Neither do I see the link between two notable cartoon characters and a list of long royal names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one goes simply by the numbers of articles, "Wiki" is indeed like a library with a large teen and YA area, and a few shelves worth of reference books. I agree with the idea that there should be more to the article, such as an explanation for the lengthy titles. But you know what? If a child were to look at the list and say "Oooohhhh, look at these names!", or if a child's mom or dad were to say the same thing in pointing it out to a child, there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps sarcasm was intended, I can't be sure, but if it's an article that appeals to curiosity-- that makes someone ask, "Why is the name so long?" or "What does that mean?" or "How do you say that?" or myriad questions that your kids or mine might have that would never occur to me -- then it's a good start. Who among us hasn't read the "silly" Guinness Book of World Records, and its celebration of those places in Wales and New Zealand with no other claim to fame but a "long place name", yet been inspired to find out more. Wiki has to have more for kids than Pokemon cards and Rugrats episode guides. The link between the cartoon characters and the list of long royal names is that they are essentially entertainment, but serve less obvious purposes as well. Mandsford 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admire your good-heartedness. But, (unfortunately), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a playground for kids. The article might have a chance at survival if it was properly researched (giving references, translations, naming customs in different countries, etc.) and not just a simple dump of dubious information. Renata 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I second that. Wikipedia may be full of kiddy stuff but what attracted me to editing was the realization that grown-up, educated people had actually created a very interesting body of quality articles, and those are the one I would like to see developed. Articles such as this one, on the other hand, smack of an unworldly amusement at names that for some (unexplained) reason sound unusual to the author's ears. If we continue down this road, we may end up with List of people with funny names, List of weird foreign traditions, etc. Now I don't have children (AFAIK...) but I doubt a kid could a) ever find this orphaned article, b) derive any information from it beyond the notion that "kings in Asia have, like, totally weird names". Sorry if I sound cranky but it's 4 in the effing morning here and I'm off to bed. Good night :) --Targeman 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link. That article is much better in the sense that it lists people who changed their or their children's names on purpose as a publicity stunt etc. (On the other hand, several people with inherited names that just happen to sound unusual to English speakers should be deleted from that list IMO). But royal names are not chosen for their shock/amusement value; they are given following strict formal rules. They may sound funny to some, but they're not "unusual". --Targeman 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian (disambiguation)

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

Only refers to three things, not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubulina8888 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep as a proper disamb page. --Evb-wiki 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep An appropriate disambiguation oage. Also Comment, take note that this is the second homosexuality-related disambiguation page that Bubulina8888 has nominated for deletion in a little over an hour. I think someone should leave Bubulina8888 a message to the effect of "Welcome to wikipedia, stop nominating these pages for deletion" (I don't have as much of a way with words as some of our other editors), as if these nominations are disruptive, and if it continues I could see it as borderline vandalism. Calgary 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per Calgary above, who beat me to it ;). In my opinion as long as a disambig page has 2 or more sensible entries (this one has 3) then its serving its purpose. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed as speedy keep, possible bad faith nomination. User to be advised. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Consensus and improvement Peacent 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Phil?

AfDs for this article:
Who Shot Phil? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - article survived previous AFD only because the Keepers insisted that the article would be cleaned up and made something other than a plot summary. In the intervening month there has been nothing done and the article remains a plot summary in violation of

WP:PLOT. Otto4711 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete The fact that it is an incredibly notable plot doesn't mean that it's not a plot summary. If there's a significant amount of non-plot related information please add it, and maybe we'll have some grounds for keeping the article, but entire Wikipedia articles (especially the very long ones) that focus on the plot of a storyline of a television series (with one exception). Calgary 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a plot summary, which is in violation of
    WP:NOT guidelines. Corpx 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Dalejenkins. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the biggest storylines in one of the biggest soaps. It could have a cleanup tag on it for the next decade, thats not a good enough reason to delete the thing. —Xezbeth 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article was not nominated for deletion on the basis of having a cleanup tag. It was nominated for deletion because the promised improvements to the article--which is all that saved the article last time--were not made. The article as it stood then should have been deleted as a clear-cut policy violation and the little dribs and drabs being added now aren't IMHO making any great deal of difference. Otto4711 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable plot element of a major work of fiction about which a valid encyclopedia article could be written -- and when that article is written, it will need a plot summary. Third party sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] JulesH 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles should be mentioned in the show's article. Corpx 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just added a section of commentary to the article, based on the sources I listed above. JulesH 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We said we'd clean it up, and we will, one month isn't a fair time to give us, we have lives too, and it's summer - some of us may be on holiday, and most of us are working a lot too, cut us a bit of slack and please don't nominate this every month. -Trampikey(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edit history indicates you've made close to one thousand edits since the last AFD of this article closed. Not sure why if you've had time to make 25-30 edits per day you haven't had time to direct a few of them at an article where you knew there was action mandated. Otto4711 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Normally, I would say delete but per Trampikey's request, I suggest giving them 3 months, and then propose for deletion again. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it was the biggest thing for EastEnder, shouldn't it be more suitable on the EastEnder page instead of its own? NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [29][reply]
  • Keep This afd nomination is only a month after the last one closed. We have not been given adequate time to make the improvements.Gungadin 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A month is a long time. I would say that a week would be excessive to see if the page could be cleaned up. If you couldn't rectify the situation in a month, how can others expect more time to make it so? The page doesn't belong for philosophical reasons and the justifications put forth could easily be overridden by saying that it should be mentioned on the show's page, not its own. NobutoraTakeda 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really long enough when you consider that there is only a couple of active members of our project, and we have unfortunately been preoccupied with improving other AFDs. I have just added some sourced analysis. It is in its early stages and will be extended, but hopefully this at least shows that we are prepared to make the changes, we just need more time.Gungadin 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edit history shows close to 500 edits since the last AFD closed. If you need more time, then move the article to userspace and take all the time you need. Otto4711 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How childish. My edit history has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have been preoccupied with other things and should not have to explain myself to you. Futhermore I have just added content to the article in one of those "500 edits". It is clear that you are desperate to see these pages deleted, in fact your account appears to exist merely to put pages up for deletion. Your autocratic behavior goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for.Gungadin
  • Actually, my account exists to try to improve Wikipedia. As it happens, a large measure of what's wrong with Wikipedia is shite articles like this one that people defend because they're fans. What you call desperation I call exasperation at the piles of garbage strewn about Wikipedia passing themselves off as worthwhile articles. Otto4711 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your idea of improving Wikipedia is to restrict other editors from actually editing and improving articles? I think you are on a power trip and Wikipedia is not a suitable place for dictatorial people. Try improving wikipedia by actually doing some editing instead of branding other people's efforts as "shite". Perhaps you would find Wikipedia more satisfying if you did something other than contributing to AFD's or pointlessly counting other users edit history. Clearly you have a lot of time on your hands if you choose to count people's edit histories just to make a point. Put that time to a more productive use.Gungadin 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my idea of improving Wikipedia is to add information that is sourced where I can and suggest removing articles in violation of Wikipedia policy when I find them. The last AFD preserved the article solely on the basis of what the supporters promised it would become. Lo and behold, as happens in pretty much every instance when earnest editors earnestly promise there will be improvements made, the articles sat there untouched. And so here it is again, with the same pleas of 'we need more time!' and 'don't delete it because it's so important!' If it takes another AFD to light a fire under you and do what needs to be done to get this article into some sort of shape that approaches some minimal inclusion standard, then so be it. Otto4711 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amazed that you actually admit to using AFD's to manipulate other editors like this. Clearly you are abusing the AFD process and you even admit to doing so.Gungadin 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your words, not mine. Your phony accusation in a desperate effort to save the article, not mine. Otto4711 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you are Backtracking now because you realise that you have foolishly admitted to abusing the AFD process to manipulate editors. I shall be taking this further as I don't think any editor has the right to abuse the AFD process in such a way.Gungadin 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can try all you want to make this about me instead of making it about the article. I'm sure you'll even convince some people to buy the line you're trying to sell. It says a lot that you can't defend the article on its face so you have to attack the nominator. You feel free to take your phony accusations any damn place you please. I stand by this nomination and I stand by my use of the process. Otto4711 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do, and thanks for giving me persmission, not that I need it. I think it is you who is the attacker and your comments and total abuse of Wikipedia privileges proves it. You decided to counter comments I made about the article by actively looking up both mine and Trampikey's edit count to discredit us in some way. Totally unnecessary when all we want to do is improve the articles. You have a history of offending editors, perhaps you should ask yourself why.Gungadin 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, seeing as you seem to be a fan of quoting policies, take a look at this one:
    WP:DICK. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep. This is a good article. When I first clicked on it, I expected nothing but plot summary, which it originally was, but now this article has gone from this...[30]...to what it is currently at this moment, as in a lot better. This article now, besides plot summary, provides creation, reliable sourced references, and real-world impact. I must really applaud
    Flyer22 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin

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

(Upgrading contested speedy delete). Fails to assert notability. The

B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham is notable; but the identity of the caretaker of a small-town place of worship doesn't seem separately notable. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Leon Toubin is cited as a Jewish Texan source for the book Growing Up Jewish in America: An Oral History, just google it with the name Leon Toubin and it shows up. ""As Leon Toubin comments on a Texas community in this entertaining oral history" [[31]].
He is a business leader as noted by the Toubin Pocket Park Project [[32]]
He is a civic leader as he is secretery of Blinn College Board of Trustees. [33]

There's more info, but I feel the above more than backs up the validity and notablility of the article. Thanks. Bhaktivinode

But there are zillions of small-city business/religious people who are on local committees. The Notable Residents section for Brenham, Texas gives the flavour of the level of notability expected for inclusion here: some kind of national, or at least wider regional, reputation. Gordonofcartoon 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. Very small scope for popularity. Corpx
  • Delete Not notable, just another local interest story.Montco 20:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has sources but still not good enough to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, and I agree with Gordonofcartoon that there are lots of "small-city business/religious people who are on local committees" (unsigned comment by User:Onceonthisisland)
  • Weak delete Concentrating on the strongest point, secretary of the Board of Trustees of a local college, its a two year community college, and I do not think this is quite enough. DGG (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, fails much more than just the
    Burntsauce 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom and
    WP:BIO. The statements about him here and in the article do not support claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above, although I am sure he is a mensch. Bearian 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omorashi Sakura

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

A

WP:NOTE. Snarfies 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I actually already have done so, which is actually how I found this article. Looks like he's written three other articles on single-volume manga (as in, NOT doujinshi) on the same topic. I did not nom these. I know the general procedure for single-volume manga is to merge to an author's page, but I don't know that there's an author's page to merge to in this case, and I'm content to leave them alone for now. The guy seems to have a bit of an obsession that doesn't do much for me, but a lot of his other articles seem pretty good to me. Well, you know. Considering. Snarfies 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was curious at to whether or not this is a published and sold manga, or if it was actually a fanfic as another user here suggested. If it is an actually published manga based on the Card Captors series (no matter if it used the characters with permission or not), then the notability is clearly established based on the Card Captors popularity. It does look like it was actually published and the author has in fact done many high profile spin offs, including a Neon Genesis Evangelion spin off. I think the page should not be deleted, that it should be updated and that the pages creator should be cautioned to do a bit of research into these new pages so notability and useful information can be added during the first draft of the new page, rather than after a deletion nomination. Also some pages for notable authors of these mangas would be nice, I'll speak to a friend that understands kanji a little better than me to better help find sources, reviews and profiles on these men and women that draw these. Also, does Wikipedia have a under construction tag, or am I thinking of a different wiki? JayKeaton 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a "hangon" tag, yes. The article itself says, explicitly, that this is a doujinshi. I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect about this NOT being a doujinshi, so I would like to see your source, please. We will ignore, for the moment, that the cover image is watermarked with a "doujinshi.it" banner. Snarfies 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well if it is certainly a doujinshi that is not notable, then perhaps the page should be redirected to doujinshi, so it describes what it is if anyone where to search for the title and puts off page recreation JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article, the Omorashi Tenshi and Omorashi Riko-chan all contain images (and links to) images of underage characters in sexual situations (Lolicon) which is illegal, shouldn't that be enough to get them deleted?
You may also want to delete some pictures of historical artifacts that contain images of underage humans in sexual situations, ancient Greek pottery has a lot of them and there are quite a few 18th century paintings that will need deleting too JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the images aren't illegal in Japan - they were actually published just like that, along with THOUSANDS of other manga and anime (see also
    lolikon, shotacon, and, if you want an animated example, Boku no Pico). The images aren't illegal in the USA, where Wikipedia is based. You cannot cite a law to the contrary. If it is illegal in YOUR particular country, tough, the internet isn't bound by your local country's laws. Snarfies 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Even if it's not a doujinshi, it's an unofficial derivative. And I'm of the opinion that most H manga are not notable.
    _dk 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep all. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)

