Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GOD DAMN IT as blatant gameguidery. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons Hit and Run missions

List of The Simpsons Hit and Run missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Too specialized for my taste.
  eg92contribs 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Otto, this is a gameguide (which is not allowed). TJ Spyke 02:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT and Otto. -Haemo 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT - this isn't an encyclopedia article. — Wenli 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#IINFO, "video game guide". -- Black Falcon 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Otto4711, not a gameguide. --Canley 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia doesn't have walkthroughs and it wouldn't be very notable either. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GOD DAMN IT. A lot of work has went into this article, but oh well. Everyone should have read
  unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. If there is a game guide wiki with a suitable license we can transwiki it instead. Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT and Otto4711. Scienter 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and hit it with a
  speak ○ see ○ 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per
  addict 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per
  WP:NOT. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WP:NO#IINFO, this reads like a game guide. - Anas ^talk? 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:26, 27 March 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 (have I got news for you) delete. --

Guest Publications on Have I Got News for You

Guest Publications on Have I Got News for You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - more suited to a fan website. - Richard Cavell 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge anything usable into Have I Got News for You.--John Lake 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far, far, far too trivial. And that headline comes from this week's guest publication, Cruft and Trivia Monthly. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Richard Cavell StuartDouglas 09:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fancruft. And it's survived for almost a year! BTLizard 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slap* remember fancruft is not a reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guest publications in that show have no particular significance. If someone wants to, we can add the fact they appeared in the show the publications that have articles. Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgm. Scienter 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but all hail to the geeky genius who compiled this page. If you'll excuse me I'm off to read my copy of Screw Machine World. Peeper 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly every single link is red,
  addict 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant delete Not encyclopaedic enough, I fear, but as a fan of the show I do appreciate the list :) Pseudomonas 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have news for the author: This is an indiscriminate list, even if it is about a great show. Realkyhick 02:56, 28 March 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. --

Gandhi's racism

Original research, POV title Alex Bakharev 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. There exists legitimate criticism of Gandhi's racism. Please feel free to research this issue. Teabing-Leigh 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly merge.
  eg92contribs 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NPOV problems. George Leung 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - original research. - Richard Cavell 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to a
  WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). -- Black Falcon 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete origional research--Sefringle 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completetly sourced and not a point of view per se... It seeks to bring in Gandhi's role in South Africa. I will improve it by the end of today ... give me time.

• delete per nominator--Shyamsunder 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per George Leung.--John Lake 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have made several changes and improvements, please remove the "deletion" message from the said article. Teabing-Leigh 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still just a series of quotes, and a hopeless failure of
  WP:NPOV to boot. JuJube 07:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete without question this fails NPOV, and it has already been mentioned in the article on Ghandi. AniMate 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is not a point of view. You should not delete it if you even have an iota of integrity. 202.163.67.241 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Sumarize, bring some of the verifiable material into an article that can provide context and counterpoints. If, ultimately, it's necessary to create a separate article about Gandhi's views on race, then spin it off into a more appropriately titled article such as "Gandhi's views on race." Be sure the context includes when and under what circumstances the statements were made, whether Gandhi's views changed through his life, and digest whatever published analysis and interpretation may exist, rather than providing bare context-free quotes selected to support a view of Gandhi as a racist. This can be improved.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) P.S., the comment on "integrity" above is inappropriate. It's fair to assume we all have integrity, but there is a disagreement on whether this article meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are not context free. Gandhi's views - if they changed later- must only be known to him because he did not publicly distance himself from his views. Every date has been given along with a proper citation from The Collected Works of Gandhi. The only reason this is becoming an issue is because Gandhi is the world's holy cow... so much for objectivity and balance.

That said I am open to this article being redirected to "Gandhi's views on Race". Teabing-Leigh 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... on second thought .... the more I read such pages where certain ethnic and national groups gang up to cover up facts of history, I begin to question whether Wikipedia is all I thought it was... instead of being a bastion of all points of view coming together to create objective truth... it is more like George Orwell's "1984" with its newspeak and editing and rewriting and ofcourse DELETING ... no wonder racists and casteists become egalitarian mahatmas only 60 years after their death... Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - POV pushing, and violates
  WP:NOT a soapbox. The Kinslayer 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, I'd provide examples, but they have all been deleted. I should know, I tagged them with speedy deletes. The Kinslayer 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you remember the titles, I think you can pull them up via the deletion log. ◄Zahakiel► 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just an essay, and not a very well-written one either. This could be Merged into the main Gandhi article if someone would rewrite it. StuartDouglas 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay that quotes very credible source: Gandhi's own Collected Works. I would reckon it is much more credible than many articles on here. 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well we can agree to disagree on the quality of the essay, but the point is that Wikipedia is not a place for essays at all. Nothing personal and the same would apply if the essay was on your opinion on the sporting ability of David Beckham - it's
  WP:OR so not for Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete undue weight. Theoretically we should probably smerge and preserve the history, but this really is not one I would be happy leaving around as edit history. The claim of racism is minor, and to a certain extent founded on work by a very few individuals who have some kind of agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the claim of racism minor when it is directly from Gandhi's own collected works? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was going to argue for a re-write and title change but even with the sources this is, in its current form, a clear cut violation of both
  WP:SYN. The changes needed to fix the article's issues would result in a total rewrite and since the title needs to be changed anyway and there being no material here worth moving in whole, deletion is the obvious answer. NeoFreak 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So the allegedly racist views of a global icon is not "worth" preserving or discussing? I am afraid it is NOT a violation of WP:NPOV .... the article merely highlights Gandhi's allegedly racist views and quotes Gandhi's own works WITHOUT giving one's own opinion. Why is it that this is being deleted and not a thousand other articles which are more blatantly one sided and agenda driven? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing POV through exclusion of certain contextual facts. For example, 'Kaffir' was not the offensive term it is now in Ghandis time, which changes the context in which you claim he used the word. If your article was properly researched and sourced, this would have been readily apparant. The Kinslayer 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not true. First of all the word Kaffir is NOT the issue here, his view that black people were savages and subhuman that is the issue. If you feel that "Kaffir" was not an offensive term then please provide evidence. However the issue here is NOT about the term kaffir which in any case in the modern terminology means non-Muslim and nothing else and is not applicable to the usage of the word Kaffir then. Are you saying that believing black people were subhuman was not offensive then? You may argue that and then in that case produce evidence for it. Teabing-Leigh 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to argue anything. Look at the consensus. I don't have to waste any more of my time talking to you. Oh and here's my evidence: http://www.eritreaplanet.com/literature/wl01/KaffirFolklore.htm http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/k/kaffirs.html http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/JUN_KHA/KAFFIRS_Arabic_Kafir_an_unbelie.html and

Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa) The Kinslayer 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Kinslayer: What PART of the word KAFFIR not being the issue did you not understand. The issue is Gandhi's alleged estimate of blackpeople as subhuman. As for consensus... there was a time when world over there was a consensus on Earth being flat... so what is your point? You think you can change the facts with consensus? In any event, I have made the clarification regarding the term "Kaffir" which is a non-issue anyway. Teabing-Leigh 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going, your mildly entertaining me. The Kinslayer 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kinslayer,

