Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 115: Line 115:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popular local toponyms}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popular local toponyms}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handy FamiEight}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handy FamiEight}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)}}

Revision as of 23:05, 29 May 2006

< May 28 >

Purge server cache

May 29

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

Victoria Crawford

Non-notable model per WP:BIO as her only claim to fame is a modelling contract with the WWE, reads like a model's profile rather than an article. It was orginally tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but I removed the CSD tags as I felt having a contract with WWE was at least an assertion of notability. I prodded the article, the prod was endorsed, and then the prods were mysteriously removed by an anon without even an edit summary. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, per CSD G3 and CSD G4. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Race

Seems like a joke, but a funny one; check it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs)

well my friend the purpose of this website may be interpereted differently. This is information about a new game people are playing.

youre a stupid mother fucker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koudsi (talk • contribs)

Im not a stupid faggot like you so i dont know anything about signing my name and all that. all i know is that youre a cocksucker. In your face.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koudsi (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 of the debate was no consensusHomey 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UC Men's Chorale

Non-notable, see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas — Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Upon further examination: article violates WP:MUSIC. I find no sites besides the "official" site mention their "international tour." I don't find any notable and verifiable sources stating that the tour actually took place. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1st choice Delete or 2nd choice Merge, 3rd choice Cut down. If someone wants to recreate a decent article about this society they can, but as it stands it is all an advert.Captainj 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club

Deprodded by an anonymous user so I'm bringing it here. This is a non-notable youth soccer club. Metros232 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing my unsigned-in post :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of teams sponsored by Adidas

I believe this list violates policy. See this similar AfD and this one also. Pretty much listcruft. EdGl 01:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we referenced each entry, then the references section would be longer than the article. Kevin 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
aLii 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Adidas?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Patterson

Was prodded b/c "relevance unclear". I am deprodding and taking to AfD precisely because there is some significance, but it's not clear how much, and consensus is needed. This is a host of a real radio show on a station in Guelph, Ontario, which is not exactly a primary market. It's a once-weekly show and runs from midnight to 2AM. That's as bad as a radio slot gets. Yet I am not sure if we should be deleting this article for a bona fide radio host. No vote - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of teams sponsored by Nike

I believe this list violates policy. See this similar AfD and this one also. Pretty much listcruft. EdGl 01:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

Then we should all notice that however pointless or not that this list may be, it most certainly doesn't violate the above policy. The list isn't useful to me, but would be to someone wanting to know about Nike. aLii 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. You need to read the paragraph above that on WP:NOT. It says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia...". (emphasis added). Bottom line, this list (and the other lists I put on afd) violates policy. Be careful to read all of a policy before making a judgement call. -EdGl 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much every article on wikipedia could be argued to breach that, if you were so inclined. The policy is very specific about what kind of lists shouldn't be allowed, and as we are talking about a list, that's what I quoted. This list should stay. aLii 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Nike?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is informative and many other lists that are similiar to this are being kept in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

Yemen does not compete at the Commonwealth Games. Mohammed Nasir represented Wales, as he is Welsh (well, from Newport, so he's Monmouthshirese). The reason, I suspect, that the article asserts that Nasir represented Yemen is that he is of Yemeni ancestry. Of course, he was part of the Welsh team, won a bronze medal for Wales, and doesn’t represent Yemen any more than Sol Campbell represents Jamaica at football. Bastin8 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Ali Neyzi

Not notable; vanity article combined with ad for company JChap 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest Monsters I & II

Article refers to the games already covered by the article Dragon Quest Monsters. As such it is a redundant article, and since it includes no information not already covered in the other article it should just be deleted. Warhorus 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Do not keep, article redirected/merged with Rudy Colombini. Homey 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Hotel

No vote yet. Prod was "Hotel's main claim to notability seems to be that it's owned by a semi-notable musician. Article might be ok in a travel guide but not encyclopedic." Sounds like a decent claim. Sounds like a prominent location. Consensus is richly deserved. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to simple:Global warming and delete . Ezeu 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming/Global warming (simplified)

This page was an experiment in writing a less technical version of global warming, but it has been largely abandoned. Rather than have it linger as a target for vandalism, I think it is better to delete it, but I decided to bring it here in case someone wants to make an argument for keeping it. Dragons flight 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to X-Men Evolution. --Ezeu 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men Evolution Comic

Information of this comic is already contained in the X-Men Evolution page. Electricbolt 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains duplicate information in X-Men Evolution. --Starionwolf 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect Also clean up - the article's structure is very weak. TBC has a good point about noting the differences between the animated and comic book forms of X-Men: Evolution. - CNichols 23:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soxtalk

Seems to just be promotional. There is no notability established. Delete Yanksox 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tranquillity Park

Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I would like to see if other users can help me find references that this stadium was indeed the previous home of Maidstone United F.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Color vs. Process Color

Original research and not an encyclopedic topic. Metros232 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When did you look at it? I added external links at 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC). My vote is keep because I improved it a bit (made it a bit less conversational, added some external links, etc.) I also added links to it from other articles on the subject so that someone who is familiar with the subject might improve it. Armedblowfish 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter Yoga

Adversisment for a school of yoga, no notability demonstrated. Delete--Peta 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unsourced, POV, & OR. This is a poorly drafted "how to" that fails WP rules for inclusion. It's so badly written I don't suggest it be sent to Wikihow. Ande B 05:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep new version of article. Still needs a lot of work but is now legit topic. Copy vio & tutorials have been removed. Ande B. 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is all verifiable data: please visit http://www.laughteryoga.org/ for more information. An international directory of Laughter Clubs is posted there - all with contact name, tel. and emails - as well as many videos and worldwide media coverage on this method. I have rewritten this entry and shorten it to a basic definition. There is something UNIQUE about Laughter Yoga, in that it is a method where you laugh for no reason (no reason = no mind = no ego, no power-struggle, no past (guilt) and no future (worry). It brings you easily into the "here and now" where only equilibrium exists and tension gets released without the need to verbalize). ALSO this is a grassroots wordlwide social movement (please visit the website for valid proof). I would be very happy to expand this entry again in a way acceptable to WP. There is a great value in this for the common good, yet obviously you may say I have a partial viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgendry (talk • contribs) .
Comment: Content of article has changed It may be verifiable but at the time of nomination was a poorly written how-to; tutorials and how-to's are not suitable for WP inclusion. The article has changed since that time with the removal of a great deal of copyright vio and instructional material. It is still POV. People may want to take another look at this new version. Ande B 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading spark plugs for racing