AfDs for this article:
View AfD
)
Storylines of EastEnders (1990s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Storylines of EastEnders (1980s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Delete - article was kept at the first AFD based on the argument that no one had been given the opportunity to perform cleanup and tagged that cleanup was required. In the intervening month there has been no work done on the article. It and its two sister articles remain excessive plot summaries in clear violation of

WP:PLOT. Otto4711 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - If userOtto4711 had bothered to discuss this with the contributing editors, or even had a look at the project talk page, then he would have known that a rewrite is already underway. It is in its early stages here. It appears that I am the only one who is actively changing these articles, therefore expecting it to be completed in a month is totally unreasonable.Gungadin 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to write the articles over again then there is no need for these articles to exist in the interim. Otto4711 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USERFY-ing it does not lose the information. Corpx 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It is when the entire article is just about plot summary. Corpx 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has to be seen in context of the entire group of articles. putting the plot summary in a separate article is permissible, and I think generally desirable. It is enormously better than having separate articles for the episodes. DGG (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT also goes on to say "but not as a separate article". Its OK if this plot summary is inside
Eastenders, but not on its own Corpx 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I don't think WP:NOT takes into account just how much plot a long-running soap opera has, which would be inappropriate to add to the main article. Stephenb (Talk) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think
    WP:NOT should take into account of this. An encyclopedia should not be a plot summary database. Corpx 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, again may and could doesn't cut it, same with ome mention in a newspapers, there is no harm in recreating the article with mutiple

wat's sup 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Johannes Kornfeld

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

Subject of the article fails

talk 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

"May" and "could" don't cut it. Without verifiable sources (which means English for this Wikipedia), notability cannot be affirmed. -
talk 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltura

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

Only editor removed seconded {{

promotion. — Coren (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was The result of the debate was Speedy keep per

talk 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gay (disambiguation)

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

Doesnt really serve any useful purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubulina8888 (talk • contribs).

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

wat's sup 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Boolean programming method

Boolean programming method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean Programming Method (uppercase), which I am also nominating.

I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about: using a lot of if statements? A lot of nested ifs? If anyone knows what the article means, perhaps this can be merged to an appropriate article. Tualha (Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Boolean programming" gets a fair number of Google hits. ugen64 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you leave out the word "method", then yes, there are many hits. But they all seem to be about advanced algorithms and heuristics, and to have nothing to do with whatever kind of hack technique this article is talking about. Tualha (Talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've seen the type of hack it's talking about but I don't see that it's called this. We should have an article on Boolean programming itself, though, and we don't. Otherwise I would make it a redirect there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I googled "boolean programming", I got the impression that the term covers several different areas. There seems to be one kind associated with fuzzy logic; and possibly a distinct kind called quadratic boolean programming; and something called pseudo-boolean programming, though that might be simply a variation. I also got the vague impression that perhaps "programming" was used in the same sense as in "linear programming", as opposed to the sort you do to a computer. Hard to say for sure, since a lot of the links require subscriptions to read. Tualha (Talk) 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are all related topics, and much more mathematical and logic topics than computer topics. I'm not a CS or Math major, but I do know it has to do with set theory and at least in some versions calculus comes into play.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (In any case, we agree, the article is not a good article on the topic by any means.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is crap -- Whpq 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 06:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Boolean Programming Method

Boolean Programming Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned, very small stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean programming method (lowercase), which I am also nominating. Tualha (Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely non-notable, may be the authors own terminology for a trivial concept. JulesH 18:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable concept or term. We should have an article on Boolean programming itself, though, and we don't. Otherwise I would make it a redirect there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term is not in use for what is described in the article -- Whpq 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Eve

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

no evidence of notability Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of non-notability. Feeling that this was a little harsh, I replaced it with the notability tag, which the author of the article removed without making any significant changes to content. I have requested expansion and references, but there has been no response. It seems like a case of self-promotion. Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 longest duration films of Bollywood

10 longest duration films of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary list. NawlinWiki 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Reliable sources found and no consensus to delete JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlavUpDK

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

There are no independent sources that make this organization pass

Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I have found an article in the St Petersburg Times[39], which corroborates some of the content of the article. --Malcolmxl5 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And an article in The Moscow Times[40] about GlavUpDK (which stands for 'Glavnoye Upravleniye po Obsluzhivaniyu Diplomaticheskogo Korpusa') --Malcolmxl5 23:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge four related articles
    Ivan Ivanovich Sergeyev. GlavUpDK is an Government agency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, which would seem to be notable. There are at least two references, there may be more. Merge the four articles and build it up. BTW Greater Moscow isn't perpetually under snow. --Malcolmxl5 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Addendum The Moscow Country Club hosts an event on the PGA European Tour in August and is apparently ranked in the 'Top 100 Courses in the World'. --Malcolmxl5 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I still don't understand the matter. Is GlavUpDK a government agency or a golf club? --B. Wolterding 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A government agency. It created and owns the golf and country club hence the two articles could probably be merged (along with those of the individuals involved). Sorry for the confusion. --Malcolmxl5 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I got the point now. So what you want to write is a more detailed article about the golf club, or something similar. That's fine for me. For the GlavUpDK article, I must say that the current article doesn't have much to do with what GlavUpDK actually is, judging by the sources, and is rather confusing. (GlavUpDK seems to be more like a government-owned real estate company, that's currently not even mentioned.) Therefore, I would still say: Delete or userfy for the moment, without prejudice to recreation at any time as a complete rewrite, based on multiple independent sources. (One source with in-depth coverage is granted from the Moscow Times article above). --B. Wolterding 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged and redirected after adding a sentence to the subject's father's article.

13 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Charles West (major)

Charles West (major) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Article does not assert why exactly the individual is notable. Also, sources cannot be verified. A google search 1 did not yield any encyclopedia information about him. xC | ☎ 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 18:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only thing significant seems to have been some minor action as a junior officer and as Captain, commanding a regiment that was temporarily moved to Virginia in case of a rent revolt that never came. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all.

wat's sup 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Superstars to Hold the WWE & World Heavyweight Championships

List of Superstars to Hold the WWE & World Heavyweight Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This along with four other pages are just lists, not needed. Darrenhusted 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just lists like the page above:

List of top ECW World Champions by combined length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of top WWE Intercontinental Champions by combined length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of top WWE United States Champions by combined length. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of top World Heavyweight Champions by combined length. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete the top one.
    Be bold
     and do the following redirects:
Redirect
List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length
.
Redirect
List of ECW World Championship reigns by length
.
Redirect
List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length
.
Redirect
List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length. Lugnuts 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete I can't even tell what any of them even contribute to anything. It looks more like something fitting for a plaque on a wall than in an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user is banned for disruption and sockpuppetry, and his vote has been stricken. [41][reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disians

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

Disians are humanoid characters in the Draim universe. A Google search for Disian Draim comes up with no sources at all outside Wikipedia and its mirrors so severe problems with verifiability Capitalistroadster 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails
    verifiabilty. I couldn't even verify the content on the Draim web pages. Whether Draim and Draim arena are themselves notable is another question, but the Disians clearly aren't. --Huon 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already - if no one responds after the first relist it's undoubtedly safe to say that no one strongly opposes the deletion. Otto4711 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. ugen64 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is too much jargon and nothing that could help me understand if the page was in English or in draimish. The page doesn't have any real world information about the disians. NobutoraTakeda 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [42][reply]
  • Delete per above. Bearian 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both.

13 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Azurewrath

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

There is no out-of-universe context for these fictional items; simply not an important subject for an article. We certainly shouldn't be listing in-game statistics (

WP:NOT a game guide.) MarašmusïneTalk 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Peace, Mathmo. I stand on the nominator's reasons. I just added the other reason for fun.--Lenticel (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hervey Bay Bombers AFC

Hervey Bay Bombers AFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent

96 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I am proposing to merge
AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay, please discuss here.Garrie 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn and all delete !votes reversed. Nice job on the rewrite.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Slut Night

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

* Delete The "article" on Slut Night is really nothing more than an advertisement. Tovojolo 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This AFD was malformatted, it is fixed now.
96

*Delete Not enough independent sources, via a check on Yahoo or Google.

96 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Change to strong keep per Benjiboi's yeoman's job.
96 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Not notable and unencyclopedic (a "social gathering"). --Malcolmxl5 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to strong keep. An excellent piece of work by Benjiboi and I'm pleased to change my response from delete to strong keep. --Malcolmxl5 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless this can be Keep as rewrite has shown this to be a general term for butch-femme nights rather than a term used by a single organisation. Bigdaddy1981 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is definitely not notable as a general term and is basically unsourced. TAnthony 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Revised opinion below)

::I didn't think it was. I've certainly never heard it used by any lesbian friends of mine. Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Peel (London)

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

Article about a non-notable nightclub. Can't find

notability guideline for businesses. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of controversial inventors

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

This (so far) short list article is problematic because neither "controversial" nor "inventors" are defined. Since I would argue that they can never be satisfactorily defined, I am suggesting deletion for this list. CIreland 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's nothing to catalogue here: of the three "controversial inventors" listed, two are redlinks and the other is a redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yep, hard to define what is meant by the title. Or merge into Perpetual motion. Lugnuts 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments above. --Malcolmxl5 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Subjective as all hell--this is a BLP problem waiting to happen.
    96 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    John Vandenberg 10:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom, no clear inclusion criteria Hut 8.5 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete criteria for inclusion on the list seemingly violates
    WP:OR. Pats Sox Princess 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Anything said here could be said in the Perpetual motion article. The article title just does not fit a very short list out of the thousands who tried to invent perpetual motion and the charlatans who claimed they actually had. And it leaves off the controversies of Thomas Edison inventing the lightbulb versus myriad other claimants, the controversies over Marconi or Tesla inventing radio. Morse or Joseph Henry or Weber and Gauss inventing the telegraph, Fitch or Fulton inventing the steamboat, Bell or Gray inventing the telephone, the controversies over Tesla being Croatian, Austrian or Serbian, of Atanasoff or Mauchly inventing the electronic computer, etc. Edison 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Targeman 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is obviously incomplete and has no references nor does have any criteria whatsoever to support each entry.--JForget 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; this is pure subjectivity. "Controversy" is probably inherent in doing something others haven't done before - or couldn't get working - or couldn't make a commercial go of. Carlossuarez46 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When creating the page, i had one particular intention. Some time ago i have downloaded few controversial videos. Some where really scientific, but some others were fakes. And it took me a time to distinguish which fall to which category. So, i wanted to help people by creating a list of fake/imaginary scientists, to help people without good knowledge to decide whether particular information/video is it worth matching or not. Raigedas 09:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Though I appreciate
    WP:POV. Dan Gluck 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Delete per nom., and all comments in agreement.--JayJasper 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per above. Bearian 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For what information is actually there, a teeny list of people who claimed to invent perpetual motion, we have History of perpetual motion machines. Someguy1221 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy Siegel (rapper)

Bugsy Siegel (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See [44], I moved the page from Bugsy siegel(rapper) while another user was nominating it for deletion.