Now I suppose personal attacks would be better than giving a proper argument as to why you think the article is balanced... still I have entertained your suggestion and incorporated it (despite the fact that your source didn't open).. simply because that is not the issue here. Teabing-Leigh 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware telling someone they are entertaining was viewed as a personal attack these days! I'll try and keep my personal lexicon up to date from now on. Thanks for pointing that out, it's how I learn. The Kinslayer 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NPOV issues (big) and Alex Bakharev's nom. The rhetoric being thrown out by Teabing-Leigh is amusing, but not persuasive. Scienter 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Careful, you may just have 'admitted' to being one of us conspirators! The Kinslayer 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in a pissing match with a little kid. I'll let the personal attacks go. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking to you. However, I am now, so feel free to reply. Times dragging here in my office and I could use a smirk. The Kinslayer 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now shows sources ... and I am willing to redirect it to Gandhi's views on race with any suggestions that maybe given. Teabing-Leigh 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due largely to this being an essay and failing
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is merely a soundbyte. The article does not quote my personal view and has now been properly referenced. I am however willing to redirect it to another location. Teabing-Leigh 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Whether or not it is your personal view does not change the fact that the article is a synthesis of sources and constitutes original research. Have you read the guidelines at
    Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Clearly you haven't seen the new changes I have made. Teabing-Leigh 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I just looked it over before I made the previous comment. The comment still stands. You have 1 reliable secondary source of someone calling Gandhi a racist and then go into a discussion of things he said that were racist. Break that down into points and you get "This group said Gandhi was racist, look at all the things he said that were racist, ergo, here is Gandhi's racism for you to see". We cannot make that kind of leap of logic on Wikipedia articles. It is STILL original research.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as OR as per above. Also, even in its rewritten form it also violates
  WP:WEASEL top to bottom ("Many allege...", "others are convinced...", "Historians have debated...", "Critics allege...". (Bracing myself for a barrage of flames.) - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete- some of the most relevant quotes are already at the Wikiquote Gandhi page, and with a more neutral title. I was going to suggest moving them there, but I see they already are. NPOV is in part and importantly about setting forth facts (quotes) and allowing the reader to decide what they mean, not deciding for them. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't matter how much it is re-written, this is a
  ^Talk 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or merge The article is sourced very well. I don't see how this article is a case of it's authors POV as it cites multiple sources (anyone who is pro deletion should specifically state why all of those sources are not reliable) or how the article contains Original Research as it is sourced.--E tac 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of the three "External links", two are to conspiracy-theory sites (Truth Seeker and Trinicenter), and the third is to an article from the (notoriously inaccurate) Guardian, which does not allege that he was racist but simply that he made some racist comments early in his life. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the sources/quotes are real, defining them at racism is original research since no reliable sources do this.--Dacium 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Gandhi's views on race are surely notable; the Guardian is a highly respected newspaper; the book cited is published by Prometheus Books which seems to be a respected publisher (doesn't mean the book is "right" but it's not a vanity publisher); I'm not sure if a speech in the House of Representatives is considered inherently notable but could be considered so. The fact that this criticism of Gandhi exists is notable and should be included in the article on Gandhi. The existing Gandhi article has a strong POV the other way:)
  Hobson 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge Salavagable contents into Critisism subsection of his articleRaveenS 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Though interesting, I dont see a page on Hitler's racism, Duke's racism, etc.Bakaman 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a thought, but I think an article on "Hitler's racism" would be extremely redundant. I'm not familiar with Duke... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with heavy rewrite. Too much OR and POV as it stands now. Realkyhick 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment As per many of your suggestions, I have made an effort to rewrite some parts of it lessening the "POV" to the best of my ability. Teabing-Leigh 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Title is POV and content is OR, based on editor's collection of primary source quotations. There might be a small portion in the top part of the article salvagable for a merge. More neutral phrasing won't change the fact that this is an essay, and it is currently a one-sided treatment. Djcastel 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Clearly fails both
  WP:OR.--Bryson 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete NPOV and OR override eveything else. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure what makes people think its in breach of NPOV, I have been unable thus far to locate any discussion anywhere to support this. Large number of references in article make OR claims redundant and unusual imho. Cloveoil 15:47, 31 March 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. --

CWF-Pro

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

Not notable Efed and backyard promotion. Also, the article is very poorly written. PepsiPlunge 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's an efed, 'nuff said. It also fails
  WP:N. TJ Spyke 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No real indication of
  spam. Leebo ^T/C 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not indicate
  notability whatsoever. ZBrannigan 07:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non notable. It's hard to read most of it, but what can be read is
  WP:SPAM.--John Lake 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Throw this spam over the top rope. Realkyhick 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. simply put "It's an E-Fed", not an article on E-feds as a phenomenon or anything like that but an actual e-fed and as such does not belong on wikipedia MPJ-DK 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:SPAM. The creator has the same ID as the name of the "E-fed" and has no apparent contributions save the creation of this. This article may need to be E-piledriven though an E-table. Suriel1981 02:43, 30 March 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. --

Pom (program)

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

delete nonnotable piece of software that shows phases of the Moon Mukadderat 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Articles should be written without regard for notability, but Wikipedia ain't smart enough to allow this. :) YechielMan 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is absent. Delete.
  BlackBear 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No possibility this could ever be notable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per YechieMan, with a high five to him for comedic effort. Realkyhick 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...especially bearing in mind that he uttered truth, only in a jesting way. Mukadderat 03:13, 28 March 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. --

Howard F. Barrett

Howard F. Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable per

• Delete. The article offers no indication that the subject is even the slightest bit notable per
  WP:BIO. Aside from the birth and death dates of the subject's wife, the article is entirely sourced from the subject's obituary in the local newspaper. I might have tried to speedy A7, but the article's author has a long history of contributing biographies of non-notable individuals, many of which have been deleted as such, and he generally contests speedies and prods of such work, forcing them to come to AFD anyway. So I figured I'd save time and start here. Mwelch 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:BIO, it reads like a memorial with no indication of why they are notable.--Paloma Walker 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If "he was instrumental in developing and enhancing several breeds of cattle." can be verified from a source other than his own family, I'd be happy to keep the article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have searched for such a source and found none. Googling him indicates (aside from the obituary) only that he was a cattle breeder. Mwelch 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete verbatim copyvio from Lubbock Online. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copyvio indeed. - Anas ^talk? 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Mwelch mentions above, the creator has recently created dozens of articles, all of which appear from the tone to be cut-and-pasted from local newspapers, and most of which are egregious failures of

WP:BIO, eg the owner of a local lumber merchant. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that egregious is a bit of a strong term, and BIO is just a guideline, not firm policy. I don't think that this copyvio is likely to get us into trouble if we work to fix it soon. Has anyone contacted the writer to let him know about the WP guidelines and to help develop the article. As MacGyver mentions above, there might be some notability here. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the writer,

WP:BIO

notability standards. (But then, the same can be said of many editors who self-identify as "inclusionists", so perhaps that's not such a big deal, even though the writer has not claimed that specific self-identification.) I'd speculate that he is content to continue creating biographical articles as he sees fit, and to just leave it up to the community to delete those that we see fit.

This is not the only article that the writer has created as pretty much a cut and paste from someone's newspaper obituary. I will say that I don't know if anyone's specifically mentioned the copyright violation angle of that to him, though. I definitely recall it being mentioned, once again, in the deletion debates of his articles, but that would be a good thing to bring up directly to him also.