Was kept before under Wikipedia:How-to, however that is no longer in effect, having been made redundant by WP:NOT. Delete. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep If you want to move this somewhere better (Is there an automotive wikibook?), that's fine; but frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking about deleting this much quality work by one or more people. Disk space is cheep, human effort isn't. Bryce 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm a racing fan, and I like this, but, well, it's in the rules, I'm just following them.-- SonicAD (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per SonicAD's nomination. Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for all kinds of information - whether its "quality work" or not shouldn't come into this consideration. And incidentally, there's no guarantee that this is quality work Bwithh 03:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per nom. As mentioned by Sonic AD, the decision of the original AfD's was keep becuase (as quoted from Uncle G) "although some do not like how-tos in Wikipedia (which would have astonished Diderot), there is no policy against them". This however has changed in recent months, and now articles are considered a violation of the WP:NOT policy--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP policy of no tutorials or how-to's. Direct authors to Wikihow, where how-to's are being developed. (sorry, forgot to sign this before: Ande B 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Crazynas 12:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, per nom. --Terence Ong 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or Transwiki Not exactly in the right place, but it could be put in a talk page or userpage. It should at least be preserved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom; I can't imagine that there's anything in the article that is (a) sufficiently encyclopedic and (b) not already covered in other articles, such that merge and redirect isn't appropriate. Joe 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This issue has been discussed twice before. While the article is written as a 'how-to', the subject matter itself is not a "how-to". While Wikipedia wouldn't have an article on "how to do brain surgery", "brain surgery" is a valid article. The opening paragraphs are a valid description of the subject. If people object to the rest of the article, that should be discussed on the talk page of the article. SimonP's comment at the last AfD was the best: "just make sure it is descriptive rather than prescriptive". I would agree to a "cleanup" tag on the article referencing these issues but not an outright deletion. Samw 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sam makes a strong keep argument, but I wonder whether the treatment already accorded at Spark plug#Reading spark plugs is sufficiently encyclopedic and appropriately descriptive (though it, to be sure, needs cleanup as well); I don't know that the section is sufficiently large/distinct to merit its own article. In any event, I think fairer analogies would be betwixt the Spark plug and Brain surgery articles and between this article and Brain surgery techniques, which, even if written consistent with Wikipedia is not a how-to guide", we'd still likely delete in view of its being overly specific (we'd merge, I think, any encyclopedic information to a broader article, such as Neurosurgery or even a section of Surgery, and I don't think anyone would object to merging here, although I supported delete in view of my conclusion that there was nothing to merge). Joe 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination for AfD is predicated on the article being a "how-to" and thus doesn't belong. Has the issue now shifted to the "notability" of the subject? I'm not aware of any notability guidelines for technical subjects. Any verifiable technical subject is fair game AFAIK. See Voigt notation; that must be much more obscure than this topic. I cite that simply because I contributed; I'm sure there are many technical subjects even more obscure. If the issue is that it's a how-to, my assertion is that while it may be partially written as such, the subject matter is not. Let's flag it for clean-up and rewrite it so that it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive". Samw 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Even as the nomination is in view of the article's quality as a how-to, we may nevertheless support deletion on other grounds. When I use non-notable here, I mean the term to mean that the information is exorbitantly trivial (or, as I said above, overly specific; cf., esoteric, where your Voigt notation adduction would be apt) and thus unencyclopedic (even if formulated other than as a how-to). Joe 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So on the issue of notability, I strongly object to technical subjects being held to a "notability" criteria. Wikipedia is not paper. Until there is established consensus as to what is notable and what is not within each subject area, as many topics as possible should be covered. Top-hat shim has 13 Google hits. What is the notability criteria for automotive technologies? Samw 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's an outdated version on wikibooks. Should just update that one and delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep: If you want a clone of britanica why bother with wikipedia? Britanica (or encarta etc) doesnt have stuff like this, Wikipedia DOES. Seriously, Who needs wikipedia if all it has is the same inane "lowest common denominator" goop as all the commercial ones? You can be just like them or you can be special. To be just like them is to doom the experiment to failure and gives away the greatest point of strength wiki has, the ability to present RARE information. I think I need my own web page for this stuff.
As an asside to the above comment "there's no guarantee that this is quality work". True, just as there was no guarantee of the vericity of all the other crap I learned which proved NOT to be true (the GREAT BULK OF WHICH IS STILL OUT THERE)in gaining the knowledge and experience to write that article as it is now. Over 30 years of cutting edge racing research have allowed me to seperate the wheat from the chaff and give the verified work to others. The real test will be when someone tries it. I'm confidant!--=Motorhead 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to =Motorhead: You may have missed some of the discussions on this article. This article appears to already exist in Wikibooks. Another appropriate location would be Wikihow, which was specifically created for the purpose of gathering together instructional materials on one site, related to this one. Your worries are misplaced, as is your apparent anger. Deleting the material from Wikipedia does not remove it from the entire Wikiverse ;-) Ande B. 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christian prophets

This is problematic and hinges very much on the definition of "prophet". If we take the doctrinal view that the purpose of the prophets was to announce Christ then the last prophet is John the Baptist. If on the other hand we define a prophet as a leader endowed with charismatic authority then St Peter and James the Just would be "early Christian prophets" as leaders of the Jerusalem congragation. Under that definition John the Baptist would be out of place. Finally, if a prophet is anyone who has received a message from God, then the list is quite endless; many people are mentioned in the New Testament by name that received a vision or a word from God.

These points have been raised on the talk page, there has been no reply, and I'm at a loss to say where one could take the article. Besides, we have an article on Early Christianity already. Dr Zak 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Early Christianity; there doesn't appear to be any accepted definition of the parameters of this topic, therefore it's an OR selection. Ziggurat 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to start? Article has no real context for prophets. If this could be established, possible weak keep. On the other hand, delete just to stop the penis waving on the talk page and redirect to Early Christianity or Church Fathers. The irony of religious wars never ceases to amaze me. --JChap 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirects don't really fit. No one denies that the persons listed on that page are notable figures in the early development of the Christian church. The problem is that the page is unreferenced; we don't know what definition of "prophet" was used and who considered the individuals mentioned there to be indeed prophets. Dr Zak 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reelin hypothesis of the development of schizophrenia

Original research. Google hits for "reelin hypothesis": 79. Google hits for '"reelin hypothesis" -answers.com -wikipedia -thefreedictionary -encyclopedian -websters-dictionary-online': 1, which is about autism, and wherein the phrase "reelin hypothesis" is split across a sentence boundary "...protein called reelin. Hypothesis about the involvement...". AFAICT, reelin is present in abnormal quantities in schizophrenics, but this article is 1,500 words long, and outside of the title the word "reelin" only appears twice. It seems to me to be a vehicle for the author's fringe views of the epidemiology of schizophrenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe Aboulkheir (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Unsourced, original research. This article has been in existence since 2002 and has yet to take on a credible form. However, there are 26,000 Google hits for the Reelin protein connection to schizophrenia so statements that it has only one Google hit are mistaken. Still, beacause of the utter absence of references, there is nothing here that could plausibly used in the Reelin article. Ande B 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. Aren't there any usable references among these 26,000 Google hits? --LambiamTalk 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There is technical information out there about the correlation between reelin levels and propensity toward schizophrenia but it has not apparently risen to the level of being an "hypothesis" as much as it is a speculation that warrants further investigation. I would think that this information would best be covered within the schizophrenia article but WP should not be designating something as a "hypothesis" when the scince / medical community has not already done so. ("Hypothesis" has a technical meaning within the scietific community.) I haven't done any research in this area, though, so you may come to a different conclusion if you sift through some of the materials out there. Ande B 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself seems too strange. At first, i voted "merge", but I see nothing of much value to merge there. The article is way too "soupy". BTW. Yes, there are credible and duplicated scientific results showing that Reelin is low in the brains of SZ patients. I plan to include the data in the "Reelin" article (I explore the reelin/DAB1 cascade mechanisms and write two versions of "Reelin" article in parallel: in Russian and in English. For the Reelin's role in SZ, look out for Erminio Costa's scientific works, for example: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15961543 --CopperKettle 12:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S O.K. (0: I've included references to the postmortem studies of the schiz. brains (proving the link to reelin deficiency) in the Reelin article. Comments are welcomed. My language may have stylistical mistakes (I'm Russian), so proof is welcomed too. --CopperKettle 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there is anything of value anyone can extract from it, the article is poor, otherwise Delete. Talk of a reelin hypothesis is a little unusual but there is plenty of scientific basis for it (e.g.[17] which says "the morbidity risk of schizophrenia...may arise as a consequence of compromised RELN expression" - essentially stating a reelin hypothesis of schizophrenia), but would be better covered as part of the neurodevelopmental hypothesis. --Coroebus 10:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-sieve

Not encyclopedic. This is an implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes with an extremely overbroad article title. Even if it is moved to Wikisource, it still doesn't deserve to have this article title as a redirect.

This nomination was made by Olathe at 03:08, May 29, 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Transportation serving Winthrop, Mass.