Original nominator states: Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is!

hablo ... 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy Delete: does not assert notability. Hu 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged. Hut 8.5 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Leech

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

Article is not a biography but concerns only a single event in this person's otherwise non-notable life that received a small amount of press coverage. CIreland 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If a new article were written about the case itself instead of the person, would it not be a completely new article, not one named "Monica Leech" ? Spazure 09:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Essentially, this case concerned a vulgar jibe made by a caller to a radio phone-in programme at this woman's expense, who was perceived as receiving excessive remuneration for work carried out for an Irish politician. The jibe was reported in a newspaper, she sued the paper for libel and lost. It would appear that there were no political repercussion, e.g. no resignations. It seems to me that the event and case are of only temporary interest and do not hold any long-term notability to warrant a new article. --Malcolmxl5 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is not the vulgar jibe which was of prurient interest to the public, it was the ruling's importance in terms of Irish
libel case law, which was much discussed in the media (and will probably be adjudicated by the Irish Supreme Court, as she plans to appeal). There are also potential repercussions with regard to Irish compliance with EU directives. Not all "political repercussions" involve people's careers. Spazure, the point is getting to a compliant article, either through rewrite or from scratch is immaterial. Renames are minor, not really an obstacle. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision

GRBerry 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Aspergum

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

Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. Spazure 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominating individual, after reviewing the revised article, I withdraw my nomination for deletion, and now elect to keep it as well. Spazure 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, I nominated this like I always do -- what did I break?? See me on my talk page to avoid clutter. Spazure 08:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --Malcolmxl5 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Change to keep. It's much, much better now. Well done. --Malcolmxl5 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I've expanded and referenced it. Its notability lies in its role in the recognition of aspirin's usefulness as an antithrombotic agent. Gordonofcartoon 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    John Vandenberg 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Great, but what if the pain is in your jaw? ~ Infrangible 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And does it lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight? Gordonofcartoon 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both as a brand name and a generic, it crops up on a few UK NHS documents: see Google. Never actually seen it here, though. Gordonofcartoon 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the top few hits at least appear to be a list of drugs NOT to be prescribed within the NHS. Espresso Addict 05:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - should have explained. They do exist here; these lists are the so-called "Black List" that was introduced way back to save the NHS money by banning prescription of brand-name drugs in favour of generics. Gordonofcartoon 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; I wonder why it's not listed as a UK brand in Martindale? I do still think it might be better moved to a generic title, but I seem to be in a minority here... Espresso Addict 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected to

96 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Love Brewster

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

Non-notable individual, article is fairly unencyclopedic. I can't imagine that anybody would have heard of him or be interested in hearing of him. Rambutan (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Coming over on the Mayflower was a big deal (weren't there only about 100 or so people on there total??). I'm sure we could get additional reliable independent sources to sustain notability in this case. As it's a historical figure from the distant American past, most sources will most likely be in print, and thus not easily obtained via google. Spazure 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect perhaps a line to
    List of passengers on the Mayflower. I found practically nothing but genealogical references searching Google Books. Brewster came over on the Mayflower, yes, but did nothing of significance thereafter. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: you might want to look at
    Wrestling Brewster too. Gordonofcartoon 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and close early. As with Almodad (cited by John Vandenberg below), merging the single citation of Lebonah into a topical list might be useful. However, consensus seems to be that, because of the intense scholarship that has been done on the Hebrew Bible, all names and places mentioned in the Bible are inherently notable and easily referenced. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebonah

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

Seems to be a word-for-word copy from a

dictionary, but its content is completely unsourced. It's orphaned, uncategorised, and doesn't need to be here. I'd also say that it's non-notable. Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is typical of a number sourced from the
Shiloh (Biblical). Is it unsourced? No, its from Eastons. I've changed the stub to a more specific one. Ultimately, do I care? No. Happy to go with the flow of thinking. Welsh 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep by means of consensus, and no real justification for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livery Dole

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

Unsourced, unencyclopedic, not particularly well-written. Was prodded; prod removed by an IP who removed all prods I made yesterday. Rambutan (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a real place with a history going back nearly five hundred years. What's "unencyclopedic" about that? It now has four sources and a lot of extra information. The Alms house has stood since 1591, and remains to this day, and it was also a place of execution which saw several protestant martyrs burned at the stake. A memorial to two of them is also on the site. The user who removed the prod had a good point. Nick mallory 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use some better formatting, but the topic certainly seems worthy of inclusion, and it's not written as a travel guide (which is always a plus when talking about place). Spazure 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced (albeit imperfectly) and encyclopedic. Valid historical topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic though could be improved. --Malcolmxl5 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no justification given to delete; just saying "unencyclopedic" doesnt make it "un-
    John Vandenberg 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. Hawkestone 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but ... and I don't want to be libellous ... "a place of bustling modern commerce" is rather fanciful. Gordonofcartoon 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator provided no good reason to delete. Even if he did, the subject is notable enough. Pats Sox Princess 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

13 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

M-nitroaniline

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

Contains no genuine content whatsoever, just a table of info copied from the reference. The cleanup/orphaned/uncategorised/expert tags take up more space than the material altogether! From the fact that it doesn't have a single sentence in it, I would suggest that it's not notable. Rambutan (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the compound in question is 3-nitrobenzenamine, not benzenamine. Espresso Addict 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Landlubber

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

WP:NOT - we're not a dictionary, and the article doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia (I mean, "Talk like a Pirate Day" as a source?!). Rambutan (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Lean office processes

Lean office processes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unclear subject matter, says practically nothing. Was prodded yesterday; prod was removed without a clear explanation. Rambutan (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article says what it is but "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". As an aside, I didn't understand any of that. --Malcolmxl5 10:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    John Vandenberg 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per the foregoing comments. --Evb-wiki 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete the only info known about this group is a hostage rescue, other than that the article isn't

wat's sup 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jesus Miracle Crusade

Jesus Miracle Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organization doesn't seem to be very notable [46], and may not fit

TK CT 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A comment on the talk page does claim this group is notable in the Philippines. --健次(derumi)talk 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have blocked the account of User:Wake up saul for continued disruption. This is not a place to evangelize. Keegantalk 06:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect.

13 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ignorance-based view

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

This does not appear to be a notable topic. A google search[47] returned only 317 entries. most were to the phrase in a non-philosophical context. The few real entries derived from the Wikipedia article. A quick look through the Pan and Penguin dictionaries of Philosophy found no corresponding entry. No entry in the Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Banno 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sounds to me like agnosticism. Either way, I think the nominator established that the term itself is either nonexistant or rarely used. Calgary 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sourcing to have this article here without crossing over to
    WP:OR Corpx 05:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Response True, but if it is a notable philosophical term, a google search would reasonably turn up some sort of reference to it. I've also taken the liberty of looking into some internet-based philosophy glossaries and still nothing. In this case the google search isn't being used as the key element of the assertion of a lack of notability, it is simply one of many supports. Calgary 07:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I also checked on several other paper resources. I thought it might possibly be a term from Islamic theology - but no info in the Penguin Dictionary of Religions, either. It could be a new-age term; but I see no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt. Banno 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the New Fontana dictionary of Modern Thought, either. Banno 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rei Kimura

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

WP:COIN, noting that the original author's name is identical to the article title - suggesting a conflict of interest. The content of the article is uninspiring at best, and of the 1400 Google hits, the first 10 do not provide adequate evidence of notability. Shalom Hello 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy Keep without prejudice to renomination, nominator sockuppet of indefblocked user SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Space Marines

I was going through wiki as I normally do and I saw that there were a lot of pages connected together that had no sources besides a primary source and contained information that was all in-universe and seemed not to exist beyond in-universe. I had to create a name to go through the deletion process, so I don't really know if I am doing it right and its really confusing. NobutoraTakeda 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be subsets of the first page, lack third party sources, written from an in-universe and biased source, and are not encyclopedic: h:Night_Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[reply]

Emperor's_Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Iron_Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
World_Eaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Death_Guard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Thousand_Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Black_Legion_(Warhammer_40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Alpha_Legion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTE - None of these fictional things have received "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge all to the parent article. You're talking about one of the 7 major factions here in one of the most popular tabletop board games on earth. It has sourcing problems, yes, and could probably stand to be re-written, but the parent article should remain. I'm sure people more well-versed with tabletop gaming could add good references. --Haemo 06:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: If its about a game, why isn't there anything really mentioned about the game? I know there is mention of a game, but it seems to be fiction about characters from a fictionary world. The Mario page, another well known game character, has almost no comparable fiction. It goes through the history of his development and the different incarnations, and then includes many non-primary sources. I'm also noticing that many of the other related pages to the Chaos Space Marines seem to be equally involved in fiction and having little actually gaming. Would a merge even solve the problem? There are three pages related that seem to talk about the gaming, but even they are confusing: Chaos Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles, Vehicles of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), Vehicles of the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). This whole thing is confusing and I don't know if a Merge would salvage it. NobutoraTakeda 06:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, it's complicated. The Warhammer universe is a tabletop board game, at its heart. But, it also is a series of books, video games, and other stuff. So, it's not only a game, it's a story as well; people get caught up in it, and write a LOT about the story. The material there is very, very crufty, which is why I'm advocating a merger of all the articles. However, there is a Wikiproject devoted to Warhammer 40,000, so they might chime in; knowing more than me. --Haemo 07:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For reference, what is cruft? I've never heard of it, but it sounds like important jargon. If it is a story, where is the one book that its from and how do you reconcile that with the game? Would a page on Star Wars have to have fiction pieces from Star Wars video games? Or from the Star Wars card games? Or from the roleplaying games? Shouldn't there be some seperation? I suggest that the different novels listed on some of the pages include the information on their novel page instead of being lumped in with a boardgame page, or would that be wrong? NobutoraTakeda 08:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of computer or video games-related deletions
    .
  • Keep. Policy wonkery gone mad. —Xezbeth 07:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy exactly and how? Corpx 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sub-articles need some editing to be less in-universe, that's all. But do you not find it worrying that a brand new editor comes straight to AfD to get a whole set of articles deleted, despite admitting to not knowing much about Warhammer 40,000? —Xezbeth 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and relist individually. The articles cite references and do not all have the same Wikipedia policy violation in common. Each article needs to be evaluated separately. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the one basically the topic for the rest, like a page devoteed to Tolkien's horses and then a page devoteed to an individual horse from Lord of the Rings? NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007
  • Keep all they may need some individual work, but within the 40K universe they are notable. If these are deemed non-notable, then the vast majority of 40K/WFB/LotR/other GW articles would fall under the same hammer. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the vast majority of those pages are written in-universe and do not have third party sources, then the vast majority of those pages don't belong on Wikipedia. While looking through the link on fancruft, there was an essay on Pokemon used as an excuse to keep other pages. Saying that some other page would need to be deleted for not complying with Wikipedia is not an excuse not to delete this page. If you feel that the vast majority of the pages have the same inadequacies, maybe they should all be added to the list. NobutoraTakeda 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice this account has just joined today, for the apparent single purpose of deleting articlesDGG (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh. I stated that at the very top of the page. You can't put an article for deletion without a user name. Thanks for being condesending about me on every page you can possibly find. NobutoraTakeda 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Merge. As a random visitor to this page with no Warhammer background, I find the page rather useful. While I agree that having other pages that do not appear to adhere as well to policy does not, in itself, justify the presence of this page, I will hazard the controversial statement that perhaps the interpretation of the policy is too strict. Learning of this policy just from this comment -- I have subsequently realized that an innumerable number of pages on the wikipedia fail this policy and have provided me with a lot of substantative and important information, and I would hazard to -- as you contextualize it -- challenge them all. I suppose it is the community's call -- but I for one find that the strict application of that particular policy to be counterproductive to (what I assume is) the basic tenent of the site. If we do strictly adhere with the policy, I'm sure that there must be some Warhammer aficionado that knows of some tabletop rpg periodical of sorts that notes this topic. Though, in many degrees, I feel like the relevancy of the citation will likely be relatively weak in comparison to the content of this article. With that noted, I believe that is, perhaps, the crux of this policy -- that even in topics where secondary sources do cite the topic, it is often the primary sources that provide the most pertinent information to be cited, and the secondary sources, in effect, become superfluous. --70.91.8.169 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are providing information, why do I have no clue about their actual connection to a table top game until after I spent four hours to try and track down history and third party sources for the page? And which version did you read? Encyclopedias are all about third party sources, not primary. A page about the Bible isn't a summary of the Bible, but how it impacts others, which requires a third party. Encyclopedia's are not plot summaries and shouldn't be plot summaries. If someone wants one, why don't they buy footnotes? NobutoraTakeda 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point tentatively conceded. What we then need is a wiki-cliffnotes... Outside of that, please see my comments under the Noonien Soon thread... --70.91.8.169 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would put up an AFD for it but I already have two controversial ones right now active and I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. I'm already knee deep trying to rationalize to people so they don't think I'm just spamming a delete without having a legitimate reason. NobutoraTakeda 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles need clean up, but this is not cause for deletion. Notable within their own universe and sources can be provided from such easily. --Falcorian (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable within a universe isn't notable without. What do you think of a possibility of a merge and cut excess information? If the excess is needed, why not have a generic history page, because many of the people seem to overlap with their relation to that Horus guy. NobutoraTakeda 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how one can argue non-notable for groups that appear in: Dozens of novels, 4 editions of one of the most popular table top game, various spin off table top games, a collectible card game, and at least 3 recent computer games (and others previously). Lack of outside sources might be a valid criticism, but that's one you could apply almost universally to works of fiction that aren't top tier popular culture.