Other problems with his work include frequent original research and dubious "references" to argue notability. For original research, he will include significant information and even quotations into his articles that he then sources in the "References" section to "e-mail exchange with Billy Hathorn" or "conversation between [Subject's name]'s wife and Billy Hathorn" or some such. I've deleted some of the worst examples of this in articles like

PETA

, then he will list as his "references", a web link to the subject's obituary and web links to the ACM, IEEE and PETA web sites, and then argue that the subject was notable because his article has four different references listed to him.

So given the writer's history here, I'd be willing to wager that there isn't any "development" of the article that can really be done with actual

WP:ATT-acceptable sources. No problem if others wish to spend more time pursuing the subject's notability, though. Mwelch 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, doesn't this fit
  WP:CSD#A7? Not notable plus the copyvio. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. Cpoyvio is enough, plus there's lack of notability and the author's dubious track record. Realkyhick 03:14, 28 March 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. --

Pure Imagination-EP

Pure Imagination-EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy on this song page. It makes sense, but to be fair I'll let AFD decide if it really needs a deletion.BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's actually refenced on the Pure Imagination page. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is no indicator of notability (or even existence).

Fram 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, okay. If anything, then it's best to just redirect then. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  Fram 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as we don't even have an article on the artist responsible for the remake. AniMate 08:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's several items by this name on Amazon but none by anyone called Jori. The name could refer to several Finnish people but the last.fm lacks any mention of the EP in his pages and the article lacks the context to tell us who it is about. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN cover version by an apparently NN artist.
  ^Talk 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable in any respect. Realkyhick 03:15, 28 March 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.

Hoyland Common Falcons players

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Players from the semi-pro club Hoyland Common Falcons. Non-notable. Chanheigeorge 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. According to the team's website, the team is a youth soccer team (in other words, not fully professional) and thus all these young men fail to meet
  WP:BIO. Given this, the team article is also a valid target for an AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all. Same reason as Chanheigeorge, Non-notable. Tangerines 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The team article is also the subject of an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, no notability asserted. Punkmorten 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all no notability asserted and, to be honest, none possible ChrisTheDude 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all no notability asserted (could have been speedied, to be honest). Qwghlm 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for reasons stated above BanRay 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per NeoChaosX. BTLizard 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all non-notable.
  BlackBear 12:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all not-quite-pro sports people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the UK footballing notability rules - is it
  ^Talk 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all seemingly no pretence to suggest they have played at even a reasonably high level. Extremely unlikely that they are even semi-pro at their level, more likely they pay their £5 subs each week to get a game. - fchd 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Red card for all. (In other words, delete.) Realkyhick 03:16, 28 March 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. Redirecting to

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

)

delete this nonnotable crapplet Mukadderat 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Applet and transwiki this to wiktionary. - Richard Cavell 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect would make sense only if the term was in real use. I clicked thru first 10 google search pages of (a really nonnotable count of 9,000 for a supposedly internet word), and 98% are dicdefs or humor pages, rather than actual usage, even not speaking about absence of
    reliable sources. Mukadderat 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The same argument could apply to interlocutress (which I started on wiktionary). - Richard Cavell 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a difference between how words in the pairs
        crapplet are related to each other. (Oops! interlocutress is a redlink. What's you point? before I start discussing whether crapartment, crapplication, crapostle, crapsticle, etc. must or not redirect somewhere) Mukadderat 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• hehe:

public crapplication

public crreport

crapplication = createobject("crystalruntime.application")

crreport = createobject("crystalruntime.report")

Actual example :-) Mukadderat 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism, Urban dictionary is also made up of mostly humorous pages and shouldn't be used as a source in most cases. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protologism. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Urban Dictionary is notoriously unreliable as source and even if NetLingo is reliable, we're left with a dictionary definition that will never expand. Not encyclopedic.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Craplet. Closing admmin: this is not a keep vote! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fun it will be for you and to arrogant Microsoft to know that "Craplet" is a French last name. Mukadderat 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed is it, but AfD this is about 'Crapplet'. 86.143.127.209 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could maybe see a redirect to Software bloat, but I'm being generous. Realkyhick 03:18, 28 March 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Poe

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

This is an article on the creator of several marginal or obscure webcomics; there seem to be no sources of any kind except for Poe's websites and blogs; there's no indication that a biography of him could meet either

• Delete the bio, because he's not notable for anything other than the webcomics. I would also support deleting the webcomic articles, but that has not been formally proposed. YechielMan 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Your argument lends more weight towards keeping the article; the article is worth keeping because he is the creator of notable webcomics. Incidentally, deleting the webcomics has been proposed and has failed on each attempt. --
    Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Reply. Babylon Jones was deleted by someone,

27 March 2007

(GMT)

Reply - Huh, I could have sworn Errant Story was nominated for AfD. Meh, this is what I get for posting late at night. Anyway, outside of that what I said was still true: the AfD against Exploitation Now failed. I never said the consensus was "keep", I just said it failed. --

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep - Creator of not one but two notable webcomics, which means he meets the notability requirements of
  Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. I don't believe the WCCA confers notability; it itself is apparently listed as notable on the basis of one paragraph (out of ~17 in that article) in a NY Times article. --

27 March 2007

(GMT)

Comment - Some people believe the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that the awards are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia, and more to the point are the only webcomic-based awards that have an article on Wikipedia, period. --

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. As we've said about twenty-seven times before and will have to keep saying every time afterward, one paragraph and the entire rest of the article, which then specifically examines WCCA winners and their merits. That wasn't the only source, either. --Kizor 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:BIO with the awards that yukichigai has listed above. Scienter 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I would also support a Merge of this article into the Errant Story and Exploitation Now articles as a sort of compromise. Scienter 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also like to note that the article utterly lacks any sort of

27 March 2007

(GMT)

Comment - Read

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading WP:BIO, no, we can't. A person's blog posts are not enough for an article: the article utterly fails the primary criterion, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are no secondary sources for him, only his comics (at best). --

27 March 2007

(GMT)

We've been over that point already: notability is established by the two notable, award-winning webcomics he has authored. (Which, incidentally, is per

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. let's just pin this down succinctly in one post. 1) Your objection to reliable sources: Poe is a reliable source about himself, per

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If there exist independent sources from reliable sources, then add them to the article. Put up or shut up - lack of sources is a valid reason to delete an article. As for WP:BIO, I don't know why you think WCCA is is enough anyway: he's received the same barely notable award 3 times. This speaks more to the insularity of WCCA coverage and the webcomic authors who vote in it than to any impact on webcomics or notability. And he doesn't satisfy the primary criterion nor does he satisfy any of the "creative professionals" section (although perhaps calling him a creative professional is a bit generous, as he can't even make a living off Errant Story). --

28 March 2007

(GMT)

Request for Speedy Close - I'm pretty sure the above rant sheds light on some issues with this AfD nomination; the nominator has clearly expressed a personal distaste (bordering on contempt) for both Mr. Poe and his works, and the WCCA to boot. I'm now calling this a bad-faith nomination. --