This has no notability, it also appears to be an ad from the MBTA, this is not an encyclopedic entry. Yanksox 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not according to this[18], also this is more of a directory than something else, like the MBTA page. Yanksox 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw nothing of releveance in that policy to this article. Improve the article and keep it.
  • Keep. Why does someone from the Boston area want to remove so many Boston pages? This entry gives information on the transportation in Winthrop, Massachusetts. Just because it lists prices does not necessarily constitute as an advertisement.
Comment When I need information on the T, I go to the T's website. This is not an encylopedic entry. Yanksox 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not an ad for the T, and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fg2 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Cite Sources Has an encyclopedic history section. Wikipedia is not paper. How an artcile with a history section going back to the 1880s can be called an ad for an organization (the MBTA) formed in the 1960s is beyond my understanding - the history starts 80 years before the organization. Furthermore, the MBTA doesn't provide this service, it only subsidizes it, and the article says this. The map and fares section should probably just be replaced with external links - but I wasn't quickly able to find the source of the data, so the article definitely needs source citations. GRBerry 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruckusball

Prod removed, so bringing here. WP:NFT would be about right, I think; no Google hits (as the original prod suggested), no cites, nothing to indicate existence or notability. Tony Fox 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep as revised during discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Family Fund

Currently a thinly-disguised vanity article about Kady Goldlist, who does not appear to meet WP:NN standards. Marysunshine 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the vanity aspect is a result of a merge from a previous AfD (one that, in my opinion, should have resulted in the article being deleted instead). The information on Kady Goldlist should be removed, but the topic of the article seems to have quite a bit of press to back up its inclusion. Ziggurat 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow, that's a pretty sad trick to pull to cover what seems to be a vanity article. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:24, 29 May 2006

*Delete Vanity, not notable, seems to be gaming WP per Bill (who is cool!). Ande B 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Change "vote" to Keep new stub Newly rewritten "stub" article resolves prior complaints, provides basis for expansion. Ande B. 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I actually did read the comment about the previous merge and don't know what to make of the rather odd decision to put this vanity piece into an otherwise contentless article about an organization. Perhaps a delete without prejudice to recreate the page when and if an actual article about the organization is drafted. But this, along with its odd history, should just be gotten rid of and let future editors have a clean start if they want to give it another try. At least, that's my two bits (and it may not be worth even that ;-) Ande B 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my comment - I was just a touch irked at what I thought was an unfair representation of whoever wrote the original article's intentions (I doubt they promoted the merge themselves, that is). In any case, I'd be happy with a clean start seeing as the original article was so very small. Ziggurat 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't apologize to me (though I can't speak for others). If my comments don't make my reasoning clear, then I need to make sure they do. Otherwise I'm wasting my own and other people's time. Ande B 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One sentence and some info about a nn person? Yeah. --UsaSatsui 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Since the ONE Family Fund article is not about the ONE Family Fund, delete. If you delete the Kady Goldlist section, it would leave the article with one sentence, and as I often write in these AfD's, one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and Growth of the English Bible

Not an article. Ryan Delaney talk 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This asci mess needs to be removed pronto. There is nothing here and no prospect of it being turned into a legitimate article. There are plenty of Bible related pages, this one is less than useful. Ande B 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, but there seems to be quite a bit of documentation in the linked articles on the individual versions, including what translations were based on which others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diplobrat

Delete non notable neologism and origional research violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Also violates WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY.Strothra 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, already userfied. Sango123 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Poe

Vanity, laughable insignificance. To allow this page would be to set a precedent allowing all humans the right to a page. Adambiswanger1 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to User:Frankpoe. As quoted from the article "Poe recently became well known in New Zealand when he won a $500 raffle run by the Wellington Boy Scouts Brigade. Poe received nationwide media attention, and was interviewed on Campbell Live by well respected journalist and liberal, John Campbell". National media coverage for winning only $500 at a lottery? The article also claims that "according to legend, he purchased an ice-cream from the local store. The ice-cream stick is currently on display in a framed cabinet in the local tavern." Laughable vanity, possibly add to BJAODN.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Userfy. Actually the NZ contingent should pile on at the slight from "received nationwide media attention." (BTW: I fixed the {{userfy}} tag at User talk:Frankpoe)
  • explain to me why this man should not have his own wiki when yours is exactly the same thing. you've just had more time to create yours thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Frank: You have created a Wikipedia article. You might want to consider creating a User Page, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but is a place where you can write whatever you want about yourself. See User pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. A search of an Australia New Zealand media database came up with nil stories indicating that his $500 win in the boy scouts raffle did not in fact attract national interest in New Zealand. There are no other claims on the page indicating or claiming notability nor is it verifiable through third party sources.

Capitalistroadster 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. There is no reason to bring an article to AfD when it will make a good redirect and a redirect will be necessary if any content is merged to preserve attribution anyway. -- Kjkolb 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperGT

My reason for deletion is, there is already a page on this series called Super GT which is what the series really called. The former series JGTC and Japanese Grand Touring Championship all leads to All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship. As I am now in the process of moving all the articles to the former page, if not this page is nothing but a duplicate of the aforementioned page, therefore I nominated it as DELETE.

Willirennen 15.20 27 April 2006 (utc)

Comment: The original nominator appears not to have correctly listed the article for deletion. I have rectified this. I think.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Proto||type 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Psychogeographical Association

Delete I considered ((db-group)) but decided against in light of the long history. What is this about? A fictional association? This would be downright funny if it wasn't so sad. CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - lots on google and an entry is clearly needed - i agree the subject is very difficult to understand, but maybe we need to improve the entry rather than delete it! Paki.tv 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

The result of the debate was restore redirect after disregarding several sock/meatpuppet votes. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht rock

I'm nominating this article (and related categories and templates) for deletion: see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Also see especially Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms for Wikipedia's position on avoiding new phrases that have no independent explanation in established research. Perhaps some of the explanation of this topic can be moved to Yacht Rock (show), although it appears the show itself may not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). So that you can see how I arrived at this: I started looking for how notable "marina rock" was, and it turns out that searching for "marina rock" doesn't even show the phrase itself in normal use until positions 36 and 37 on Google. (This itself is a strong hint that it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, in my opinion.) #36 is a MySpace user profile. #37 - "Marina Rock finally mentioned, still no credit to Jimmy." is where it starts to get interesting. The article is about how these terms were starting to get mainstream coverage. Note the topic. Now that post links to this article: "Talk Talk: J.D. Ryznar", Seattle Weekly, 2005-12-07. First words in the interview from J.D. Ryznar, the producer of Yacht Rock (emphasis mine):

J.D. Ryznar: I've always fantasized about what it was like being guys making music back then—certainly a freer time, and the boats looked like they were fun to be on. I came up with the term "yacht rock," but Hunter [Stair], who plays Kenny Loggins, and Dave Lyons, who plays [soft-rock impresario] Koko, have their own term: "Marina rock," as in Marina del Ray [where Yacht Rock takes place]. So we compromised: Yacht rock had to do with the more elite studio artists.

That is the creator of the show saying explicitly that "yacht rock" and "marina rock" were intentionally coined phrases for the show. So now that one knows that its a neologism, one looks for independent research to see if it's widespread or at least has independent research somewhere else. I can't find any independent research. This article appears to be original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term, which is a no-no. If it is not original, then, lacking any independent sources, it appears to be speculation, which is an even bigger no-no. In addition, nearly all mentions of the terms "yacht rock" and "marina rock" on Wikipedia come from an edit streak in the last 48 hours by a User:Fernandobouregard, including creation of "yacht rock" categories. --Closeapple 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they will be unused if this article is deleted:

--Closeapple 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, with that:

And you wasted time voting for a keep for what reason?Damiancorrigan 11:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - revise to standards. Lordwow 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep How else can you summarize the smooth grooves and beautiful vocals from the late 1970s? Must we always suffer at the hands of rockin' beats and primal screams!?! SAVE YACHT ROCK --- KEEP THE FIRE! lml6 08:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per original reasons. Tychocat 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with either a redirect (and mention) on soft rock, or redirect to the show. Damiancorrigan 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is relevent. Hollywood Steve is a credible source. --Psycho78m 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep granted it's a new word, but it sums up that particular soft rock sound perfectly.--elisaparish 22.03 1 June 2006
  • Keep because even though it's a new word, it aptly summarizes a specific genre & time period of music.--Theoreticalgirl 15.203 2 June 2006
  • Keep - perhaps a neologism, but it does vividly sum up a recognizable genre of music, for which no other popular name exists. Furthermore, the article does offer a concise and factually solid introduction to the genre - it isn't just a plug for the show or its inside jokes, and even as a fan of the show I actually learned things here. I would say the "marina rock" discussion should go, though, since it rambles considerably and seems to definitely belong to the inside joke category. Keep the reference to the ancient Usenet use of "Yacht Rock" in reference to Jimmy Buffett, though. If anything this article could stand to be a little more elaborate, perhaps with some quotes from old reviews to give a context to the "critically despised" theme. Robotsarered 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore/redirect/(re)merge and wait to see if the term extends beyond the show. I cannot agree with those wishing to delete for a couple of reasons. First, the term is the name of the show, so in the very least it deserves a (re)merge, redirect, or restore but not a delete. Second, the term is defined by various sources (granted, in the context of the show) such as SFWeekly, InsideNOVA and the host Steve Huey, a contributor for allMusic. Deletion would be an overzealous reaction, and would make it harder for someone searching for an understanding of the term "Yacht Rock". Ektar 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/restore/redirect/(re)merge --Jdryznar 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) here are links to articles mentioning the term Yacht Rock out of the context of the show: New York Times, March 9, 2006, IGN Music, May 30, 2006, Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2006, Eye Weekly, Toronto, Canada, May 25, 2006, Entertainment Weekly, May 23, 2006, Entertainment Weekly, May 19, 2006. More mentions are popping up on major blogs and papers weekly. note: I am the creator of the show, which I do not make for profit. I have nothing to do with this Wikipedia entry for the show or the term. The entry popped up months ago, created by an unknown author, and I keep tabs on it to help make sure all the facts are accurate. Whether this hurts or helps the argument, the fact is, the term is out there now in the cultural lexicon, and people need a place to go to find out what it means. This Wikipedia entry is satisfactory in the definition of the term. If this is a "neologism" and breaks the rules of Wikipedia, at the very least a breif definition of the term should be redirected to the entry about the internet show, which, for the record, closeapple, has been rightfully and easily cleared of the notablility concern. Hopefully the links I've provided can help you editors begin to filter out the original research and clean up the entry to closeapple's satisfaction. And save the fact that Yacht Rock is a new term, these links (as well as the fact the internet show has been written up by Reuters, AP, Spin, Entertainment Weekly, Newsweek, and the LA Times) certainly disprove the arguments for deletion at the top of the list.[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Legacy of the Home Run