--Falcorian (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they are mentioned in those books, then why don't you put the information on the pages about the books instead of seperating it, making OR claims that they are the same group as the other, merging information from a table top game and fantasy fiction and having a page without third party sources? By having those pages, you are creating OR, creating redundancy with book pages, and lack verifiable sources.
  • I'm sorry, I can't follow what you're saying, could you go over it again? I don't see how claiming that the same group which shows up in multiple works is the same group is OR, nor do I see how a lack of third party sources makes the numerous primary sources useless, as the information presented in the pages is citable with book/game/card/etc. sources without interpretation by the contributor. --Falcorian (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When you combine multiple texts not written by the same author and only loosely connected by the publisher and then use them to write a fictional history and call it "canon", then you are performing OR synthesis.NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On this will have to disagree then. --Falcorian (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well written, encycopaedic article. Mathiastck 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean a well written article lacking any third party sources and serves no function besides as a page to link to other pages that make up the organization and without any real explanation to how any of it connects to the table top game, right? NobutoraTakeda 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been stated before, the articles are about organizations and entities within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. This means that although the entities/organizations have a role and are represented within the table-top game, much of their history does not relate directly towards the playing of the game, and this is what is being documented here. Another example would be the information regarding the EVE Online universe, as well as World of Warcraft. The articles about the history associated with those universes in-fiction often do not have sources, yet they are not up for deletion. Similarly, I see no reason why these articles on the Chaos Space Marine Legions should be singled out unfairly and inconsistently. Nonagonal Spider 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of it. When I first started reading Warhammer 40k books I knew almost nothing about it. Due to the information contained her I have made connections in stories that I otherwise would not have. I am sure I am not the only one who collects information from here. I do not disagree that it needs to be cleaned up but I would not rule out an extremely popular game or series of books because of lack of information or validity. Information is being added and created all the time by the black library, that is the fun of all of this. Warhammer is constantly evolving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.27.243 (talk • contribs).

Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I report your comment to the noticeboard for lying in order to sway a vote over a topic you are vanobsessed with or will you delete your accusations and apologize? NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wouldn't be lying because that is actually what the checkuser's findings were if you read the diff link; that you are possibly SanchTachi. I'd say there is no reason to delete that... or apologize.--Isotope23 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to say that I am that person and its only a "possibly" because that person put it up to begin with. The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result. NobutoraTakeda 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem more than a little defensive about this. Checkuser said "possible," that's all. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for clarification, but it looks to me like Mackensen (talk · contribs) did run a checkuser and it came up with results indicating a possibility that there is a link.--Isotope23 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result." That's news to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misread you then, because it says "No comment on the IP addresses" which makes it seem that you didn't do the check and that you only guessed at what it could be. What does a possible even mean? I either am someone or I am not. Maybe you are possibly wrong. Maybe you are possibly a robot. Maybe you are possibly eighty midgets in a large suit. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything. To be blunt i've read all of the above and am wondering why on earth someone who clearly knows little about the warhammer world is so vehemently interested in denying such a valauable resource to those who do want to use it. I'm pretty annoyed as someone has already deleted some infomration on a site i used to look at and now they are trying again. The rationale given above should be more than suficient for you to remove the deletion request and move on - if nothing else the majority (i.e. the keepers) should outweight the minority (i.e. deleters) in this case. Hence a democratic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.84 (talk • contribs)

That is a nice thought, but
Wikipedia isn't a democracy.--Isotope23 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the consensus is that the Chaos Space Marines are notable, but what about the other pages listed? They lack third party sources that are necessary for notability. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main article for the Chaos Space Marines is unquestionably notable, as has been established. The splinter articles are about specific factions within the CSM, the differences between which are stark in-universe and make up a good deal of the details of the background information not just for the CSM, but for Warhammer 40,000 as a whole. Given, however, that they exist as constructs purely in-universe it isn't reasonable to expect that a third-party source is going to have any interest in providing information about them. However, that fact alone is not cause enough to call them irrelevant or un-notable. It'd be like saying that the differences between Rohan and Gondor are un-notable, simply because they only exist within Tolkien's fiction and have little bearing on the real world. The articles may need to be cleaned up, but not deleted. Agharo 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, but more succinct and eloquent. --Falcorian (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gondor and Rohan have been discussed in serious literary criticism. Chaos Space Marines have not. NobutoraTakeda 07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So suddenly any work of fiction that has not been given "serious" criticism is irrelevant? A game with literally millions of players worldwide, and a faction within that game that enjoys very rich support from a huge fanbase, these are too insignificant for us to keep a wikipedia article on? We may as well delete the articles on every game that had the gall to get a book written about it, or that dares to have a plotline or setting extending beyond the game itself. The
Halo
series would be a good example of a large set of articles written in essentially the same style, but the most any of them have recieved is a notice to clean up the articles to make them more relevant. Agharo 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats part of notability. You can't include gossip or other types of sources. Halo has recieved serious criticism from third party sources. I haven't seen many of the articles, but I do know that as one of the biggest selling video games of all time and focus of many E3s, they have recieved coverage in over 30 major video game magazines plus other areas. I could not find anything even close for Chaos Space Marines. NobutoraTakeda 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how hard you looked, then. Dawn of War, the video game series based off of Warhammer 40,000 (and including the Chaos Space Marines as one of the main factions) has recieved coverage from numerous gaming magazines, including PC Gamer among others. As some people have pointed out, Warhammer 40,000 (along with Warhammer Fantasy Battle and the Lord of the Rings miniatures game, all of which are produced by the same company) almost completely dominates the miniature wargaming market, meaning that there are extremely few third-party groups to give it criticism. Agharo 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Why dont all the pages of Chaos space marines be merged into one? Sepearate pages may be too much, (And I say this as a player of Warhammer 40K) but, Imperial Space Marines (the good guys) have their own pages per chapter (most of them). Chaos Marines dont have individual Codexs (rules, stats etc) published like some Imperial Space marine chapters, but they are all different chapters, and have different tendancies/pros/cons. This may be because Im a noob, but can you specify third party sources, so I know when to stop digging my grave? Ghostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)GhostridernzGhostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like this? That was a proposed idea for a merge that I believed would help. If the fiction information needed to be split from the page, it could be given a Chaos Space Marines in fiction page or something of a similar title.
  • Keep/Merge As mentioned, Chaos Space Marines as a whole are a significant part of Warhammer 40,000 which is notable. The individual Chaos Space Marine chapters may not warrant their own pages. The articles, if kept as is, also have to be changed to be more encyclopedic.Oderic 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep ahahaha, if the guy was really me, I would have never put up a deletion for the pages. Each are obviously important on their own as they are variants with even their own miniatures produced. Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, and Khorne Beserkers show that at least four of the variants are notable as part of the production line. The Black Legion was notable for having Abaddon the Despoiler who lead the Eye of Terror campaign. Others have been the complete focus of a book. Clearly, they are all individually notable. This is precious and hillarious though. Speedy keep, because everyone says its me and I say speedy keep. Case closed! SanchiTachiAdmitted sock

Closing this. Socks are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Menschenaffe

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

Fails

guitarist 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given all the List of song about nominations, it's reasonable to nominate this as it certainly fits the bill. Despite all the "ILIKEIT" and "ITSFUNNY" reasonings that pushed this into no consensus twice, I think a solid fourth review is needed. Bulldog123 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm solid fourth review? Mike33 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
definitely, the fourth review Lentower 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right but the first ended in "keep" not "no consensus" so I didn't count it. I'll change it though. Bulldog123 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closing Admin: Bulldog123 opening paragraph above is full of POV. His analysis of the prior AfDs is biased. The fact that other List of song about articles are nominated is irrelevant - an article stands by itself. And he gives no reason there why this is a bad article. Lentower 15:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how you expect someone to not be POV in an AfD debate. Besides, all I said is that many in the original AfDs were not convincing keep arguments (which, yes, is an opinion) but apparently a lot of people think they weren't convincing either. Bulldog123 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, what is your argument besides that it's fun for you to make masturbation puns? GassyGuy 01:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Good point. My argument is that the article is well written, could probably be improved with additional sourcing (besides the obvious lyrics pages), addresses a subject that obviously would not be in a papr encyclopedia, and is describes the fact that taboo subjects tend to be described only in pop music. Can't think of a poem about this, can you? Hmmm... a List of masturbation puns? What an idea. Mandsford 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yet as I've said before, the lyrics are very much open to interpretation (you can't really verify that something is innuendo, can you?). Calgary 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from strong precedent that lists such as this should be deleted, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that every song in this list is about masturbation. Most, it seems, simply involve one line that either directly, or through a euphanism, mention masturbation. Two different concepts. The list as it stands is without value. Resolute 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not a particularly useful page. Turning Japanese by the Vapors? Wow, I thought it was about...


...come to think, what the hell is it about? Kripto 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete changed my position (pardon the double entendre) on this one, per all the other "songs about" problems. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The format and subject of most "List of songs about..." articles makes them worth deleting. But this article actually provides the relevant lyrics. This means the article can be more easily verified. It also avoids the trap of picking a too general subject or listing songs that merely use suggestive puns. If someone were to write a paper on masturbation in 20th century popular culture this list could actually be quite helpful. Cedars 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the lyrical excerpts either lead one astray (or prove, depending on your familiarity with each song) that these songs are, in fact, not for the most about actually about masturbation, but rather mention it in passing, making this association just as trivial as most of the song lists. GassyGuy 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really hate lists, that are just incredibly boring links to other articles that I could have googled much easier. This is quite something else and has the makings of a useful tool. He's knocked out some well observed lyric references, though I do appreciate that some of them may be
    WP:OR. I think editors who are raising a keep will work on it too. Mike33 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. The current state of the article may suck, but if it were to be thoroughly reviewed and sourced, it'd be a perfectly acceptable list. --Hemlock Martinis 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get that you're trying to make a cross-afd point about improving articles rather than deleting them, but in this case, it's grossly irrelevant. What more could honestly be done with this list? Include songs that are entirely about masturbation, or bolden the masturbation innuendos? Fact of the matter is, there's nothing to improve. It's just a trivia-based arbitrary listing, and for some reason I doubt many college students are going to be disappointed this list was deleted since they were going to base it on their discourse. Bulldog123 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Masturbation is one of the ultimate acts of profanity. Why else the divine genocide of infant felines? Songs about this act of blasphemous violence are of vital interest to Angels of Vengeance as well as trivia writers. Of course, most remotely scintillating wiki entries are vital to the latter group. Alas, the AFD-fetishists, with their chants of WP:NOTTHISNOTTHATNOTANYTHING, are engaged in an ongoing pogrom to drive them off the website.--Perceive 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this contribution speediable under patent nonsense? GassyGuy 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is slighty funny, if that's what he was going for. Bulldog123 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep stop deleting all those useful song lists. SalaSkan 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bizarrely well tended-to. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete...Leave it alone already. --zenohockey 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. More trivial claptrap. -R. fiend 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very well kept and done. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete.. After 3 AfDs, why do we need another?!? This list has only gotten better over that time. Please let this one be the last one. Lentower 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary, the list is barely verifiable, as when a specific lyric is not given, here is no citation (or any citations in the article whatsoever), and when a specific lyric is given, more often than not the sample is not conclusive, and is instead massively subject to interpretation. Calgary 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just a list about songs, just with the topic of masturbation. Masturbation is a cultural theme, and is relevant to knowledge. If we delete this list, we might as well delete everything in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs since this would be a precedent stating "no song lists!"--Jhskulk 12:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Divided no consensus - relist or another Afd in two weeks - keep or delete? Its getting silly now. Mike33 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had this ended in "keep" the second time it was nominated, renominating wouldn't make much sense. The list moved from that to 'no consensus' when usually it is the opposite that should arise. Bulldog123 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bulldog, I was less than clear. I think that you should relist this for another 5 days, so that other editors can contribute. At the moment IMHO, it looks like another "no consensus" and I think that raising an Afd every month or two isn't good for wikipedia (100+ Afd nearly every day). lets get a definate keep or delete. If after another 5 days, it seems clear that we are still stuck with no consensus, I will change my comment to delete and explain my rationale and hope other editors will follow suit. I accept that it seems a ruthless thing to do, but the continual refering of articles to Afd may be seen as disruptive and certainly doesn't help make Wikipedia good. If deletion stops Afds being raised than this can only be a good thing. Mike33 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then. Though I don't see how an AfD is that bad a thing. Bulldog123 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The time spend on over a 100 AfDs/day and DRVs would in this case (a 2nd or greater AfD) and many others be better spent adding and improving content. Pick any {{fact}} and fixing it is a better use of editor's time. Lentower 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe AfD is a vital process for the survival of wikipedia as a legitimate source of information. AfDs prevent it from turning into
    advertisement vehicle and many other things. If you don't, then oh well. Bulldog123 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
no we have
WP:CSD for those kind of issues. Afd is treated like some kind of joke by editors. Mike33 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike33
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

relist from 4th July

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

13 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Lucid dreaming in popular culture