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What I see here is difference of opinion, not bad-faith. A speedy close would not settle the matter sufficiently. Epameinondas 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's contempt to point out that Poe can't make a living off his stuff (according to his blog, in which he mentioned back when he quit his job to work on Errant Story that he hoped his savings would take him to the point where ES could support him, and a more recent blog post in which he mentions that ES income is not proving to be sufficient - yes, I've been reading his stuff for a long time now.)? I don't believe it is. And any distaste I've displayed is for the article, which isn't very good at all, and for the contention that he is notable, as I thought I made clear. --

29 March 2007

(GMT)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I am a huge fan of Poe's work. I own Exploitation Now in book form. It is my favourite webcomic ever. However... I would not say that he meets the Wikipedia notability requirements yet. "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" are meaningless in determining notability. -
  · 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Reply - The notability of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards has been disputed via

  Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Er... no. How on earth are you leaping to the conclusion that just because the WCCA was found to be somewhat notable, that comics winning any WCCA ever are automatically notable, and that even further, any author of those comics is notable as well? Notability is not some crazy

28 March 2007

(GMT)

Not that it'll do any good arguing with you, but what the hell: "somewhat notable" is an understatement. Read the AfD; it is clearly established the WCCA is the most notable webcomics award out there. I can't think of any other webcomics awards featured in both the

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• If it is indeed the largest Kirby fansite, it should get prominent listing in the Kirby article if it hasn't got that already. I don't see why forums that are easily accessible from the website should be listed separately either. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but no objection to an external link in the Kirby article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but deserves a mention in the main Kirby article. Masaruemoto 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'll agree with the mention in the Kirby article. -
  DisasterKirby 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, but definitely deserves to be in the main Kirby article.
  Talk to the hand) 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as not meeting
  desat 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both. Non notable per
  WP:CSD#A7(band). --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all - none assert notability. In fact, they specifically deny it. --Haemo 00:51, 28 March 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. --

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

)

• Delete Their claim to
  sources to establish any other notability, and has an informal tone. Leebo ^T/C 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable per
  WP:MUSIC. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No assertion of notrability.--Bryson 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. YDI are a notable band in the history of USA hardcore punk & black punk music. They had two black members, significant in a scene dominated by white musicians. The drummer later joined the band Pure Hell, who are argued to be the first all black USA punk band. An article about the band can be found here http://www.killfromtheheart.com/bands.php?id=918 -Note I have no interest in wiki, but I do have an interest in the history of punk music, and as there is so little info about some of these bands, I'm appalled that any information would be considered for deletion, especially a band as notable as YDI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.162.214 (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 ^

Kelvin Kwan

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per

• Delete. I agree. YechielMan 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is signed to a major label in Hong Kong (正東唱片); non-trivially covered in plenty of newspapers even just in the last couple of weeks (gnews search: [3]). cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cab. He's been signed to a major label and has appeared in major newspapers. Clearly notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." No. 671 google hits, including a Harvard Medical School student with the same name. --FateClub 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment try searching in Chinese. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The absence of those quoted criteria are not cause to delete. Instead, their presence is stated cause not to delete. If we err, err on the side of caution. In any case, if there are two moderately noteworthy persons with that name, I see more cause for the article, to clarify the distinction. And trust me on this, English-language Google is not the arbiter of notable worth. With that attitude, we might as well shut down all of Wiki & just let people Google. Ventifax 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the references are in a foreign language of some sort; this suggests that the subject is not notable in the English=speaking world, and therefore not appropriate to the English-language wikipedia. Notable pop culture subjects in foreign language cultures do not have a place in en-wiki, unless they also establish notability in English language countries. Google hits ARE a good indicator of notability, especially for living people, and events which have occurred in the last 5 years. Jerry 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of the Anglosphere. The article meets
    WP:N. Plenty of notable things don't get written about in English media, or Russian media, or Chinese media; that doesn't mean the articles on them should be deleted from enwiki, ruwiki, or zhwiki. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I see what Jerry is saying, but I'm leery of telling wikipedia's readers that they can only read about a Chinese subject in Chinese. Certainly non-English wikis have sections on English-speaking literary figures; a quick search turns up pages on
    Brontë family. Now this guy's no John Williams, let alone John Wyclif, but he is apparently a minor celebrity in Hong Kong, a major city/quasi-state of cultural interest far beyond China (& for that matter, more or less in the Anglosphere). If it turns into vanity or nonsense, we can prune it down to a nice inoffensive stub; but I don't think it needs to be excluded for being non-Anglo, per se. Ventifax 04:05, 2 April 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. WjBscribe 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News 10 Today

News 10 Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably could have

• Delete Far too focused. An individual local news program is not
  notable. It also goes into unencyclopedic details. Leebo ^T/C 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. It should be enough that the station has its own article. Djcastel 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We could not possibly get enough server space to have an article about every half hour of televised broadcast on every channel in every market. This one does not stand-out. Jerry 21:55, 1 April 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic films