No hits for this on Google, original research JChap 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • no prank(What are the statistical odds that all these players throughout history would be Catholic? Very remote! As much credible folklore as the bygone Boston Curse. I only disovered this baseball trivia by reading through some African American Catholic youth organizations sites where Hank Aaron was a frequent speaker.) perLogan0703
  • Because this is not a well-known theory, leading many to believe this is original research. Adambiswanger1 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read over the article again. It's hilarious! I love the picture of the Pieta, also. nice touch. Oh, and perLogan--perhaps the reason why supposedly have better statistics is that many baseball greats are south american, which makes them necessarily catholic. Also, if you'd like, I could share with you some sluggers who weren't catholic. Hank Aaron? Barry Bonds? Mickey Mantle? . Adambiswanger1 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no jokeAdam, I would have preferred a San Deigo Padre icon in the thumbnail, but I didn't see it in the Commons, so I guess it is not fair use.

Bonds and Aaron are Catholics, amigo. Aaron is an inspiration as a black Catholic and speaks at black Catholic youth get togethers. The Catholic Church was a refuge for Aaron as he pursued Ruth's record in a hostile environment. I don't know if Aaron would have broken Ruth's records had he been subject to the political hotbeds of Southern Baptist churches. Kareem Abdul Jabbar converted to Islam to avoid black Baptist politics, he was not the only black celebrity to do so. There is a famous story about Bonds at Sierra High Catholic H.S., where his lay teacher told him to 'gear up, baseball will never do anything for you.' The only Latin player I listed was Sosa, the rest are Anglo, African-American and Irish. Baseball players were predominantly 'Protestant' until the influx of Latin players. My point is about the two elite records that Ruth set, single season and career. Maris was not the great player Mantle was, but Mantle didn't pass Ruth, now did he? If you reject spirituality in total as a materialist, then yes, the idea must seem comical. I offer this sincerely, though. It is certainly as valid an article as the bygone Ruth curse on the Red Sox. Tolkien and Ruth

I am surprised no one has commneted on the oddity that Tolkien and Ruth would both be raised by priests, beginning in 1904, who would encourage amd mold their careers, and their contributions would remain vital even as the 21st Century begins. per Logan0703

  • Comment Because there's nothing remarkable about it. Church-run orphanages were routine in that era. That two orphans from Catholic families ended up being raised by priests in a Catholic orphanage isn't an oddity in any way. Fan1967 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exception:Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)per Logan0703.

  • Delete junk Jaranda wat's sup 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Junk, junk, junk in the trunk. Oh yeah. What on earth are you talking about? I have the feeling there are not a whole lot of baseball fans contributing to the discussion. perLogan0703[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee culture

Article is a corporate vanity page that is lacking any sort of information. Gump Stump 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just re-wrote the article. It is completely NPOV. Now, I would appreciate it if you re-read it and reconsider your votes. By the way, it has 7 locations, and they seem to be noteworthy by virtue of their striking chicness and modernity amid the rest of New Zealand. Take a look. [24]Adambiswanger1 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately WP:CORP requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or some other external assertion of importance. Simply having many wonderful coffee shops is not enough - Peripitus 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to get people to think about what they're voting on and slow down their Pavlovian disapproval.Adambiswanger1 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesians in the Philippines

Article is essentially nothing but an overly verbose non-notable demographic 'fact' with no sources, citations or references provided. Deleterious 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My math sux <=P Bwithh 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 episodes

Looks like OR to me. Unless this is a really pervasive industry phenomenon, then I think this needs to be deleted. mgekelly 07:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business

This article is about a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Lehre

Non-notable American film director. One film release, being The MySpace Movie, based on the website of the same name. -- Longhair 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaker_Aamer

Should the individual article pages on all (around 200 in number) the guantanamo detainees be included in wikipedia? I feel these pages aren't substantial to wikipedia being encylopedic. There are more then 700 detainees in the US Naval base camp. If their names are released, should all their biographies be collected and article pages be created for all of them? If yes, then, I'd like to point out there are currently thousands of POWs detained by a lot number of countries all over the world. Would wikipedia be a place to host information all those detainees, from all over the world?