Lucid dreaming in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As indicated by this entry: "In the movie Deep Impact, one of the astronauts on the mission to destroy the comet describes a wake-initiated lucid dream," this in popular culture article is

WP:NOT#IINFO. Next stop Dreaming in popular culture. Bulldog123 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy deleted as hoax, joke, or just plain silliness. No such word. ●DanMS • Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirted

Apparent hoax definition. Google only turns it up as a misspelling for "required". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ::: *Comment LOL giving my age a way again. Still looking it up the old fashion way. ShoesssS Talk 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Pokémon in other media

Pokémon in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant. Everything here has its own article and/or a summary in

The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

All this info already exists in
The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point--changing vote to delete.
96 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

XYplorer

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

Delete Non-notable software. Also almost every edit to the article is by the one editor (

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Please take a closer look at the edit history. 16 edits by Mr Fritic and everyone else only has either one or two edits.
Also if you take a closer look at the first hundred results of your google search you'll see that almost all of them are links to software directory sites. After a quick glance through them, the only seemingly genuine review I found is on a blog, where the subsequent post is just a large image of a naked woman with big breasts. AlistairMcMillan 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that XYplorer was added to "Comparison of file managers" by User:88.138.91.123, and added to "List of Portable software" by User:Surrender10. Both of them have only made XYplorer-related edits. AlistairMcMillan 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In reviewing the list I noticed that
User:Argento3 majority of contributions were to Dolphin (software) and Comparison of file managers . In addition, User:80.53.230.202 only contributed to RageWork and Comparison of file managers and so on and so on. We delete this article you must go in and delete every other article listed on Wikipedia under these article names. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. ShoesssS Talk 04:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know what you are you talking about with Argento3? He/She's made numerous contributions to articles that have nothing to do with either Dolphin or file managers in general, unless "Roman helmet", "Make Human" and "Template:Infobox software license" are file managers with really strange names. About RageWorks, yeah that looks like another article/advert that needs to be AFD'd. AlistairMcMillan 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are other softwares. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) but I have to comment on your above remarks. If an individual is “Popular and well know among a group of individuals “; how big does this group have to be before being listed as noteworthy. Five – ten-twenty or just maybe two. If we are going to start putting this as a criteria, I am going to start to nominate every individual player on Soccer – Football – Baseball – National and ect and ect who have articles here at Wikipedia be deleted ShoesssS Talk .02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~[reply]
  • I know you are probably just trying to
    make a point, but I think your statement is kind of silly. You really think nominating every single sportsperson is going to do any good? First of all, you would NEVER be able to list them all, as there is just too many for 1 person to do. Second of all, many people would think you are just doing bad faith nominations, and you would probably have your editing privileges revoked (I'd like to see you nominate Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and see what kind of backlash you get). Also, are you trying to compare famous, well known, notable sportsmen/women with a software program created by an individual, that not a lot of people have heard of? Have you even heard of this program before you saw the Afd? Do you use it? Where is all the coverage/reviews on this program? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Let me clarify, I said it doesn't automatically make it worthwhile I never said that all articles were that way, just because something may be popular to a group of people doesn't automatically make it worthwhile. If someone makes an article about a particular game they made up, it may be popular in the whole city or school etc. etc. but just because it's well known in that particular place doesn't mean it's notable, but doesn't mean it's not. You can't
inherit notability from the "big number", you can have an article that's notable because of the "big number" but it's not a deal that comes with every article. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • If you could provide some
    notability, it would be great. I'll change my view of the article if those are satisfied. Thanks. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. the number of google hits isn't a reason to keep an article and Corpx, out of all people should know that

wat's sup 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Frequentis

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

I'm trying to remember why I tagged this as speedy A7...anyway, thanks to Scientizzle for pointing out the mistake. What bothered me was an apparent COI by the author, who's other article (now deleted, I presume) dealt with a similar topic. Whether that's grounds for deletion, I am no longer certain. Shalom Hello 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with this.
╦ 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Conservapedia

We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Wikipedia's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.

Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Malcolmx15", I now officially hate you. I don't mean to be a troll, but I HATE anyone who doesn't HATE Conservapedia. Oh and did I mention that CP is the worst site ever made. Even goatse.cx wasn't this BAD... Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That DOESN'T MATTER. The site is HORRIBLE, that matters. If we dlete the article, this crap may die faster and that will be a GREAT day when it finally gets what it deserves and burns in HELL. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grow up. Disagreeing with the political stance of something is no reason to delete it and the over the top nature of the nominator's language merely draws attention to the paucity of his arguments. Nick mallory 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with its "political stance", I'm a homeschooled American Christian conservative myself. I disagree with the fact that the site isn't even that conservative, and that it is too "family-friendly", it makes stupid legal threats, etc. And, WP users should agree with me. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't deleting this article make us as bad as them? ~ Infrangible 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a great site, but certainly notable and newsworthy. "They are evil people" is not a reason to delete. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this weren't encroaching on
    WP:WEB with room to spare. Shalom Hello 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom and borderline vandalism.Ht/c 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-my criticism stems from the fact that there is nothing I hate nore than public-schooled liberals, and many of the admins, even some of the most prominent admins, are public-schooled liberals. Thus there is public-schooled liberalism, and use of liberal terms such as "homophobia" throughout the wiki. I never liked it, but when I saw the legal threats, I got fed up. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank god for informed consensus decisions. I do not believe Wikipedia was established to publish/promote/list/or other wise circulate articles that are found worthy or are appropriately correct to just a few individuals thinking. My understanding, and the most important one that comes to mind, is that Wikipedia was founded to disseminate information on noteworthy topics to all people regardless of what that information is or who agrees or disagrees with the information. If it is verifiable and it is noteworthy it belongs. No matter who believes otherwise. ShoesssS Talk
  • Speedy Keep - can someone please advise the nominator to please stop wasting the communities time by nominating articles for deletion that qualify for speedy keep? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can these edit conflicts stop wasting my time? Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep by means of consensus and withdrawn nominaton. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DiLorenzo

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

Article reads like a self-serving promotion for his practice and company. Notability must be established in other areas than the author’s own mind. ShoesssS Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It must be noted that the article has changed its tone and style drastically from when I first nominated this piece for deletion. In this light, I bow my head and say Keep and a job well done toDGG (talk) who orchestrated & facilitated the changes. ShoesssS Talk
"Keep! If America is truly the land of the free (ha ha), it is imperative that such material is not censored. People in the world today are smart enough to decide for themselves what rings true and what doesn't. Censorship is only for those who have something to hide, ala, nazi regimes."

Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep He's a prize-winning inventor; definitely notable. The article needs improvement, but that's an argument against deletion, not for it - if we delete it, how will it be improved? Maltrich 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - looks like he's borderline notable, but more reliable sources need to be added, and the article re-written. Haemo 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and de-spammify. Montco 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Cleanup The article could use a lot of work (NPOV and so forth), but notability is not an issue. He obviously meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has been the subject of numerous significant published secondary sources, and has recieved multiple significant recognized awards or honors. As a scientist he meets the criteria, as he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, and has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Calgary 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Van Dijck

Peter Van Dijck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Starting a mailing list or developing some specification no one uses does not make you

notable. also, primary contributor is the person who the article is about - User:Petervandijck Misterdiscreet 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep with conditions. In addition to reviewing the article, which is spam, I also looked at several articles that Google turned up. A contention for “Notoriety” could be made given some of the hits and references. Likewise, I noticed that no one notified the author about the “Afd”. How about we give him/her a week to rewrite on a more biographical tone and than reconsider whether to keep or not. By the way, I’ll notify the author of the situation. ShoesssS Talk 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
people should not be encouraged to edit, let alone create, articles about themselves, per
WP:AUTO. also, as courteous as it may be to notify an author, it is not a requirement for AfDs Misterdiscreet 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey Misterdiscreet..I agree with you! That is why I only gave it a “Weak Keep”. Regarding notifying the author, I found in several other articles under similar circumstances, that once the author was aware of the situation a complete rewrite under Wikipedia guideline was made and the article salvaged. ShoesssS Talk
  • Weak delete unless adequately sourced. Van Dijck appears to have some domain notability as a web architect and author (and even entrepreneur), but sources are not plentiful. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    John Vandenberg 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - duplicate of Bugsy Siegel (rapper). -- RHaworth 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy siegel(rapper)

Bugsy siegel(rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is!

P 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no notability (self-confessed unsigned rapper) , created by single-purpose user with the same name.

hablo ... 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

13 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Jenn Gotzon

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

Now, I could be completely wrong here, but there are too many inconsistencies with this article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of actors could investigate further. My concerns are as follows: Firstly, this article was created by User:Isoparm on 5 July 2006; this user has made no other contributions. Secondly, in the Wikipedia articles on the films she is claimed to have starred in - Derailed and Hulk (film) - make no mention of her. Thirdly, her entry at IMDb was written by.....Jenn Gotzon. I have no experience of IMDb, but it appears to me that it is freely editable, and therefore unreliable. Fourthly, using IMDb to follow up some of the films she appears to have been in shows a marked difference with the Wikipedia entries (e.g. Derailed stated to be directed and written by Albert Pedraza whereas Wikipedia says Mikael Håfström and Stuart Beattie . All of this leads me to think that both IMDb and Wikipedia are being used to promote the 'career' of a minor or non-existant actor. Emeraude 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete discounting all the

wat's sup 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CallWeaver

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

Product/organization lacks notability per

WP:CORP. Citations from voip-info.org are self edited wiki entries. Calltech 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Further comment: This project was originally named OpenPBX.org and recently renamed CallWeaver. OpenPBX.org was nominated for deletion and subsequently removed through its own AfD back in December, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX.org. Project was also a significant part of the discussion here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is strangely reminiscent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development. And Delete as it's not notable. Calgary 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Neutral based on the two links given below. However, I'm not sure these are enough to qualify as "significant coverage" Corpx 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The software is well notable. We have ditched other software for this just to get more control and functionality given in CallWeaver. May I ask by what reasons this software project should be deleted? Please do detail this. Rkarlsba 00:01, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
    • Also note that this project has been mentioned in several articles. A quick google for openpbx.org shows this. The fact that the name CallWeaver is not so widly mentioned, is the short time since the name change. A removal of this article must be considered censorship. Rkarlsba 18:55 10 June 2007 (CEST)
    • Where is the "significant coverage by independent media" ? Corpx 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google shows 133,000 result when searching for Callweaver
  • Google hits dont count for notability. Notability must come from
    reliable sources Corpx 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Calltech, you seem rather eager and biased to get rid of the CallWeaver page. Just give it a chance. Mm 202 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check out the list of contributors to the asterisk entry.
      • Mm 202 - please argue the merits of keeping or removing this article and do not make personal judgements about another user. Calltech 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are wrong here. Personal Judgements can be made if some user is working out of bias. If this is a callweaver- vs asterisk-user discussion where asterisk users want to have Callweaver out, while vice versa wants in; and the only user not being involved in the overall topic saying to give it chance, this is probably the time to give it a chance. So, please answer this simple question: are you biased? --
          few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
          ]
  • Strong keep This project has several distinct features from the project it was forked from and there is active development. I would like to know WHAT makes this article qualified for deletion?
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
    • Does this mean that since I have contributed to Wikipedia anonymously in the past I am less credible?
  • Strong keep There is a very active user base, an active SVN, an active website, and an active IRC channel. This project is an OPENSOURCE project of merit and has addressed major issues with the original code base. Please answer what makes this article suitable for deletion.
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
  • Ok - I registered so I can sign my comments on here. Feel free to tag me as a "single purpose account" if that is your wish - but note that I have contributed anonymously to articles in the past. The question of notability here is difficult - as if you ask anybody involved in open source telephony they will nearly all know what Callweaver is. Other projects such as Asterisk, Freeswitch, etc have entries on wikipedia and in reality they are known in just the same circles that Callweaver is.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comprehensive technology sites, which focus on free software, to have said more about it. Tualha (Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addendum: it occurred to me I should search for references to OpenPBX as well, since the name change is recent. That also came up empty. Tualha (Talk) 15:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (not by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine these sources:

If these are the best you can do for sources, you prove my point. Offhand mentions of the project do not make it notable. Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the sum of the various sources that have been listed here is a significant enough level of coverage for this one. JulesH 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (reiterating what I said before this was relisted): Callweaver is just as notable as Asterisk (infact it has significantly improved features since it is not subject to the politics of a maintaining company with a vested interest). At the very least the Asterisk and Callweaver articles should be merged rather than removing all information about Callweaver. Additionally, I have yet to see anyone explain why deleting this useful information improves Wikipedia - All our aims should be about improving Wikipedia, not removing articles for the sake of removing them. -- FireFury 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments - from a completeness standpoint it seems bizarre to have an article about asterisk without one about callweaver - the purpose of the callweaver project was to address some of the issues that people perceived with asterisk - including the inability to include other GPL code in asterisk and the delays in getting bugfixes comitted to the codebase. Terrymr 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calltech who started the process to delete this article also proposed freeswitch (another open source phone project) for speedy deletion on 7/3/07 on the ground that : "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." Having been accused of being partisan in the current discussion myself, I have to wonder what is going on here. Terrymr 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stay on topic, here, Terrymr. Your diversionary tactics are simply distracting from the issue of whether CallWeaver meets WP guidelines as a notable organization. As a user whose only contribution to WP has been an advocate for this article, you are hardly in a position to throw stones at others. Calltech 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said earlier in the discussion, I have made contributions in to articles in the past but saw no need to register until this discussion came along and entries were made asking users to sign their comments. But I accept that I will be viewed as having shown up here simply to advocate for this article - and I've been trying to stiumlate a reasonable debate. You are the one claiming to be neutral.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

wat's sup 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Googlized World

Neologism, original research, no external sources, and admitted conflict of interest on talk page by editor who coined the term. ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article seems more to attempt to introduce the term than to attempt to assert notability or widespread usage. Calgary 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the term seems at odds to introduce the term as much as describe it (neologism), it also is true that google generation and similar terms have often been used over the last few years to describe in particular young people. Tony Blair used the term in a famous 'soundbite'. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Providing citations are the first step... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete General
    WP:NOT - unreferenced original research. Shalom Hello 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

wat's sup 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Plastic Scouser

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

talk 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

wat's sup 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of political Google bombs

Consensus was reached to delete List of Google Bombs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Bombs), so it stands to reason that this list should also be removed. . ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as OR and per decision reached here. meshach 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The decision in the antecedent AFD was correct, and the same rationale - mainly
    WP:NOR - applies here. Shalom Hello 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of chess

Crossmr 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Comment Your definition of instruction manual differs significantly from mine, and from the contributors to Rules of Go, the rules sections of Backgammon, Checkers, etc. etc. Clarityfiend 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See
Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I pointed those other articles out to show that your's is a minority interpretation. Clarityfiend 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Simplified baseball rules, baseball rules and probably many others. Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that it would be ok if it were merged into the main Chess article, because then it wouldn't be "purely an instruction manual". That's not a valid Afd reason. Either the material is encyclopedic or it's not. If rules for chess should go, so should rules for Congress, baseball, football, golf... IMO, you're confusing a description with instructions. Clarityfiend 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I made a name doesn't mean anything. People could have a name for over 5 years and not have a clue. The fact that you made a comment like that on "new user alert" shows that I have more to contribute to AfD by arguing on important points than you do by just filling the discussion with off topic nonsense. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a rules section in Chess. I think this information on its own is game-guide-ish material. Corpx 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle yes, it should be in the chess article. In practice however, that article is already on the long side, so keeping a very basic summary there and spinning off the bulk into its own sub-article is a valid thing to do. Britannica would, of course, group all chess topics together into a single big article; it is however able to devote twenty pages or more to a single topic, whereas Wikipedia has practical limits imposed on its page sizes by dial-up speeds, so splitting large topics up into several sub-articles is SOP. Regarding all the chess pages as being essentially subsections of one super-article, the reason for having a rules section becomes clear - you can't use terms like castling or en passant in more specialised pages unless you have already defined the terms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Iain99 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually on further reflection, I think a case could be made that there's too much overlap between this article and the rules section in the main chess article. Either the rules section in the main article should be stubbed further, or else the extra content in this one (except the Pop Culture section, which is trivia and should just go) should be added to the main article and the Rules of chess page be left as a redirect to that. I don't have a strong opinion on which is best - I'm happy enough to leave that to the regular editors of those articles, and merging and redirecting wouldn't actually require an AfD. Iain99 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless you want to delete
    youngvalter 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • My point is that
    youngvalter 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Because it is written in
Summary Style, as recomended, for one reason. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong keep. Although it may technically breach the technical definition of the guideline WP:NOT#GUIDE, it is ludicrously notable and as such well worth keeping. Although, yes, a lot of topics are notable but are not valid because of other rules, I think the rules of chess are worth improving rather than simply deleting. The page on 50 Move Rule contains history, changes, explanation and famous examples of the rule... Far more encyclopedic than a game-guide. Given the importance of this article and the ease with which it could be made to pass WP:NOT#GUIDE, deletion seems like a farce to me.Simondrake 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are the second person who acknowledges that it does violate policy but feel it should be kept? If you think the article can be made to pass policy, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination, but someone would have to demonstrate that by editing accordingly.--
    Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. youngvalter makes an excellent point. Rules do not teach a player how to play a particular game - they simply define the construct in which a player must exist. (I totally stole that from the Matrix). If an encyclopedia is a reference tool, then this article is exactly what is needed. the_undertow talk 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules are an instruction manual on how to play chess. What pieces can move where, how they can move, who moves, etc and even goes so far as to give suggestions on how you can decide who plays white. We have a site to host this material and templates to use for doing so (in fact wikibooks already has a chess section). Whats the aversion to putting this article in the place it belongs?--
    Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It doesn't tell you how to chose who plays white - it describes how it is commonly done. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we've written in it in such a way as to avoid the use of "you" doesn't make it any less of an instruction manual.--
Crossmr 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Doesn't it? A list of instructions in the form: "You walk up to the lift. You press the Call button. You wait for the doors to open. You go inside. You press the button of the desired floor. You wait while the lift moves. You exit the lift when the doors open again" is clearly a guide instructing you on how to use a lift. The section: "Lifts are called by pressing the call button, inside the lift are several buttons that direct it to different floors" describes the same functionality of lift buttons but in a descriptive manner, not an instructive manner.193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to an image adds very little to the size of an article's file - just a few bytes. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just commenting about dialup. Even if its a link on the page source, it comes up as a heavy duty image when someone loads the page. You have to take that into consideration because not everyone is blessed with 100 gigs per second download speed. Heh. NobutoraTakeda 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic that is covered extensively in other encyclopedias and this article does not appear to be the spot to invoke a wikipedia policy that has flaws. --Stormbay 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:IAR. Also the article is extremely notable. Chess is a complicated game and its rules should have their own page. I would also like to see more history of the rules in the pageFrank Anchor 03:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The spirit of the rules described by IAR is that if something improves the quality, scope, tone and content of wikipedia without detracting from it (As would be the case in non-notable articles like one about my cat, it might improve the scope of wikipedia since it includes details about my cat, but it is detrimental to the content since it's not notable. Also, biographies of major porn stars may be notable but are excluded because the damage the tone). I fail to see how an article on the rules of chess can harm wikipedia. Also take another look at the article, several people have been improving it so it is now more than just the rules, history and other sections have expanded the scope beyond anything that could be considered 'just a game guide', therefore your original complaint is sort of out-of-date....193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of Ignore All Misinterpretations of Rules. Bubba73 (talk), 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking about deleting
WP:IAR
says:
When you edit Wikipedia:
* Improve and maintain content.
* Build and follow consensus.
* Use common sense.
If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them.
This nomination is proposing to dismantle the structure of a featured article. Nominations that damage featured articles on extremely encyclopedic, verifiable, notable, etc. topics, are borderline
WP:POINT violations. --JayHenry 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Yes, I think that's a very accurate summary of everything that JayHenry just said. No, sorry, I'm being completely sarcastic. I think he did a pretty good job of describing all of the other reasons this article should be kept. Perhaps they might answer your question. Calgary 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you can show me where in the policy it says if the subject is really notable, we can have all kinds of policy violating articles about it? I didn't think so. While that is an exception you'd like to make. Its not afforded in the policy. IAR doesn't apply here, because wikibooks already has this content, and we have a template specifically for its use. There is nothing wrong with putting the content in the place it belongs.--
    Crossmr 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well, this one is different from the other two, because it should contain more discussion on the history and changes in the rules of chess and the reasons behind certain rules, and the applicability and differences in tournament play. However, since you used the same arguments on the other two, I have no sympathy. This is simply wasting time. KP Botany 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Rules of chess" article is allowed for the same reason that we have articles for
    World Chess Champion, nor would such a champion be as widely recognizeable. Who knows, maybe one day video games will be regarded in a manner similar to that of a sport, but that is a question about what society should accept rather than what wikipedia should accept. Either way, as it currently stands, chess has honors and implications that video games generally do not, meaning that from an encyclopedic standpoint chess and video games should not be judged according to the same standard. Calgary 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Actually, I beg to differ on that the statement about video game champions. With the advent of
    E-Sports and leagues like Cyberathlete Professional League and Championship Gaming Series, I think much more media attention and money is poured into this. Esteem is subjective, and you're entitled to your opinion on that. Anyway, I'm fine with this article, but unfortunately that's not the case for the other two that were speedily closed. Corpx 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Speedly Keep This user does not appear to understand that there are encyclopedia articles about chess strategy and rules and tactics, just like there are books about these, and there are books that are guides to do these. I would like an administrator to step in and put a stop to this--it is serving no purpose whatsoever, other than wasting the time of Wikipedia editors. KP Botany 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, notability was not what was questioned here. Corpx 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but frankly the nominator admits in the nominating post that this article could be a keeper if someone would edit it. This is just trying to prod people to edit an article--why don't everyone edit articles tehy want on thjeir own time schedule instead of nominating them for deletion as a ruse for getting them edited? Or voting for their deletion, I think, in your case. This is silly, and this isn't what AfD is about: I'm nominating this because it needs edited. KP Botany 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the rules are removed, than yes. I didn't mean that a little history should just be added to the article. All of the rules should be removed. Anything that has a notable name that people might be interested in already has its own article, so that doesn't need coverage in this article.--
    Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Wait a second... You want ALL the rules to be removed, permenantly? So wikipedia with it's 1.8 million articles will not state that Knights move in an L-Shape because that's essentially exactly the same as a walkthrough for Halo 2? I don't think you're serious. Honestly, do you really think it will help wikipedia to delete this page, or is this some sort of joke, dare, experiment or crusade?193.128.87.36 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete - In its current state it violates
    WP:NOT; however, if were merged with strategy and it evolves into more than rule book, it should stay. All the other rule books should be deleted also if they are plain rule books as this one is. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not it's not... look again, there's sections on In Popular Culture, History of advanced rules, Controversy and more than just a recitation of the rules of chess.193.128.87.36 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the popular culture section should be removed. These do not benefit articles and 99% of the time are just trivia sections. --
Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep As stated above, the only reason this is its own article is because the FA chess is already far too long. The articles on the various chess variants such as xiangqi and shogi all give the same basic information on how to play the game. This article is an important base by which to understand the other 2000+ articles about chess on Wikipedia. In short, if there's an unencyclopedic article on chess in this project, this one certainly isn't it. UOSSReiska 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my opinion to strong keep, as I honestly question the reason this article was nominated for deletion. While
    User:Crossmr says in his nomination, "If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia" - but instead of coming to the talk page and trying to improve the article, he just slaps an AfD on it. It reeks of bad faith to me. Especially on an article rated as Top Importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess. UOSSReiska 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
All three nominated articles were rated as "top importance" before the nominations. Only 55 of the project's 1850+ article are "top importance" (less than 3 percent). All three articles are subarticles from the FA chess. Full disclosure: I'm a card-carrying (i.e. userbox-displaying) member of the Chess Wikiproject, and I participated in some of the evaluations. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Crossmr,
    WP:NOT is policy. However, using the "not a game guide" provision of it and the statement "One can very easily learn how to play chess from this article..." as part of an argument for deletion is a really strange twisting of the point of the policy... it's meant to keep out unencyclopedic topics, not to somehow protect people from learning to play games. Perhaps I shouldn't have named my example articles things starting with "how to", as you took the name and not the implied content as the relevant part. My intent was to show that "bishops move diagonally" is a different level of instruction than "run forward, jump on a goomba, and collect some coins", one that I believe is clearly encyclopedic as the knowledge is necessary to comprehend any further material on the subject of chess, a subject which you've already agreed is appropriate for inclusion. Could you please explain why you feel that it's so important that WP:NOT be read so incredibly broadly? Policies are a tool we have created to enable us to work together to construct an encyclopedia; should their interpretation prevent us from doing that? Pinball22 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The rules for a
    ten year old game vs a sport recognized by the olympic committee makes a difference. The word encyclopedia "comes from the Classical Greek "ἐνκύκλιos παιδεία" (pronounced "enkyklios paideia"), literally, a "[well-]rounded education," meaning "a general knowledge." The rules of a 10 year old game do not represent general knowledge, the rules of one of the oldest games in western civilization does. This is not a court of law or a legalistic debate. Though enjoyable to be on the winning side of an argument, if you disagree with various lists you should make an argument for policy to be explicit against these types of articles, you should take it up at the village pump as opposed to picking and choosing AfD requests.XinJeisan 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I never suggested this article taught them how to be good chess players, just that it was an instruction manual on how to play chess. Knowing the movies, which order to play in, the rules, how to start and end a game is all two people need to know to play chess.--
    Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Maybe you're right and a lack of a history of the rules is detrimental to the article. Now I've added some other sections (Whether they have 100% freedom from criticism or not is a matter for discussion elsewhere) that improve the scope of the article. Perhaps you should consider using your time to add history of the evolution of the rules or otherwise improving the article instead of endlessly sticking to an interpretation of the rules that is clearly against consensus. To put it frankly, whats the point?Simondrake 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there wern't information about the history of the rules, that wouldn't be automatic grounds for deletion. You're not recognizing the correlation between notability andfunction. If a subject is as notable as chess, then it is likely that it will be of interest to people who do not wish to learn to play. If the article does not specifically teach a person how to play, it is not a guide. The link here, is that a very significnt group of people who do not wish to learn how to play chess will find this information useful, which means that this article's primary or at least overwhelming function is something other than to teach the rules of the game. This is not an article that is a guide, which may under uncommon circumstances be used for other purposes, this is an article which serves as encyclopedic material about a subject, and may under uncommon circumstances be used as a guide. Understanding that is key to understanding why this article should be kept. (And by the way, we do have articles about the rules of pokemon). Calgary 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Geneva Convention contains rules about war crimes, therefore it's an instruction manual on how to wage war and must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simondrake (talk • contribs)
You both may want to read
Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Yet the
    Wikipedia policy. If an interpretation of Wikipedia policy stands in direct conflict with the five pillars, the interpretation is indeed highly questionable. Calgary 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See, when I read responses like this, I worry that you're ignoring all of the valid aspects of my argument in favor of the few that you are disagreeing with. I'm not saying that I believe this, I'm simply explaining my mindset, in case you feel I'm being irritable or something. In any case, I'm going to write my position one more time, and I'd like you to examine it carefully, because I want us to be in full understanding of one another
1. First off, Wikipedia does not strictly define what an instruction manual is (game guide refers to video games, see
game guide
), but I have been arguing under the pretense that An instruction manual is a set of instructions or collection of information, of which the exclusive function is to teach a person how to do something. I think that's broad enough, eh?
2. I would now like to explain my other assertion. The rules of chess are of interest to a significant group of people who are not interested in learning how to play chess. The only reason I evoke the concept of notability is to support this assertion.
3. I would now like to explain why this article is more than an instruction manual. In accordance with assertion 2, this article will provide information about chess to people who will not use the information to learn how to play chess.
4. And now why I feel that this article should not be reasonably considered a violation of
WP:NOT#GUIDE
: As per assertion 2, this article's primary audience will not use the article as an instruction manual, meaning that while the article has the potential to be used as a manual, it is not inherently a manual, because overall it has an entirely different function (as per assertion 3).
Okay, there. I tried to explain myself as clearly as possible. Now, hopefully, we'll be on the same page...Calgary 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intended audience is immaterial. Otherwise people could claim all kinds of intended things which aren't in the article. Just because someone could use it to learn more about chess without learning how to play it (honestly if you read that from start to finish you will learn how to play chess whether or not thats its intention) doesn't mean its not an instruction manual. I could pick up a pokemon rule book and read it to learn more about the game without wanting to learn how to play it. It doesn't stop it from being an instruction manual on how to play the game. The fact is the article is written primarily as instructions on how to play the game. There is no other explanation for the part about how players decide on who goes first. Thats really completely unnecessary for people grasp a further understanding of chess. However it does fit in with teaching people how to play a game of chess. While explaining certain notable rules and very basic mechanics at a higher level would allow people to further understand chess, getting in to the nitty gritty of how players decide who gets what colour in a game (which is honestly likely original research anyway) doesn't do that. --
Crossmr 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that, as you say, people can use it to learn more about chess makes it not just an instruction manual. And the fact that people can use it to learn to play chess doesn't make it inherently inappropriate. As I said before, the policy is to designed to keep clearly unencyclopedic content out, not to keep out encyclopedic content because someone might learn from it how to do something. Pinball22 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing additional thing they learn is how to play the game. Same as they would with any rules of anything. There would be no difference between this and the rules of the pokemon trading card game, except that chess is even more notable (in most circles, and honestly debatable in a lot of them), yet there is no allowance for that under the policy. Since we'd obviously delete that article, what is the basis for keeping this one and claiming its so encyclopedic? There isn't one within the policies as far as I can tell. Notability of the subject doesn't give blanket permission to create any old article you want that is in someway related to the subject.--
Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Then tell me, why after 5 years did it take an AfD to add any real encyclopedic content to the article? If it were intended to be an informative article on the rules of chess, why is there no history on how rules have changed, why certain rules developed, etc? If that intent were there, it should have materialized after that period of time. It was kept purely as an instructional manual. My supporting argument is that there was no other content in the article beyond that of being an instruction manual on how to play the game, supporting evidence is the missing history, and inclusion of such non-notable and non-unique methods of determining who is what colour. That section alone really nails the distinction up to be seen. The counter arguments provided do not address the policy in question. Philosophical musings aside, the hidden nature of the article is immaterial. You have to look at the content of the article and how it reads and what is included in it. The level of detail is unnecessary for people to get an understanding of chess. Discussions on notable moves, a higher level mechanics would suffice for people to understand chess. Telling them how to decide who gets what colour is an instruction manual, plain and simple.--
    Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