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

An indiscriminate mix of "Official films of the Olympic Games" (which are notable) along with just about any film that features the Olympics or mentions the word "olympic", such as The Year of the Sex Olympics, The M*A*S*H Olympics, Hanna-Barbera's Animalympics, Pink Panther in the Olym-pinks, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century Olympiad. Also features the usual Simpsons/Futurama references, even though those aren't films. I did attempt to start to improve it, because I think there's a good list somewhere in all the clutter, but the article's creator doesn't appear to want any changes made. Without any improvements, it's just too indiscriminate. Croxley 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory with no clear criteria for inclusion. The list encompasses live-action films, animated films, live-action TV episodes and animated series, dealing with actual Olympics, fictional Olympics, things called "Olympics" which are not Olympics and anything that has "-lympics" in its name regardless of whether there is any actual relationship between the Olympics and the list item. Otto4711 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but IMHO only the last section ("references" to the Olympics in films like
  Airport '79) is out-and-out ridiculous. The rest of the page could conceivably be put into category namespace, as Category:Olympic films (per Category:Olympic video games), although a clear separation between documentaries and fictional or fictionalized storylines would be nice. --Quuxplusone 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Clean-up It seems like you're having a content dispute with the author's creator, but like The article about the Marines, this subject is still able to be covered, so deletion is not the solution. Go to Dispute resolution instead. Talk to the user a bit more, try to persuade them. Using an AfD like this though? It's a bad idea. It's likely to be offensive, and should not have been done without a more serious effort to reach consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally considered nominating this list last week, before I even made an edit to the article. Just because an editor reverted one small edit is not a reason for nominating, I think my other AFDs have demonstrated I understand perfectly what AFDs are for. If someone else had nominated this article, I would still vote for deletion. I believe it's little more than an Olympics in popular culture with a misleading title. Croxley 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not normally keep tabs on people, I honestly don't know whether or not you've nominated anything before at all. I can't recall your name ever coming to my attention. So I am considering this issue solely on your nomination here. The article is about a reasonably encyclopedic subject, both in the case of the individual films of the games, and an overall summary. Now certainly including every single little television episode or movie that features the Olympics in some way is probably not appropriate, and I'm undecided yet as to films like Cool Runnings and the like, but whatever the decision is, that's a content issue, not one as to the subject. Oh, and BTW, AfD is not a vote. You are taking a position, I have a position, others have their positions, but this isn't a vote. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is not a "vote", but I was using the term to refer to my "recommendation". Admin sometimes use the word when closing AFDs as well. But you're quite right to point it out in case anyone else might think this is a ballot. Croxley 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word vote is sloppy, whether it's a user or an admin, sometimes that is excusable, but if nobody ever says "Hey, remember, this isn't a vote!" then people may be mislead. If you see any admins regularly using vote to describe their closings, I suggest advising them to avoid that language. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Suggestion to nominator: be bold and remove the items that are not actually about the Olympics. Tarinth 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not the worst 'film list' I've seen, but close. Possibly categorise the important ones as Quuxplusone suggested. Masaruemoto 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that several of the official films are currently redlinked. What can be done about that? FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Otto4711, maybe merge a list of the official Olympic films into a small section of the Olympic Games article. Plasticbottle 06:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I made some proposal for clean up in the talk page. Inclusion and exclusion from the list should be based on reliable and uniform criteria. Fmon 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remind author what collaboration means. Establish criteria for the page and clean it up. If the author continues to obstruct improvement of the article, file an RFC. AfD is not the answer to editor behavior problems, and this article can be salvaged. Jerry 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminant list. Why are the biographies of Tai Babilonia, Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens listed in "Fictional Films"? How many of these are made-for-television or staight-to-video/DVD? Without a clear focus, this article quickly devolves into a mess. Caknuck 16:43, 4 April 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; no merge. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suppose the deletion of this "...in popular culture" article will raise a few eyebrows as this is among the most popular films of its time. However, let's look at this article and ponder: does it actually have any value? Is it anything else than an incomplete, unreferenced list of trivial information which in no way participates in an encyclopedic understanding of its subject. Pascal.Tesson 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom and as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any reference to the film or the creature or a line from the film or a scene that reminds an editor of the film. Otto4711 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This entire article could be summed up with a line or two, a paragraph at the outside ("The character of E.T., along with some of the characters' lines from the movie, make numerous minor appearances in fictional works"), and a incredibly limited selection of "references" that are more important than ~10 second appearances or use of 4-or-less word lines from the movie (the use of ET as part of a road safety campaign may be one of these that make the cut) could possible be merged back into the movie. In my personal opinion, the fact that things from the movie appear elsewhere is not necessary for an in-depth "spot the cliché" competition to be held here... anything more than acknowledging that such appearances exist would be sufficient (although I am open to the idea of expansion if some externaly verified, published, scholarly material on the subject can be found). -- saberwyn 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The road safety campaign alone is worth merging material into the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge notable stuff like the road safety campaign back into the main article, but the bulk of this
  talk/review) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment As is always the case with such things, the problem with the merge is that significant contributors of the main article will most certainly be very unhappy about anyone dumping this back into an otherwise quality article. Pascal.Tesson 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am uncertain of how the buckle-up campaign is especially notable or inclusionworthy - it's a bit of humorous trivia, but bits of humorous trivia are generally what spawn these
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'm all for axing trivial cultural references articles, and I created this article.
  WikiNew 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete but merge the significant ones such as the BT advertising campaign and Saturday Night Live into the main article as these feature E.T. "himself". Croxley 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete everything that isn't referenced - so the whole thing - and merge the rest. --Haemo 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete material, merge it. Jakerforever 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever but do not merge anything back. These articles are not created to generate more drama on AfD but to decrease the burden put on the backs of serious maintainers of the main articles. If the references get back into the main text dedication of these people will drop very soon. Pavel Vozenilek 09:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails my three strike rule: starts with "list", is an X in pop culture article, and is unreferenced. Jerry 22:08, 1 April 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Quality of Living Survey

Mercer Quality of Living Survey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only one source, possible copyright violation, very few links, uncategorized Kevlar67 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from everything Kevlar said, there are only 100 nonwiki ghits - not notable. YechielMan 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — copyrighted list. — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of notability, but rather that this article copies the list, which is copyrighted. If the article were about the list, it would be a different matter. — ERcheck (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the findings of the survey are copyrighted. (Remember, there's plenty of notable subjects that have no web presence at all so Google is not a reliable indicator for things not internet-related. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - among other things, you get more than 1 million google hits if you take the quotation marks out (and that's simply because few other websites refer to it using the specific phrase "Mercer Quality of Living Survey"). I remember when this survey came out, it got a decent amount of news coverage. ugen64 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I googled "quality of living" + survey + mercer. About 20,100 hits. They clearly have very good press, with or without us. It feels a bit like self-promotion to me. Ventifax 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pragmatic Keep The fershlugginer thing will just bounce back anyway, & we'll just go through this again. Ventifax
• Delete replaces the original market value of the original source, so it is copyvio. No context other than list. Jerry 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see this as a promotion for Mercer, but simply the most notable and most often cited tanking of cities. This is the list that everyone refers to when they do municipal comparisons. Also I don't see how a list can be copyrighted. Can anyone explain what is exactly copyrighted and what parts can be used. Would a change of format, or a comparison of different ranking studies be better? I agree that the article needs more than just a list, so other lists might be a must to start a discussion and a full fledged article. Maybe this should be merged into a more general article on quality of life in various cities. I don't really like the article as it stands now, but I would hate to see such valuable and interesting data disappear.

☭ Zippanova 04:36, 3 April 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. Author blanked article multiple times both under username and IP, and is considered a speedy deletion request. Speedy closed Hu12 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skapsis

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

Article fails to establish the notability of this Ancient Greek concept and appears primarily to be a mechanism for promoting a Portuguese blog of the same name. A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on the word "Skapsis" turns up a hodge-podge of just 71 Google hits scattered across several languages and nothing I see that we could use as a reference. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue is not whether the article is promotional. That can be solved separately by just deleting the link and the reference to the blog. Instead I nominated this article for deletion because it does not appear to meet the requirements to be in an English language encyclopedia. The article states that all the possible sources are in foreign languages (overlooking the fact that this blog is not in English either). Skapsis articles don't appear on either the Portuguese or Greek Wikipedias. There's just one physical reference cited in the article and that's a book in Italian. If there are thousands of academics in English speaking countries studying and writing about ancient Greece, why haven't they written about the term? If they haven't seen fit to discuss it, then is this term notable? "Skapsis" is not in the online ancient Greek lexicon that I consulted. Most of the great ancient Greek texts are available on-line translated in English and if this really was a common concept in ancient Greece, then the article's creator should be able to cite the locations in these online texts where the idea is discussed -- both for us and for the readers. (See the talk page for more detail on this.) --A. B. ^(talk) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although the article appears to be spam-like, I believe it is salvageable. MKoltnow 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this article was salvageable, now would be the time to salvage it. And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of
  WP:NOR. Else it should be deleted. -- Satori Son 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep cleanup, and de-spam-ify. There appears to be a salvageable article in here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Weak delete per my comment below. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Z-man, what are your thoughts on where to find sources for this article (and who's going to look for them?) As I noted above, I looked and found nothing. I just don't think there's anything out there so I'm worried we'll be stuck with an undeleted but unsourced and unnotable article -- have you got any ideas? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you may be right. There are a few hundred google hits, but very few are in English or any other language I can read. If there are sources, I can't find them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it seems to be a real term but, here's the clincher, not a notable one. The article is a mess and
  WP:COI to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It seems pretty clear to me that the article was created purely to promote a blog. The connection between the Greek farming term and education appears to be pure original research. At best, this appears to be a candidate for transclusion into Wiktionary. More likely, it just needs to be deleted. I'd be very happy if someone could prove me wrong by citing references to support the assertions made in the article; I would also be very surprised. --ElKevbo 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and be not so limited. Read what I have advised you to and you will see this is not a promoting article. That is all that I strugle against.