I strongly feel such pages are a seriously violating the notability criteria, turning wikipedia into what is infamously called, the junkyard of information. In this case, even the list of detainees is more than enough to be considered encyclopedic. We want and expect wikipedia to last long, like encyclopedia brittanica, 1911. Cos, in the longer run, in the next 50 years, there may be a number of wars, battles, detainees and POWs. I don't think wikipedia should have all the information relating to that. Though the facts and plights of the detainees may be important for the world to know, including all the information of every single detainee may be considered too trivial to be considered encyclopedic. Therefore I'm marking it as AFD on the guantanamo detainee pages, starting with the first one in the list. And I expect a consensus and mutiple deletion on all the detainee pages. Chez (Discuss / Email) • 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Apparently not very notable.--Jusjih 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, are you kidding?!?!?! All those people are vicious terrorists!!! Of course they're notable. (re-enter reality). Delete. --JChap 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This person may at the moment not be notable to the world. But, if he is innocent and his detention at Guantanomo turns out into a scandal or, if he is convinced as a terrorist, this (short) biography may become very handy. As long as the US doesn't bring those people before a court, we have to keep an open mind in those matters. JoJan 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is one of hundreds that were detained in 'Gitmo. If he's not guilty of terrorism, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. If he's guilty, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. B.Wind 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JChap and B.Wind. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --P199 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understood the nominator to mean that this AfD had been noted as an AfD discussion on a page about the guatanamo detainees as a group or about the camps. But I couldn't find that giving of notice on probable pages nor can I see it in the nominator's contribution log. If this is to be a test case for all of the detainees, it ought to receive wider than average notice. I've gone ahead and notified the article's initial creator, but wonder if more should be done. GRBerry
  • Keep this one Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have the space for all notable detainees. And as time passes and they become less important, the content can be trimmed down. This is part of the normal versioning of encyclopedias. That this detainee was involved in negotiating an end to one of the hunger strikes makes him more notable than the average detainee. Article has links to two reliable sources. I reserve judgement on the articles for other detainees until they are nominated - but I suspect that only a proper subset will be deletion worthy. GRBerry 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is not the Encylopedia Britanica or a specialty encylopedia. This project is one of the most extensive and braud reference works in history. The arguments given, if allowed to stand, would open a door for deletions of just about any article in the encyclopedia. ANY article that concerns a subject that may be considered not to be significant would by up for deletion -- and there are a LOT of articles that just about any member with an account here would consider insignificant. We'd stand to loose half the articles here. No, do not delete. Jason Palpatine 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It can be agreed that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia., but the same policy says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Plus, it cannot be figured where, 200 odd pages (as of now) on Guantanamo detainees will come under WP:BIO. The decision on these pages will pave way for a stance on notability in the absence of a guideline or policy. If not deleted, will it mean that any article on detainees in other nations as well be allowed to be created?? Instead, I'd suggest an article on the experience of the detainees be created and a line that this person helped end the hunger strike be included. We don't need a blue link and a separate page on this as well as all other detainees. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, but someone should write that article first, then nominate appropriate detainees for deletion. After writing the article the editors of it should have an educated sense of which ones are worthy of their own article, and which are not. If we want a delete and merge outcome, which I expect will be appropriate for most of the prisoners, we need someplace to merge it to. I don't see any appropriate articles wikilinked in this one or in the category. It would probably be too much for Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States or Guantanamo Bay detainment camp which are already getting long, but ought to be a sub-page of one of them. GRBerry 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What rational reason could there be for deleting this well referenced series of articles that are clearly of interest to readers. - SimonP 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, if we don't keep individual articles than "people" will create a grand clusterfuck List of all prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay detention area that gets bogged to hell, and instead of 32k, falls somewhere around 6.5gb of text as they discuss each one. Look at all the Nazis we keep details on, even low-ranking ones. If they're verifiable (as these are, through their ID#s, court orders and detainee reviews) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry. An unfortunate but notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the other Guantanamo articles Chez has suggested should be deleted.
    • Chez, no offense, but your arguments in favour of deleting all these articles are based on unfortunate misconceptions. If these individuals were merely POWs, about whom there was no controversy, or misunderstandings, I would agree with you that they wouldn't merit individual articles. You are laboring under a misconception if you think they are POWs. The nature of their incarceration is a subject of great controversy largely because the Bush administration has chosen to not afford them the protections of POW, even though many legal scholars believe this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and members of the US judicial branch concur. You are laboring under a misconception if you think their identities remain secret. 5,000 pages of transcripts, containing some of their names were released on March 3 2006, followed by two lists of names, released on April 20 2006 and May 15 2006.
    • Chez, there is an excellent site called "the Jurist", maintained at the University of Pittsburg law faculty. It is an excellent, very neutral, very reliable site that gives short articles on current legal matters. If there is no fair-minded, authoritative site about the principals involved in one of their reports, they write a backgrounder themselves. But if there is a fair-minded, credible page somewhere, they cite that page. They have cites some of the articles on individual Guantanamo detainees here on the wikipedia, as in this article.
    • Chez, I saw you were on the recent changes patrol, and the new articles patrol. You cited WP:NOT. I suggest you re-read the portion entitled WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground, which reads, in part: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.... Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." -- So why did you wait until I had created hundreds of articles, spending hundreds of hours to do so, when, as a regular patroler, you probably noticed these articles months ago? Why didn't you write me with your concerns the very first time you noticed an article that concerned you? Other people did write me, during the last couple of months, when my efforts accelerated, once the DoD released the detainees identities, and 6,000 pages of transcripts. I took their concerns seriously, and modified my efforts to take their concerns into account.
    • As to whether the individual detainees will "fade into obscurity":
      1. WP:NOT also says wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They might fade into obscurity. Or the nature of their incarceration and interrogation might remain the focus of ongoing controversy, just like Lynching in the United States, or Japanese American Internment and Japanese Canadian internment. These articles may serve as an invaluable resource if the American public were to decide that the inhumane conditions at Guantanamo represented the same kind of blot on America's record as the paragon of freedom and democracy and the rule of law as slavery, lynching, and the internment of those of Japanese descent during World War 2.
      2. Do you think we are going to run out of disk-space? The capacity of hard drives is doubling every two years. Wikipedia is a success. Expect to see the size of its disk-farm increase. Let me suggest that if it ever becomes necessary to purge articles, solely because of a lack of disk-space, that the candidates should be chosen purely on a "least recently used" basis. -- Geo Swan 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other articles that reference these articles, like:
    • As Sherurcij noted, if all these articles was rolled into one article it would be overwhelmingly large. Not only would that make it hard for browsers to load, but it would be useless for other articles to reference it. Suppose the chariites article referenced the omnibus article you suggested, how would the reader interested in which Guantanamo detainees were accused of ties to Al Wafa, or Al Haramain Foundation, find that info? -- Geo Swan 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Amnesty International or a webhosting service Bwithh 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry, unfortunate yet notable. Silensor 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Persianism by Arabs