COMMENT Remember that some of us (well, I am) are making the point that the rules of chess are encyclopedic in and of themselves. The spirit of

WP:NOT seems to be against rule books being inserted for every game willy nilly, not keeping out articles about games and sports of which general knowledge is assumed to be benificial to a large group of people who do not participate in said sport or game. XinJeisan 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

"The players choose colors by mutual agreement or by
random means such as coin flipping
. Commonly, one player conceals a white pawn in one hand and a black pawn in the other. The other player selects a hand and plays that color.
The player controlling the white pieces moves first. While this gives white an advantage, it is not known that white can force a win if black plays perfectly. After the initial move by white, players alternate moves. Play continues until a draw is declared, a player resigns, or a king is trapped by means of a checkmate (see below)."
From American football rules:
"The game begins with a kickoff, which is one type of free kick (see below). Prior to the game, captains from each team participate in a
coin toss
. The winner of the toss may make one of the following choices: to kickoff, to receive and have the other team kickoff, or to choose an end of the field to defend. The toss winner nearly always chooses to receive, because that means they get to go first on offense. The other team then may choose from the remaining options (usually which end of the field to defend). In amateur football, the winner of the toss may also defer their choice to the second half and give the other team first choice of options in the first half. This is typically done when the captain winning the toss wants to receive to start the second half."
Is it encyclopedic of an article about a sport or similar form of competition to describe the standard method of determining who goes first/other opening conventions? Yes, of course it is. I'd have to say that that's even more relevant to someone who wants to understand chess than a person who's trying to learn how to play (It's information that's far from essential if you want to learn how to play). And as far as the content improving since you nominated the article, that's a good thing, not a justification for deletion. And if Wikipedia is going to be a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge then, yes, this amount of detail about a subject like chess is acceptable, even outside of chess instruction manuals. I'm not saying that notability justifies this article as an instruction manual, I'm saying that notability justifies the information in this article as being appropriate detail for such a widespread general-interest subject. Calgary 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was encyclopedic when it was about a sport. I've repeatedly pointed out that the existence of other rules articles doesn't justify this one. Again, if you can point to somewhere in NOT which says if the subject is really notable, leave it, then by all means do so. The content hasn't necessarily improved. Some has been added to it, both good and bad. (popular culture sections = trivia and not good for articles). However, nothing has been taking out. wrapping an instruction manual in history doesn't make that section of the article any less an instruction manual. NOT applies both to articles and sections of articles. However, if someone actually wants to improve this article, and thinks that it can be made to be something more encyclopedic with histories, etc about the rules and not just an instruction manual (regardless of the notability/nuances/etc surrounding this article), this was all it was, you've admitted it yourself in a round about way, I could see the wisdom in withdrawing the nomination as there was not only potential but willingness for improvement here.--
Crossmr 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm aware that
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a very good argument, when I cite sports articles I simply do so as an attempt to give a good example of other articles to which my argument applies. And again, as the discussion progrsses you're ignoring the foundation of my argument. I'm not saying that if a subject is notable then instruction manuals regarding it should be allowed, I'm saying that if an article has value other than that of an instruction manual, value that will be recognized by most people, then it is not an instruction manual. If you can offer evidence that a significant amount of the information in this article is valueless except as an instruction manual, and explain the reasoning behind the idea that said information is valueless, please do, and if you have done so already and I have overlooked it, please be so kind as to point it out to me. Calgary 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
As I pointed out, the rules of ANYTHING have the same potential for usefuless. But are denied by the policy. There is no exception made in NOT for "if these instructions would be really useful outside of learning how to actually do it, then by all means keep them." Being "useful" is covered in
Crossmr 04:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but to the contrary
WP:IAR in favor of anything, but in many cases such an argument wouldn't hold up. Taking into consideration that every article is unique. As it stands my argument applies specifically to Rules of chess, and you have to accept that my argument is both logical and reasonable, and that it reflects the general consensus established in this AfD discussion. It seems that even you don't disagree that my argument is within reason. So what's the problem? Calgary 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And for the record, claiming that the article is functional has nothing to do with
WP:ILIKEIT refers to opposing deletion because one supports the subject of the article, not opposing deletion because one believes the material within the article is of encyclopedic value. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't but as I pointed out, this article was originally written to do nothing but instruct on the rules of chess. There is a difference between an article that could potentially teach someone something, and an article written exclusively as an instruction manual. As I pointed out before, if you have to invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. I don't think your argument is within reason. Regardless of the notability of chess, or how necessary you think a reprinting of the rules is to readers, I don't see the benefit of it being here on wikipedia which has a policy against it, when we have a sister site, already holding the content, and templates intended for its use. Duplication here is unnecessary and the duplicated content is against policy. You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made. Nothing other than IAR gives you a usuable exception and thats a last ditch grab at best. As I said, if there is a willingness there for improvement, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. But potential without willingness is the same as no potential at all.--
Crossmr 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, all I have left to say is that I've essentially made my entire argument as to why the article is not primarily an instruction manual. If you can't see that, then there's really nothing I can do, I could state it again and again, but that would make things hopelessly redundant. The quality of an article can always improve, so if you have specific ideas about how to improve the article, I would recommend at least posting it on the talk page. If you don't see the value that the article has to an encyclopedia now, I doubt I can do much to change that, but it does seem that as of now the general consensus is in favor of keeping the article. In any case, I hope that the final decision, whatever it may be, both reflects the view of the community, and does what is best for the quality of Wikipedia. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