Have you seen the blog? You should, so you can be sure that none of the contraindications apply. I've read the links, and kepted them for me, so I can investigate them further, but I haven't found any real problem in the article. I agree that it may seem as an advertizing, but is not, and if there where to be more in the net about this word it would be there. I have searched. And I imagine that you have searched to without any luck. You think that the only occurrence of this word in the net, which is in no way any of the unadvised entries, sould be taken of?Sarasoar 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But I can tell you more. I have just done this article because a lot of people complaint that they had no way to know what skapsis is in the maner that I did in the article. The blog is a philosophical and poeticaly artistic way of aproching the same subject. I would neve explain the meaning of skapsis there. You may consider this blog the exact happening os skapsis, is the propoer action I have described in the article taking place. Is the best example for the article, and the article is an instrument for those that what to know more about the word. To see an advertizing action is to see ambliopicaly, is compleatly equivocal. There is no motive. Tel me a reason for advertizing? If you woul know the content os the blog you would see tha this is the most outrageuos thing to say.Sarasoar 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Gilles Deleuze? His book What is Phylosophy?, with his cowriter Félix Guattari. The last post of the blog, in which the article is mentioned, posts the end of the introduction that is a severe critic on marketing and universal capitalism, or professional comercial formation. This is our doom. Skapsis is all against the ideias that the article have been acused. And the article came out because in the making of the blog there was nothing about the subject. But you know this allready. Please read the introduction to this book, you will see the nonsense of the acusation. And it's very bad that someone may mix philosophy with marketing, but this is possible because marketing have tryed to be criator of concepts. So now all creation of concepts must confused with marketing or advertizing...?

I new that some blog readers might find the article to be an over flow of information that would diminish the poetical dimension of Skapsis, so I have done this last post exaclty to give the tools to understand waht realy is the reason behind the occurrence of the article. My doing of the artical is the first step of the concept age, the encyclopedia. So you probably won't find any artical to be most apropriate to be in an encyclopedia than this one about skapsis. Skapsis is almost the same as the action of encyclopeding, and the mention of the blog is essential to give a dimention to it, it's to bad you can't read Portuguese.

All this was very sucsseful: The article is the first age of the concept: the encyclopedia, the blog is the second age of the concept: the pedagogy, and the atacks the article has recived show the presence of the fear for something that is very bad, which is the third age (and fake) of the conept: marketing. This last way of the concept is all that I want to see away from me or from the blog, the most as possible. That is why I have erased immidiatly the acusation from the artical itself. :If I would be doing what as been injustly said it would be the same as destroying the pupose of the blog, which is much more important than the article. The seconde age of concept, pedagogy, is the most importante of them all.

Please read the introduction to book that is referenced above. Only then you will see the nonsense of acusing this article to be advertizing.Sarasoar 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes occurres that a fear for something to come arround brings the fealing for that. Only you, that are policiating the Wikipedia, would see advertizing or in any way a promoting action facking to be an article. But this is much more than an article, this is the product of the encyclopedia it self looking into the pedagogy being born. Encyclopedia has a bit dificulty in understanding pedagogy, so it tries to explain what is inexplainable. Al exlanation creates the ilusion of understanding, but the only understanding possible comes with pedagogy, the living of the concept. If you read about you don't know, you just think you do; you only know in your one experience and only if you are well advised, which is the function of pedagogy, to guide through the processe of empirical knowledge.

If something was not fully explained please ask for more. If this was a bore the fault is yours, you must go into philosophy so to understand the ofense of this acusation. It would even be a reason for processing the acusator. It not only is nonsense but more gravely is difamation."89.155.26.189 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, if you realy what to see references that prove all the article says just go and confirm it with the Franco Montinari Greek Vocabolary, the only reference I know to provide this information. I have said this before, but you seam to ignore what I say. The contection bettween agriculture and education is contemporary to Ancient Greece. I realy don't understando wy you act like this if you dindn´t even made an efort to understand what I say. There is no source for skapsis in the internet, the blog is the only source. Can you understand this? And can you understand that this article would never work as a promotion for the blog? Ask a portuguese reader to tell you all about it, and read the introduction to Waht is Philosophy? of Gilles Deleuze, which is the post that redirects here. I you are capable of understanding philosophy you will see that your worries are pointing to the wrong direction. This is becaming extreemly ofensive!89.155.26.189 11:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to get out of the virtual world and veryfy a more that reliable sorce as the vocabolary I've mentioned? And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. This Vocabolary is more that enough. I can't understant wy you steel complain? If every time that a subject is not verifyable in the net would be deleted thaere wuold be no Wikipedia for starting. All has a first time, and for Skapsis the first time in a sistematic and resposnsable manner is the blog.89.155.26.189 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read

WP:ATT. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, verifiable sources and blogs are generally not considered such sources (including yours - and mine, for that fact). We also don't allow original research or mere dictionary definitions. If you can provide reliable sources confirming the assertions you have made, please add them. Otherwise, my opinion remains the same. --ElKevbo 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, sources don't have to be available online. Sources from other media such as print are perfectly acceptable. But please be aware that merely defining this work using a dictionary or similar source would not allay my concerns and establish the notability of this subject.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ElKevbo 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'd be perfectly happy with a dictionary, but... Delete. As it stands, neither dictionary.com, nor my library have heard of the word and if you remove technocrati and blogspot links from the Google search no English language results remain when searching for this word online. (The blog link can be deleted if it is really spamming should it provide notable after all). —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

ELKevbo, if you knew the dictionary I am puting forward you would se it's not about mere dictionary definitions, as is contanis the most advanced reserch about the subject in Italian academy. This is a ver authoritative source.Sarasoar 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And..., MacGyverMagic, you didn't read all I have said. There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries, how can you expect to find it in the web????Sarasoar 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for research on a Greek term for which "There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries." Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. And don't take this so personally. You have simply chosen an improper forum to publish your somewhat intriguing research. I'm sure there are other websites and institutions that would be interested, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia. -- Satori Son 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to realize tha wiki is nor about seriouse knowledge but about democratic knowledge, and if you remember your schooling days, if you had any, you know that ther is no sence for democracy in real knowledge. Or you know about it or you don't, and if you know you must show from where, which is what I did in the first place. Vulgar dictionaries may not copmly to the requirments, but this kind of vocabolary dose. I'v used it in major academic works, and it is beeing used all over the academic woeld. Inform your self.Sarasoar 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way, this continuos nonsense is descrediting wiki and because of that I to move the article for deletion, and if possible, all delition of any of my editing in this place. It is ridiculouse tha way you work. Noy seriouse and not academic. You are just bad encyclopedians. And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian.Sarasoar 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Move for speedy close as creator has requested deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the moment it's a 3 line (content free) article with no assertion of notability and no references, and what appears to be an indiscriminate list of random links - unless it's tidied up not even a candidate for Wiktionary. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian." That's us told. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although clearly created for self-promotional purposes, I thought there might be something to salvage here. But upon closer look, there doesn't appear to be any significant use of the term beyond the author's. I fail to see any evidence of notability. Deli nk 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  original research unless the subject can be documented with some verifiable references. Tarinth 18:40, 27 March 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. --