There are a couple of thousand ethnicities in the world, and we can guess mostly every one of them has some animosities towards any two or three of its neighbours. So, let's have a bunch of 10,000 or so new articles of the format "Anti-X'ism by Y", listing all the world's complaints and injured prides, from unjust conquests a thousand years ago to unfair football fans and world-domination conspiracies today. I'll gladly make a start with "Anti-Württembergism by Badenese", taking the abovementioned essay as a model, as it is meticulously sourced, highly original and refreshingly frank in the way it spins all those disparate yarns into a coherent new synthesis of ethnic animosity. Not. -- Lukas (T.|@) 08:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned by the obvious anti-crapism of this AfD nominator...Delete! While the material in the article seems very well-sourced, it's irreparably POV. -- Scientizzle 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Anti-Persianism" gets 10 hits on Google. I'd agree that there has been animosity between Persians and Arabs in the past (under the Umayyads -- the Abbasids, who overthrew them, were allied with Persians) and recently (state-formation in Iraq, Iran-Iraq War, hostility between Sunni and Shi'a revived), but the article conflates past and present in a historically illegitimate way. It ignores twelve centuries of minimal or no friction between Arabs and Persians. IMHO, the section of older history is also grotesquely slanted and inaccurate. See the talk pages of Islamicization in post-conquest Iran for discussion of Umayyad language policies, etc. Material on oppression of Shi'a and Iraqis of Iranian background under Saddam is interesting (and depressing), but belongs in modern history of Iraq articles. Zora 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If articles like Anti-Arabism and Anti-Semitism are okay then the topic is fair game as long as it is sourced. Term "Anti-Persianism" gets exactly 506 hits on Google and "Anti-Persian" gets 655. Maybe it could be renamed "Anti-Persian racism" which gets 453,000 hits on Google. Racism and bigotry cannot be denied or ignored, which is what it seems LukasPietsch wants to do. Khorshid 09:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put quotes around "Anti-Persianism" or you're going to be pulling up sites that don't actually contain the full term. Zora 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of hints in English language does not count. The subject has been thoroughly covered in Persian and arabic sources. If Anti-arabism has more English hints, is just because there are 22 arab countries and one Persian country. --Sina Kardar21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excuse me for being maybe a bit paranoid, but are you a duplicate account by any chance? Account created just 8 hours before this nomination, less than 10 edits, none to this article - just how did you find this nomination within half an hour of its creation? Lukas (T.|@) 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is worthwhile looking at the reasons why this article was created [25] and also how widely the term "anti-Persianism" is used [26] - the only evidence for the use of this term is once in one article [27], but some of the material in this opinion piece has been copied and pasted into the "anti-Persianism" article, as I pointed out here [28]. Out of 12 hits on Google, three are related to this article, indicating that this is original research. The chief problem I have is that this article interprets many actions against Iran as anti-Persian racism, when in fact only 50% of the population of Iran is ethnically Persian and these actions have political motives rather than racial ones. Criticism or actions against the Iranian state by Arab governments appear to be deemed anti-Persianism in this article. I suspect that the reason why "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Persian" are conflated is precisely because there is little evidence to support this polemic. There is more evidence to support an article on "anti-Iranianism" [29], although it would have to be broader than just sentiments expressed in the Arab world. At present, the article seems like nationalist posturing.--الأهواز 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to clarify my own position:
  • I disagree with deleting all anti-X-ism articles.
  • However, I am against the creation of articles based on an -ism that does not appear to exist outside Wikipedia
  • I am in favour of an article on anti-Iranian sentiment, as I believe that this prejudice does exist
  • However, I am against an article that focuses just on the prejudices of some Arabs and that there is a large amount of prejudice against Iranians elsewhere in the world
  • So, I propose that this article be renamed Anti-Iranian prejudice or Anti-Iranian sentiment, be widened to include the hatred or fear of Iranians wherever it occurs (not just Arabs) and the matters relating to POV and copyright violations in the article are cleared up. If this is agreed, then I would vote to keep the article.--الأهواز 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zereshk has since renamed the article Anti-Persian sentiments, which is a positive development. I have made a proposal for a separate Anti-Iranian prejudice that would clear my remaining objections (along with the misgivings of other editors) and would establish the difference between racism against ethnic Persians (who form 50% of the Iranian population) and hatred of Iran as a nation: [30]. At the moment, I feel the article is confusing anti-national and racist sentiments which are not one and the same. If this proposal or something similar is accepted, then I will drop my support for deletion.--الأهواز 12:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the change in the name of the article to Anti-Persian sentiments (taking out the reference to Arabs), the creation of a separate article on Anti-Iranian sentiments (to cover anti-national sentiments as distinct from racist sentiments) and an agreement on the structure of content[31], I withdraw my delete vote.--الأهواز 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of "Anti-Iranianism" because then there is more than just a single ethnic group. There is definitely racism against Persians so I think renaming the article is a good idea, but it should stay focused on anti-Persian ideas. Problem with "Anti-Iranianism" is also that "Iranian" in this way only means citizens of the country of Iran, and not any ethnic groups. There might be some hatred because of that, being citizen of Iran, but the hatred is more directed against Persians, and not so much against other groups. So the aim of the article is valid since widespread racism exists in the Arab world - and especially Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Bahrain - against Persians and anyone seen as being "Persian" or "Persian-like". Khorshid 11:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... I am a little bothered by having Anti-Arabism and not this... not sure why (I don't know the subject well at all... just that there is mutual animosity that pops up from time to time)... It does get more google hits but... it is possible that the terminology is not as singular as with anti-Arabism... are there many different terms, maybe? I do think the article is not very good. It conflates anecdotal evidence into a tale.... I mean... quoting traditions like this does is quite dangerous... we need to be quoting secondary scholarship not trying to make our own (and if anti-Arabism suffers from the same problems they should be fixed as well). Are there any academic (relatively) non-partisan works on this? The only ones this seems to cite are related to Iran and not Persians in general... I don't vote delete because I don't know if there is scholarship on this... but, this article is dangerous because it masquerades as being fact when... well, it's just not. And sadly, I think non-neutral articles are looking more sophisticated and escaping scrutiny. gren グレン 11:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khorshid Crazynas 12:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep peri norm. Valid topic. --K a s h Talk | email 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: Uhmrmmmphmhm. You are excused. The topic is valid, its the title that may need changing. --K a s h Talk | email 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "norm" ??! --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the term exist in Persian language and articles and also the whole subject can be found easily in arabic articles. Second, you can find many hints by searching terms as "hate" and "persians" or "ajams" etc in English. The number of hints is at least comparable to the number for other anti-X-ism article (except for antisemitism which gives much more hints). --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As most (if not all) of the information from the article is original research, inaccurate, and is extremely biased. It's nothing more than a political polemic, also the subject isn't notable enough to be worthy of an article, espescially of this size. --Inahet 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who was involved in making Anti-arabism article !!! So you cann't vote for deletion of this article. --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason why I got involved in editing the Iranian anti-Arabism section (a mere section, not a bloated article like this nominated one) was because anti-Arab Iranians were using that section to make racist statements against Arabs. [32] [33] I was new when I started to correct this section, and so I had little knowledge of what is considered acceptable, so I sought the advice of an admin and another user [34]. I was advised to find reliable sources otherwise the information I had added would be considered original research. So I removed the information I had added to comply with Wiki policies [35]. ZereshK, the sole writer of the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article, did not attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies (including NOR and NPOV), despite the fact he has been actively editing for a much longer time that I have. BTW, Zereshk writes politically charged, and what some might consider controversial articles for Iranian.com. I have nothing against him editing Wikipedia articles, but he should not enforce his own opinions at Wikipedia. And Sina, you can't tell me that I can't vote; where in Wikipedia guidelines do you base your claim? --Inahet 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why just anti-Iranian sentiments by Arabs? As one editor stated on the talk page said "sentiments against IRAN and/or its inhabitants can have many causes and have been ubiquitously prevalent at different points in time, during the last two and a half millennia. Be it Babylon or Egypt or Greece in Antiquity, or the Arab Caliphates, as well as India, Afghanistan and the Ottoman Empire in more recent times." [36] I don't understand why this is being protrayed as some kind of civilisational conflict between Persians and Arabs when Iran is an ethnically diverse country and there are many other disputes concerning Iranians and non-Arab countries.--الأهواز 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and I know that today many Arabs have shown prejustice towards Iranians and vice versa. Just look at soccer games between Arab and Iranian teems. It's just like watching a game between India and Pakistan. The point it's a notable topic, and deserves to be mentioned. —Khoikhoi 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there are tensions and in some cases animosity and racism towards Iranians by Arabs, but my point is that the article conflates Iranian as a nationality and Persian as an ethnic group that comprises 50% of the Iranian nation. "Anti-Persianism" or "Anti-Persian" are terms that have been virtually invented by the article author, whereas Anti-Iranian sentiment is widely written about.[37] How can one realistically argue that anti-Iranian attitudes expressed by Arab football supporters during a soccer match is evidence of hatred against the Persian people rather than Iran as a country? My other point is that anti-Iranian attitudes are not only evident among Arabs but other ethnic groups and countries. Why are Arabs singled out and anti-Iranian sentiments among Americans not dealt with? I have no objection to an article on Anti-Iranian prejudice, which is something I originally suggested on the Anti-Arabism talk page, covering all aspects of the issue and not just Arab-versus-Persian.--الأهواز 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article contains notable and factual information that is not present in any other articles. The phrasing and title of the idea conveyed "anti-persianism by arabs" is irrelevant. All previous arguments presented against this article seem to either quibble about the title of the article or bemoan the "irreparable" state of the organization and tone. Unless it is original research, the premise of the article, not content, should dictate its fate. I find the cumbersome title and POV style to be irrelevant in the discussion. Adambiswanger1 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the "premise" is exactly it. The premise of this article is that "Anti-Persianism" (or whatever you call it) is a unified phenomenon across the eras, providing a single interpretative framework for each and every real or perceived grievance Persians have against Arabs, from mistreatments during and after the Islamic conquest, to the behaviour of football fans today. And this idea, I believe, is indeed irreparably original research and tendentious, no matter how well the details are sourced. Lukas (T.|@) 18:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that the difficulty of the task (studying the animosity towards persians across time and in different contexts) warrants the deletion of the article. What is needed is good, hard work on the part of a scholar. Anti-persianism is one consistent entity across time, only manifesting itself in different ways, thus flustering the inability of some to view abstractions and concepts.Adambiswanger1 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? Assume the existence of the phenomenon and then go looking for it? Even though there's no evidence from google that other people believe there is such an entity? Isn't that the definition of original research? Zora 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "One consistent entity across time". Wow, that's a big claim indeed. References that such is a legitimate perspective in scholarship? Lukas (T.|@) 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete because this opens the door for a load of POVforks that are unencyclopedic IMHO. Also, I must agree with scientizzle. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable subject, there is an article named Anti-Arabism and many of the people who like to get rid "Anti-Persianism" article, are major contributors on Anti-Arabism . This looks like a POV nomination. --ManiF 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who started the Anti-Persianism article has contributed to the Anti-Arabism article. The editor who nominated this for AfD has not contributed to either article. But this is beside the point. The article should be judged on whether it is worthy of an encyclopaedia article.--الأهواز 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little reminder to Iranian editors and a couple of leading sentences could be just enough to ensure a vote against deletion:[38]
That's what we've been doing all along. But you still approve of the article's deletion. Revealing, Id say.--Zereshk 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is a well-referenced piece of work discribing the historical events after the Arab conquest of Persia. Absolutely no reason to delete it! Tajik 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting that this article is nominated for deletion when there are the following similar articles:

I dont see any reason why this article should be different.--Nightryder84 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hostility of arabs toward Persian has beed "well established" and costed us the lives of many people. It is not acceptable to refer to English sources (for a conflict between Arabs and Persian speakers) to define what is well-established or not. --Sina Kardar21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to create an Anti-Scottishism by the Irish, relating to the hatred of the Scottish planter population in Ireland. Then I'd create an Anti-Parisianism by the Bretons on account of Celtic Breton resentment of Parisian attitudes towards the Breton language and regional identity. The possibilities for these articles are endless.--الأهواز 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunatelty there is enough room for you to write about subjects that you have expertise in them. If you are intereted and qualified, please do not hesitate to contribute.--Sina Kardar22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, google the anti-Kurd or anti-Turk one... you get 132 hits and 66 hits... these are not terms in wide currency... which makes the article original research. It's not that there can't be expertise but when you put it under a specific title it has implications... such as that we are citing scholarly sources... I mean, the name is very important... we don't want to call the Yankee-Mets rivalry "Anti-Yankeeism by Mets fans"... there is a rivalry that may notably be mentioned somewhere... but giving it a name that is not in common currency is original research and not something we are supposed to be doing. gren グレン 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep . The article is sourced and explains the phenomenon that has existed among Arabs for so many years. Sorry if it bothers some people but it is the reality. I as an Iranian acknowledge that anti Arab feelings have existed in Iran and among Persians and I ask the other side to do the same.Gol 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no problem. According to my experience, on many issues about Iran, a very well organized network of wikipedians is heavily involved in intoducing bias and vandalising issues related to Iran. All of these guys are related to eachother and call eachother on voting. I have little doubt that these people are associated to political circles and receieve fund as they are working full time on wikipedia articles about Iran. Ofcourse there is no "official noticeboard" for them! --Sina Kardar22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People talk to each other on WP and there is no law against it. We were not told to come here and blindly obey and vote!! We were asked to get involved and since we have brains of our own we are capable of making up our own minds about the matter. I see nothing wrong with it. Gol 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, interestingly enough, Lukas also goes around calling on other editors to come here and participate as well: [40]--Zereshk 22:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukas, please see a similar AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan. One user was accused of votestacking, but if you see Wikipedia:Vote Stacking, you will notice that it's only a proposed policy, and by no means offical. —Khoikhoi 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a well-documented and highly informative article based on historical and real facts. It should be nominated for the featured articles. Deleting this information is censorship. That providing this sort of information could be done regarding many nations and peoples is no argument to commit this censorship. I would very much like to know the history of tensions between the Irish and the English. If somebody will write a well-documented article about it in this encyclopaedia it would be a shame to delete that.

--Mani1 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an edit war, or a serious discussion?[41] The Anti-Persianism article was created in reaction to the Anti-Arabism article [42] and now it has come up for AfD, there is a retribution by some editors, prompted perhaps by [43]). Incidentally, you made a serious mistake with the template. Take a closer look.--الأهواز 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx all.--Zereshk 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:LukasPietsch ommited my deletion nomination tag for the Anti-Arabism article after just a few seconds without giving me time to take the rest of steps technically needed for this nomination!
My response to his message to me was:
It seems you are more familiar with the technically correct deletion processes. As you have gone through this trouble for trying to delete the informative article Anti-Persianism by Arabs, you are naturally expected to do the same for all such articles, otherwise you have been acting biased and selective.--Mani1 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to the allegations of votestacking, I would like to remind voters to read the article and read the arguments against it, most notably the concern that it is and inherently flawed idea, and "Anti-persianism" is too broad and vague to warrant an article. This is not necessarily my opinion, but I want to make sure we have informed voters. Adambiswanger1 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Persianism by Arabs is a very real and accurate notion, felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world. Thinking of it as "too broad and vague" shows total unfamiliarity of User:Adambiswanger1 with the region's culture and history.

--Mani1 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani1, I humbly submit the fact that I am acting as mediator in this exchange, and I was merely summarizing some of the previous contentions of other voters. If you had read the rest of the discussion, which was the point of my last message, you would realize that I voted to keep the article. Thank you, but please read all the information available to you before making a decision. Also, this statement: "[anti-Persianism by Arabs is] felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world" is a contentious point because many are saying there are no scholary sources to support this.Adambiswanger1 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some of many scholary sources in which many facets of the anti-Persianism by Arabs is discussed and explained:
  • http://www.iranica.com/
  • Conversion and Poll-Tax in Early Islam, D.C. Dennett, Cambridge 1950
  • The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition
  • Slaves on Horses, P. Crone, Cambridge 1980

An example from Princeton.edu:

  • Mawali (mostly Persians) were regarded as inferior to the Arabs and were required to pay additional taxes. Despite such discrimination, the mawali rapidly rose to prominence in Muslim society in administration, military, and scholarship.

--Mani1 23:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani, we've had these arguments at other articles. Those books do not prove what you think they prove. The early Arab conquerors did not consider themselves superior just to Persians -- they considered themselves superior to everyone. North Africans, Egyptians, Syrians, Sindhis ... if they weren't Arabs, they were second-class citizens to the later Rashidun and the Umayyads. They were dhimmis, they paid jizya, they had to wear distinctive garments ... none of this was directed at Persians qua Persians. The Arabs did NOT force their subjects to learn Arabic; in fact, they would have preferred it if they didn't learn Arabic. Arabic was the official language of government and religion, which is not the same thing as enforcing it as the language of everyday life. The Islamic conquest section of the Anti-Persianism article is a biased and historically inaccurate polemic, which says a lot more about the mindset of Iranian nationalism than it does about history. As someone who CARES about historical accuracy, I must protest your characterization of that section of the article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A language other than native language being used at school and work was considered by you and Ahwaz as native language being “Suppressed” (from what I remember in Khuzestan article.) Why double standard Zora? Gol 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that large parts of the article have been directly copied from work written by Nima Kasraie aka Zereshk, who started the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article. For instance, parts of [44] can be seen in the article. I am not sure about the rules on Wikipedia editors using their own work to write their own Wikipedia articles, although in this case it is obviously not a case of copyright violation. Also, parts of this article [45] have been directly lifted into the article, which is an example of copyright violation.--الأهواز 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed, because it is a published source. It is also based on sources that are heavily referenced.--Zereshk 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial copyright violation can not justify deleting the whole article. Bidabadi 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copyright violation because the parts have been referenced to the source. Furthermore, Ahwaz is simply trying to divert attention away from the fact that the article has 3 times as many sources as his anti-Arabism article does.--Zereshk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the Anti-Arabism article is not mine and was not started by me. I contributed to one section of the article. Whether or not the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article stands up as a subject for an encyclopaedic article is unrelated to the existence of the Anti-Arabism article. It should be judged on its own.
If it is OK for a Wikipedia editor to start an article on Anti-Persianism - a term used only once in a serious article, according to Google - and copying articles he has published in the past, then that's something we should accept. I was not aware that opinion pieces on websites (no matter what sources they use) could be transformed by their authors into Wikipedia articles, but now I know better.--الأهواز 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that all the other articles about "anti" this or that don't point fingers. "Anti-Semitism" is allowable; "Anti-Semitism by U.S. citizens" is an accusation. I'd be fine with an "Anti-Iranian sentiments" article.

Also, as others have pointed out, the proponents of this article can't decide whether it's about Iranians or Persians. Citizens of Iran are of many ethnicities, speak many languages, and follow various religions. Sometimes the term "Persian" seems to be used of all of them; sometimes it is used only for the 50% of Iranians who are "ethnically" Persian (which is itself a devil to define and a subject of controversy). Now just "WHO" is this supposed prejudice directed against? I have the impression that current political tensions can lead to animosity towards Iranians in general, whatever their background (animosity not necessarily Arab -- the Bushistas seem to be trying to whip up the same thing in the US). The same way that "Americans" can be hated in some countries whether they're black or white, of Slovak or Mexican stock.