  1. Would Ten Commandments and Five Pillars of Islam fit the nominator's concept of a guide or instruction manual? After all, aren't they essentially telling one how to be a Christian and how to be a Muslim respectively?
  2. How can anything in Category:Chess variants make sense if the rules of chess aren't explained in the first place?

youngvalter 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that Wikipedia should have the info. Many more people read/edit Wikipedia than Wikibooks. Wikipedia is the mother of all Wikis. Somewhere (I don't know exactly where), it says that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to contain all human knowledge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No actually its not, maybe thats where the confusion comes in. If wikipedia were to contain all human knowledge
Crossmr 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment My reading of

I don't like rules in wikipedia and policy agrees with me (in spite of a seeming consensus of other editors who disagree) what argument do you have? XinJeisan 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This will be my last comment as well, as per Calgary. XinJeisan 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not contain instructions on how to choose who goes first (Anymore). It states in a very educational manner that the decision could be dictated in a tournament but is otherwise normally random- Unlike Go where skill determines the order of play. This is informative, comparative and explains how the decision is made in different circumstances. Stating a choice can be made by flipping a coin is not the same as telling someone to flip a coin. The article is not instructions193.128.87.36 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you're going to base your entire objection to the article on one small section, then this shouldn't be at AfD... you should be discussing on the talk page what you think needs to be changed. Pinball22 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defense that this article was not an instruction manual was based on the fact that it was providing necessary information for a deeper understanding of the rules that would lead to greater understanding of more complex concepts. My point was that I didn't feel it was, and the detail it delved in to (throughout the entire article) was unnecessary, and that section was a very solid example of why this article wasn't written to generate an encyclopedic understanding of the rules.--
    Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: This nomination, and the two that follow below, are Wiki lawyering at its finest. Having found a piece of potentially ambiguous policy that is at odds with obviously encyclopedic content, perhaps it would have been better to discuss clarifying the letter of the policy, instead of nominating all these articles to illustrate a point? Evouga 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the policy remotely ambiguous, nor do I find the level of detail in the article when I nominated it to be encyclopedic. --
Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I consider the editors of paper encyclopedias more credible authorities of what is encyclopedic than your personal opinion. On this point I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Evouga 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it encyclopedic now?Simondrake 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The policy in question is being discussed on the talk page of
    WP:NOT
    ,

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT_-_Gameguides. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hard to believe that anyone would want to delete this article. Paul August ☎ 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see how any encyclopedia would be complete without a basic article on the rules of chess. Thus, I believe
    WP:IAR trumps the other policy against gameguides (which should be reevaluated). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If you looked below, I already pointed out that Britannica is online so stop making that incorrect argument. NobutoraTakeda 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already seen that, you should read
    WP:PAPER, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. The main chess article is already about 2.25 times larger than it should be. Wikipedia is not paper. We have more control over it. Links are easy to follow on a computer but not on paper. Etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not making this up. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is extremely rude to say I should read Paper when I was discussing an online encyclopedia and never mentioned anything even close to paper. Please read my comments or if you don't want to read my comments, don't respond. Its uncalled for for you to post what you said because it shows that you didn't see anything that I wrote. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of Chess could easily have 70% of it cut as unnecessary. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that in any way improve WikiPedia? The only unnecessary parts I see in Rules of chess are in the Popular culture section, which was added (ironically) in an attempt to make the article more palatable to the small number of people advocating that the page be deleted. I think the article was probably better off without much of it, as it is very close to a Trivia section. Quale 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having extremely long pages takes away from the readability and the informability of a page. Chess is not that complicated of a game. Rules do not need more than 3 or 4 paragraphs, and the rest of the information and fancy charts are extremely superfluous. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Rules of chess to be an extremely long page. You might note that your views seem to be very much a minority opinion. It seems you have fewer than 30 mainspace edits with at almost all being AFD or prod nominations, but over 200 Wikipedia space edits, the vast majority of them related to AFD. I'm afraid I think you need a little more experience with editing articles before I can give your opinion on WikiPedia policy and guidelines very much weight. Quale 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that Encyclopaedia Britannica is a paper encyclopedia, and that the fact that we can create a more comprehensive group of articles than them doesn't mean we shouldn't. Calgary 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying that but Britannica has an online version too, you know. NobutoraTakeda 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd check the online version for comparison if you like, but I think you need to be a member, which I'm not. So I guess there's nothing I can do. Calgary 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. But I just felt that people keep dismissing Britannica as being paper. I looked at the contents and got a "summary" of the various pages, and none were lists of rules. It seemed to be broken down into chess with the rules, chess in history, chess pieces in history, and then famous chess tactics with championships. NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that whatever Britannica publishes online is just reprinted from its paper source rather than trying to do something different like Wikipeida. As an aside, do [[57]] these people have similar arguments like this?XinJeisan 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course they do. That's what being a professor is all about: Sitting around a table all day arguing with your colleagues. The many congresses and parliaments of the world, even the United Nations can't get anything done without getting into silly arguments...so why would the editors af an encyclopedia be able to? Calgary 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chess and it's rules are insererable, you can not have an article that completely covers chess without an article explaining it's rules. --Falcorian (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you have an article about chess that covers the rules in the chess page and put the other stuff in its own page instead of making the chess page just a glorified directory of other pages? Aren't the rules of chess one of the most important things to understanding it and therefore needed on the page? NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:LENGTH. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Because the chess page is already far over (more than double; it's 70 KB) the recommended size limit (which is 32 KB) now, let alone if more was added. Standard procedure when this happens is to split topics off into subarticles and cover them in the main article in summary form only with a link to the in-depth article. UOSSReiska 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, this page is already 82KB long.....XinJeisan 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And most of the page is not needed. So whats your point? Chop and add. If the basic rules can't go on the main page of a game then there is a huge problem. The rules are the most important part of the game and are vital to understanding the game. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't just 'chop and add' a featured article. UOSSReiska 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per

WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Chess strategy

Crossmr 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • The policy makes no allowances for notability. If you'd like to discuss policy change you might wish to address that on the policy talk page. I've played chess for 25 years, so I'm well aware of the coverage and notability chess has. For someone who has never played chess before, this is an excellent beginner's guide to chess strategy and things to think about during gameplay. For example it teaches about how you should value your pieces (at least the main article for that goes in to history and other things), how to negotiate control of squares and how you might go about giving some up for more gain later, it talks about important positioning of knights, etc. There is no broad overview here about the history of chess strategy, how it has evolved, etc. Its purely about specific concepts and how you would use them in a game of chess.--
    Crossmr 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do you have a reason for that? This is a debate not a vote.--
    Crossmr 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep.
    needs rewritten, you rewrite it. You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves something on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all its sub-topics and pages. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for Chess strategy. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See, that's it, it's not the same as a guide to a video game. It's interesting that the Wikipedia article for
    WP:NOT#GUIDE is meant to refer to a "game guide" as defined by Wikipedia. In any case, a guide to a video game and this article are two completely different things, as a video game is almost entirely a form of entertainment, whereas chess, although played recreationally by some, is a purely skill-based competition between two people, and as it is often played competitively (and if you're going to say that video games are also played competitively, take note that chess competitons are generally held in much higher regard than video game competitions), and because chess as a form of competition is of widespread interest, chess technique and strategy are of scholarly interest even to those who are not interested in learning how to play chess. Calgary 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Exactly. It isn't "jump over two barrels, pull the rope, go up the ladder and you'll get to the next level." It is completely different from instructions for a video game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hardly characterize video games as "jump over barrels...".
    E-Sports is a pretty big deal these days. These tournaments are exclusively about skill, teamwork and strategy. There are plenty of major "gaming leagues" out there like this one with lots of big time sponsors. I would think there is much more to write about in a strategy guide about Counter-Strike or CS:Source or any of the games that the "pros" compete in. I would argue that more skill and strategy is required to play these games than chess. Corpx 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • When an article gets too big, its best to trim off contents in violation of
    WP:NOT than to expand to a new article. Corpx 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If it is, I'm not laughing. Calgary 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this isn't a vote. Do you have some relevant policy to cite?--
    Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You'd be surprised with what editors on wikipedia will delve in to that many would find boring. While these are useless for any kind of real study of chess strategy or tactics, all they are are basic chess strategies. There is no background, or expansion. They're plain and simple "When someone is playing chess, they should keep this in mind" or "look for this kind of move". Discussion don't have to be elaborate to be a guide.--
    Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per

WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Chess tactics

Crossmr 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that these articles should be merged with according articles on wikibooks, rather than deleted.Errorneous 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I agree, it should be kept.Errorneous 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is insane. You agree its a notable topic, yet still want it deleted? —Xezbeth 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of notable stuff that's excluded by
    WP:NOT policy guidelines. Corpx 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See response on chess strategy. These are three different articles which were all nominated for the same reason, and I feel feel that they should be kept for the same reason. I disagree with the nominator with the same reasoning, so to keep things simple I'm keeping my detailed responses on one AFD page. I think it's customary to group these sorts of articles together when nominating for deletion, as the reasoning is the same, and the articles are all very closely related, but as long as they're separate, my argument for one aplies to all three. Calgary 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If
    WP:NOT is broken. JulesH 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with all of the reasons for keeping the article and find the reasons given for deleting it nonsensical. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a debate not a vote. Do you have any reasoning?--
    Crossmr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thousands of books have been written about chess - many more than any other game. One of the first two books printed by a printing press in English was about chess. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, notability is not in question. What's in question is the
    WP:NOT violation of this being a game guide Corpx 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
These are not game guides. If you played chess these would articles would be worthless as a game guide. So, they're not what you claim they are, and they are notable, so why delete them? The section on Discovered attacks is NOT a guide to how to do a Discovered attack--read it, then go play chess with the neighborhood Grand Master and use a Discovered attack you found in this article. There isn't one, as this article isn't a game guide. KP Botany 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They describe various strategies, how to perform them, give examples and give opinion on the various worth. "Very powerful", "extremely useful", etc. It couldn't be anymore a game guide.--
Crossmr 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Not very encyclopaedic (8 entries in google)

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

wat's sup 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Skanke Family Association

Non-notable. Both this article, and the

Skanke article, consists of pure fiction. Such a noble family has never existed. Luvente 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

See also Talk:Skanke Family Association#Hoax

  • Comment What do you make of the half-dozen references? Could you please search a library catalog and verify that the cited literature does not exist? Shalom Hello 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not the way it works. No adequate sources are cited. The alleged sources are trash, most of them are published by the non-notable "Skanke Family Association" (i.e., they are
          Fremskrittspartiet local politican Martin Schanche. Luvente 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

13 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

YuYu Hakusho Demon Class

YuYu Hakusho Demon Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was prodded and deleted before with the reason "The edits to the power levels on this article are seemingly random, with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Also, as most levels are not stated, the vast majority of this article is simply speculation." However, it has since been recreated by pretty much the same content. Since I feel the previous reason for prodding it still applies, I'm listing it here. - Bobet 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Better discussed here to get a more definitive result, but this seems a prime example of in-world listcuft. I don't often use that word. DGG (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I like YuYu Hakusho but I don't remember any of this being notworthy. It feels like an excuse to list secondary characters and, if really needed, could just be mentioned instead in the YuYu Hakusho page. There doesn't seem to be any credible source that discusses the topic besides primary sources or fan pages. NobutoraTakeda 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [58][reply]
  • Delete: I also agree with the deletion of this page over fan speculation concerns as well since the only kind of places this information can be taken from are fan sites that lack credibility. -Adv193 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Not merely
    WP:SOAP. Bearian 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_15&oldid=1081099853"