Rudy Cosby

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

Neologism, not notable, even seems to fail

• Comment "The drink is meant to resemble Rudy's menarche". After realising what that means, I now feel ill. Croxley
• Delete as gross and hopefully not sourcable. killing sparrows 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Yuck. StuartDouglas 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but
  WP:MIX might want it. If Rudy's menarche resembles "a mixture of white rum, orange juice, ginger ale, pomegranate juice, and a splash of lime", I think Rudy might want to take herself down to the clinic, as well. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I really don't see why this article should be deleted. I know at least a dozen people that know what a Rudy Cosby is. I don't know who started it, but I think it makes for a funny story and a good evening. I have been to a bar in Winston-Salem, NC (6th and Vine Wine Bar) that had a Rudy Cosby as a drink special. Maybe it's an obscure / regional thing, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to expand the communities base of knowledge. P.S. - It's actually delicious. ramsta3 18:30, 27 March 2007 (EST)
  • —
    few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep I believe that this article should remain posted. Although the drink may make some feel "ill" or say "yuck", it is no different from drinks with other names that are somewhat disturbing: blow job shots, sex on the beach, sloe comfortable screw, hairy virgin, moosemilk, one balled dictator, hairy navel, etc. It is a good drink and deserves a place with all the other cocktails of its kind. Keep the post.Zimmkc2 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • —
    few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quickly. Disgusting stuff added by single-purpose accounts, clearly violates WP:Vandalism, it's a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scienter 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, seems to defy verifiablity, and even the name appears to be incorrect. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't understand the squeamishness on display here and the drink sounds very nice but there is nothing to suggest this is a legitimate cocktail. Suriel1981 23:58, 31 March 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. --

Nights plague

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notbility per

• Delete Another band bites the dust. YechielMan 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed that it's not notable. Non Myspace Google hits are almost non-existent. - grubber 01:57, 29 March 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. --

Jessicas Ghost

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability pe

• Delete Yet another nn band. YechielMan 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another band. StuartDouglas 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice this band's rising fast enough that someone will legitimately recreate it soon, but they're not there yet. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:40, 27 March 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. --

List of Sariaya Beaches

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

Prod tag removed by article creator, who might be the only person who really cares about the subject. (Sorry if that's too harsh.) YechielMan 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of walled-garden or otherwise as table of contents of pages for the individual resort pages created by User:Acom, all of which are pure spam (I tagged them as such). DMacks 04:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As DMacks stated, just an excuse to link to adverts. Top marks for prose though; "The gray sand is powdery soft and the water is pristinely clean, the sea like emeralds and the sunsets and sunrise like heaven." Somehow, I doubt it. Croxley 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — does not need own article. List is already a part of the stub article
  Sariaya, Quezon. — ERcheck (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It is a list of resorts that are not notable, at least based on the articles that were speedy deleted. Maybe if it was a list of beaches, but no reason to keep with current content. Vegaswikian 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and to the topic creator, it's not too harsh. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:08, 27 March 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. --

Timothy Tricker

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for deletion per

• Delete. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not at all notable. StuartDouglas 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing special. A talented 15 year old, but that's all. Emeraude 12:46, 27 March 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode)

Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

{{prod}} removed by User:Neier with the comment "remove prod from a single article within a larger series of articles".

Articles can be individually prodded or deleted; that the article is related to other articles is irrelevant. Mikeblas 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Episode articles for very notable series are encyclopedic.
  ^Talk 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Commment. Neier is absurdly assuming we can edit all the articles at the same time. We can't; it's not a requirement to submit AfDs in a batch (in fact, they group AfDs are rarely successful for anyone involved). There will always exist other articles that should be deleted, so an argument to keep a single article based on the existence of other articles is ill-founded. -- Mikeblas 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I've absurdly assumed is that the deletion of one article from a series is not non-controversial, and should be discussed first. Clearly, from the comments below, it is not a non-controversial deletion. As for the ability to nominate multiple articles at once, that is also not without precedent; but, it is also irrelevant to whether the deletion of this article is merited or not. Neier 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have trouble believing that all episodes of any TV program are inherenly notable - I can see that the "Who Shot JR?" episode of Dallas, or the final episode of M*A*S*H* etc. would be, but not run-of -the-mill episodes. However, I accept that I am against the consensus in this. For this one, however, it needs at least a rename from "SATC episode" (I had to look it up) to "Sex and the City episode". And, opening up another can of worms, is "Sex and the City" really THAT notable?- fchd 11:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep lots of precedent exists for episodes of notable TV series, and Sex and the City is extremely notable, influential, and high-rated. Deprodding was correct, as deletion would have resulted in a "hole" in an otherwise-complete series of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD is about this episode, not the series -- I'm not sure why you're making remarks about the series. Assuming that the precedent is correct is fallacy. This article establishes no level of influence for this episode within any circle of influence -- even limited to the characters on the show. What would that "hole" leave? There's really zero information here, and apparently very little to say about this mundane episode. While high-ratings are nice for the producers and advertisers,
    popularity does not confer notability. -- Mikeblas 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment Yes, this is a highly notable TV series, and this may be a major episode in the series, but most of the information is covered at List of Sex and the City episodes#Season 2: June 1999 - October 1999 - all except for the quote. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think having individual episode pages for every episode of a notable series is appropriate, and is a case where keeping the fact that
  Wikipedia is not paper in mind is vital. The simplest way to have reasonable coverage of a show's plot is to have an article for each episode -- an attempt to consolidate all episodes for a series into a single article is likely to result in a large, unwieldy article that makes it difficult to find desired information. Having a single article also opens the door for all sorts of arguments about what is sufficiently important to include in the article, and only having articles for "important" episodes will lead similarly to constant arguments as to what constitutes an important episode. Separate articles for every episode ensure that there's a specific place for any information about the plot of the show, allow someone typing in an episode title to go directly to the information they're looking for, and provide a way to navigate through the history of a show. Yes, this may result in the occasional permanently stub-sized article about an unexciting episode, but not having every article would leave a disconcerting gap for anyone trying to read through the story of a show, and undoubtedly result in repeated re-creation of the missing article. We're certainly always going to have at least a redirect for any episode, so why not, since space is not a concern, improve the usability and informativeness of Wikipedia by having a short article to host basic episode-specific and navigation information (previous/next episodes, guest stars/writer/director) instead of a redirect that provides nothing? Pinball22 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question. How did you arrive at the conclusion that an article per episode is the simplest approach? It sounds to me that it's far more tedious and complicated than having a single article that explains everything you need in one spot, and allows convenient editing without sequence boxes, info boxes, and replicated headers, intros, and references. Meanwhile, let's stipulate you're correct. The problem still remains that this episode hasn't demonstrated any influence on the show's story line. Or are you prepared to explain (specifically and with references!) how Samantha's size queenism influences the outcome of the season finale? -- Mikeblas 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, having all the information in one page would be simpler in the sense that it would eliminate all the duplication of the boxes/headers/intros of having a page per episode. The reason that I came to the conclusion that separate pages was overall a simpler solution, though, is that I think the overhead of separate pages is worth it to avoid both the unwieldy size of a combined page and the inevitable edit wars that would occur over such a page. Separate articles leave plenty of room for each episode to have a reasonable amount of coverage without making it hard to find the information you're looking for or inspiring arguments about which episode is worthy of a longer description in a long, crowded page. I can see that for some lesser-known/shorter series, where there's not that much information, a single page (or pages by season) could work. For an extremely popular series like this, though, there will invariably be many episodes that people think are worthy of their own pages, and having only some episodes leads to the problems I mentioned before: subjective arguments about which episodes are sufficiently important for pages and a confusing style for readers, who would have to switch back and forth between hunting through a long page and reading individual pages to get all the information about a show. I'm not actually attempting to provide any rationale for this particular episode being special in any way, and that's part of my point, which is that even if some episodes are less than thrilling, it's to the benefit of both readers and editors to have pages for all episodes. Pinball22 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongly disagree - each subject of an article should be notable. If one or more episodes of any series don't meet the criteria, it/they should not have their own article. - fchd 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not cumulative. A bunch of individually not-notable articles don't pile up into a set of notable articles. -- Mikeblas 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you can make a case that the guidelines disagree with that point of view. For example, see the criteria for athletes at
          WP:MUSIC. - Neier 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep. This was the first episode in a season nominated for an Emmy award, which seems notable. Pinball22's comment also makes sense. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Strangerer and Pinball22.
  eg92contribs 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep SATC had a much bigger audience than Star Trek, and imagine the uproar if we started deleting "Trek" episodes. And Pinball22, that's the best I've ever seen the "keep every episode" argument put. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reason the Trekkies would get mad about their articles being deleted is that they've actually done the work to show why the episodes are meaningful. The ST:OS episodes I spot-checked were all articles with good analysis and references. The article that I've nominated has only three sentences, one of which is a quote from the show. For something so notable, it's quite amazing that nobody, over the last 8 years (nearly) has found the time to write up a paragraph or two about it. -- Mikeblas 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge the content to the appropriate article about SATC. There is no question of SATC's notability; however, this particular episode does not demonstrate any notability on its own. I would change my mind about this if it could be shown that this particular episode created memes or references that became cultural icons, but I don't see any veriable sources in the article to illustrate this. Tarinth 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pinball22, who wrote much of what I would have written in the edit summary when I de-PROD'd the article originally, had the summary space not been so short. Neier 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sound action stations. Consensus is to improve, not delete (
  Matthew 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as Matthew mentions, we have a consensus to improve, not delete, articles like this. I'll fix it up a bit to show you what I mean. - Peregrine Fisher 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Strangerer, an TV episode's highest honor is an Emmy or win nomination. --FateClub 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Farm them all out, if possible--but... While I appreciate the extensive fanwiki pages, I do think that they should, if possible, be moved onto sites & servers elsewhere, where they can find other funding & support, rather than bleed Wikipedia. That said, that may not be strictly possible. People will go to wikipedia.org first, & I doubt there will ever be a SATCpedia dedicated site. But I see no mention on the page that this episode won an Emmy, so I don't think that level of individual notoriety is asserted.

Comment However, at this point, we're keeping it for reasons of organization; I expect it, in effect, takes less bandwidth if on its own page than if this information were all merged into a main SATC article or article on the season, since one doesn't have to load this stub to read about another episode in the same season. Ventifax 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. have you ever read

Matthew 09:19, 1 April 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 per consensus and lack of a shrubbery. --

Cross Gender Marketable Trade Skills

Cross Gender Marketable Trade Skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't even know what this article is supposed to be about. It looks like a how-to guide for dating, which Wikipedia is

• Delete Hoax. Monty Python reference was the giveaway. Quite funny though, send it to
  WP:BJAODN. Croxley 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The prod was removed without comment. Article hasn't addressed the notability concern. -- ReyBrujo 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree this is a hoax, people have way too much free time. --killing sparrows 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is almost certainly meant as a wind-up. BTLizard 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per killing sparrows (African or European?). This is a hoax. --Charlene 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article with ..... a herring! Ok, in all seriousness, this article reads like some kind of how-to guide or something, and is in no way encyclopedic.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as totally unreferenced and unverifiable
  original research. Tarinth 18:45, 27 March 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. WjBscribe 01:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khlav kalash

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

)

• Maybe keep. I'm not a big trivia fan, but a Google search shows that this got mentioned on The Simpsons. Other than that, I don't think we need the recipe. YechielMan 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Wikipedia is not a recipe book. — ERcheck (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More specifically —
  WP:NOT an instruction manual ... including "recipes". — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete probably originated on the Simpsons, crab juice or Mountain Dew??? --killing sparrows 06:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably just a Simpsons joke, but even if not, WP is not a recipe book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Funny, but delete as it's not even a real food. ... discospinster _talk 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep* why is wikipedia not a cookbook ? there seems to be this tendency on deltion to make wiki into a std paper encylcopedia - is not part of wikipedia to go beyond, perhpas way beyond, the boundrys of the std paper item,while keeping verifiability and npov > Cinnamon colbert 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see
    WP:NOT. In the section titled "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", the subsection about instruction manuals specifies "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions... this includes... recipes.". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The place for recipes in the wiki is http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook
• Comment - there is precedent for articles about foods, including some information on how to prepare them. See pancake or pizza for examples. However, you'll note that the information in those articles is more than recipes--it tells the history and significance of those foods. If this article can be improved to contain that type of information before it the AfD is complete, then I think it could be kept; alas, an unreferenced recipe isn't quite enough to keep it in its current state. Tarinth 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. I can't verify that this actually exists outside the Simpsons universe. Indeed, the last line of the article is an allusion to the NY episode. Zagalejo 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well, it's either a hoax or a recipe, and shouldn't be here in either case. --Haemo 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FateClub (talk • contribs)
• Delete as fateclub stated, perhaps belongs in wikicookbook. Jerry 22:18, 1 April 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Macpherson

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

Not notable to warrant own page. Individual is part of a group that has its own Wikipedia entry. See:

• Delete per nom unless the article is greatly improved from its current status by the end of this AfD StuartDouglas 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete has some IMDB credits, so more notable than your average internet video "celebrity". But I don't see anything that an article can be really based upon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (note, creator of article) - IMDB entries can be bought, not a good notability test.
  TWIT by itself is a major media outlet nowadays and per WP:TWIT a keep should be in order. The article will expand as the podcast is released and the TWIT army views / improves it. -- Tawker 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - You cannot vote "Keep" on your own articles. Conflict of interest aside, you seem to be confusing the TWiT podcast with the article on someone who has merely appeared on TWiT. Furthermore, the podcast was released on Sunday and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
    WP:NOT. Cioxx 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, you can vote "keep" on your own articles, and people often do. There's certainly no need to be rude about it. I disagree with Tawker on this matter, but he has every right to vote and add to the discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The conflict of interest would be if I closed this AfD.... which I rarely close AfD's anyways so it's hardly to be a concern -- Tawker 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What relevance does the inspiration for article creation (re: TWiT episode) have if not created by the subject? Joshua Miller
• Keep notable in the
  IPTV niche. --FateClub 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]