This kind of thing rises and falls according to the political weather. During World War II the U.S. and Russia were allies, and the brave Russian soldier was the U.S.'s friend. Then the Cold War and the same Russian soldier was an evil fiend who wanted to invade and oppress the U.S. (Red Dawn). After the Iranian Revolution, Iranians became dangerous wild-eyed zealots. In another fifty years ... who knows? Perhaps they'll be the brave allies of the Euro-US Federation in the fight against Uzbeki imperialism. Framing current trands as evidence of a deep-laid plot going back millenia is ... absurd. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, UNLESS Zereshk and his friends can come up with cites showing that many Iranians believe it -- in which case it belongs in an article on Iranian politics, or the politics of the Iranian diaspora. Zora 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's disclaimer nullifies your argument Zora. And in any case, the article will be expanded. Deleting information is simply unreasonable.--Zereshk 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting a disclaimer saying that "Iranian" and "Persian" are considered equivalent won't make the Iranian minority problem go away, Zereshk. Many people do not consider those words equivalent; hence the endless arguments in the Iranian peoples article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iran and Persia ARE used interchangeably often enough and prejudice toward Iran can not be considered unrelated to Persian identity of Iran. When Saddam Hussain attacked Iran, it was all of Iran that was attacked but he did use the Persian vs Arab argument. More importantly, history of Iran is that of Persia since the country was called Persia in the outside world. When we talk about historical stuff we have to use PERSIAN since all Iranians were labeled as such. some people are trying to imply Iran has nothing to do wiht Persia and dislike of Iranians has nothing to do with Persians!! Gol 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It wont make the minority problem go away (just like the Hawaii drive for independence will never go away). But it will firmly legitimize the article.--Zereshk 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aside from Wikipedia (and mirrors), I get zero hits on the term anti-Persianism [46]. The articles found have the word Persianism not anti-Persianism. I had no idea that creating new terms was allowed here at Wikipedia. Also the article is much larger than this discussion page, which is amazing for something that is not considered a "universal phenomenon." --Inahet 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of the article user:Zereshk has accused one user of "anti-Persian drivel" for saying that "Iran sponsored terrorism in Bahrain." [47] If this is his standard of determining what is "anti-Persianism", then can you imagine what other bogus claims are presented as facts in this oversized article consisting of original research?? --Inahet 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Persianism by Arabs has three times as many sources as your article Anti-Arabism. Either all such Anti-national-ethnic sentiment articles should go, or they all should stay, it's not up to you to pick and choose what type of racism is a "universal phenomenon" or what type is not, all types of racism are unacceptable and should be addressed. I find all these arguments about the existence of anti-Persian racism, insulting to thousands of Persians who faced racism at the hand of Arabs, being expelled from their homes in Iraq and treated like animals by the "the Hero of the Arab street" Saddam Hussein who believed "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies".(in Saddam Hussein: The Politics of revenge, London: Bloomsbury, 2000, p.123) --ManiF 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok that's good stuff we're getting out of this debate. Now if someone could add this info and lose the POV we'd have what you call a "good article". ManiF you seem knowledgeable on the issue. Perhaps you could, in a reserved and neutral tone (and mindset), improve the article? I also think there needs to be some more introductory and basic statements in the beginning of the article for those of us unfamiliar with the issue. Adambiswanger1 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The things Mani mentioned are from the article.--Zereshk 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Anti-Arabism article is not my article.
  2. The quality of sources are much more important than the quantity.
  3. The term anti-Persianism is pretty much a Wikipedia original. The word truthiness is much more notable than anti-Persianism.
  4. I could write pages and pages on Persian anti-Arabism, which would include many examples of simple to complex anti-Arabism actions by Persians. The web is chockfull with that stuff. But I'm not here to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox or a battleground. I can't say the same thing for the writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article. --Inahet 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination page should be taken as a good example of what votestacking is. I guess I should invite people, who will vote without reviewing the article and the discussions on its proposed deletion but will do so as favor for me. How fair would that be? --Inahet 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very insulting to claim that people have not read the article and are only voting to do someone a favor, especially given that you have no evidence. People have brain and can decide for themselves whether to vote for or against something.Gol 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does occur, whether you choose to deny it or not. And I know a couple of users who are likely to do what I described, based on their previous actions. And User:Lukas has provided some evidence for the votestacking that is occuring on this page. And don't tell me to stop pointing out shady behaviour, that is not your job.--Inahet 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inahet, please stop making accusations about individuals and their motivations just because they don't agree with you. Discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't lecture me on personal attacks or anything of that matter, why don't you read the policies that you cite, I doubt that you did. Also, although my comment wasn't directed to anyone, I find it interesting that you got on the defense. Does it hit close to home? [48]. --Inahet 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will cite the policies for you, because you are violating them as we speak. Your accusatory comment was directed at "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article" and that constitutes a personal attack. Also, don't bring up old issues, and disputes trying to "score a point", because there is a lot of such quotes and links on the same page, that can be used here to make a point about Ahwaz, Zora and etc, if we go down that road. Again, discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 06:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read those policies and implement them in your own participation at Wikipedia rather than lecturing others to do so! My statements are not personal attacks so stop labeling them as such. Do I have to report you? Because you certainly don't want us to go down that road. --Inahet 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I am not in violation any rules at the moment, you are. The last sentence of this edit of yours is a clear personal attack against the "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article". Just stop it. --ManiF 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, please stop removing my comments from this page: [49]. Thanks.--Zereshk 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been an edit conflict. I certainly did not remove anything on purpose. I was completely unaware that there was a problem until you mentioned it. Zora 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep I beleive this article should maintain with its new title:Anti-Persian sentiments--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is no way to deny what realy happens. Qoqnous 06:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have read the article and this discussion, and am familiar with other ethnic articles on Wikipedia. This article is typical in content to already listed "Anti-Foo" articles. Though I personally question the entire series, there is no reason to single out this one for deletion. The article is well-sourced, reasonably NPOV (like many articles there is room for improvement), sticks to its subject, and modestly calls the subject a "phenomenon" rather than movement or ideology. The new title is better. NOR should be a concern, but I don't see many conclusions or editorials in the text, rather it seems mostly to summarize the sources, as it should. The problems with this article can be solved through the normal editing process. -Will Beback 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votestacking Alert 2 - Again, as on earlier occasions, the Persian Wikipedia is also used for even more votestacking ([50]). Apparently even more blatant than the one on the "noticeboard" here, and again branding named users on enwiki as the opponents. I'd be grateful if somebody could translate what is again said about me and others behind our backs there. Lukas (T.|@) 07:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are mostly arguing among themselves about the extent and nature of anti-Persian and anti-Iranian sentiment in the Arab world and elsewhere. Someone there has posted a very interesting link showcasing anti-Iranian sentiment in the popular culture. --ManiF 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete - I am familiar with the ethnic issues of the Meddle East region and can confidently say this is a constructed hate page which has no real base. Through out the Arab world there are millions of Shiat Arabs who see Iranians as their “brothers” and defenders of their faith. Please note that the supposed names in the fist line of the articles (عجم ستیزی) also (ایرانی ستیزی) are both in Farsi/Persian words and not Arabic, in effect the writer(s) of the article could not come up with any Arabic word or name for this so cold phenomenon.

The search in Google for ایرانی ستیزی and عجم ستیزی brings 18 and 1 cases respectively in the whole web! The only entry for the latter is in Farsi/Persian Wikipedia !

This seems to be just a payback to the establish Anti-Arabism article and more specifically to the section under the Anti-Arabism in Iran’’’. While Anti-Arabism in Iran in Iran is kept live by Persian ultra nationalist in attempt to arouse some nationalistic feelings of the masses by way of hatred against the neighboring Arabs and Turks, there is no evidence of any notable anti Iranian or anti Persian sentiments in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda. Mehrdad 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but that is extremely biased. You are basically saying Iranians are capable of being racist especially against Arabs, but no such hostility exist on the other side!!!! Is this what you call a neutral attitude?Gol 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "by Persian ultra nationalist" not Iranian. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And there are no Arab ultra nationalist or chauvinist? Basically you are saying within the nation of Iran there are some racists by among Arabs there aren’t any.Gol 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda? Then "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" which was part of a textbook for school-boys in the Arab world, must be a complement to the Persians. --ManiF 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"textbook for school-boys in the Arab world" is this your refrence? Arab world has a unified text book for school-boys!!! This is another myth created by Fars/Persian ultra nationalists, and another proof of what I wrote.
Mehrdad, you claim to have studied the whole corpus of Arabic literature, media and government propaganda? If you really did so you might have overlooked big chunks of it such as Arab hateful forgery of the name of Persian Gulf, or Arab hateful historical rubbery by calling most of the Persian scientists, Arabs, or spreading as much as lies possible by Arab media regarding Iranian province of Khuzestan or anti-Persian racist material which was a part of the school curriculum in Iraq for decades or ....

--Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Users not only should look for the term anti-Persianism on the web but also for its more widly used synonymous anti-Persian. If some of the users do not find the term anti-Presianism such a current term we can change the title to "anti-Persian sentiments among Arabs" or similar ones. But this is no reason why the whole article and its well-referenced informations should be deleted. --Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title has already been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments, and there are 34 published sources listed that discuss the subject. --ManiF 09:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no such a claim, but I have good contacts and surces to probe what is happening around me. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mehrdad, You say "you have good contacts and surces to probe" that "there is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda". Can you show us some of that sources and contacts?

--Mani1 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad should change his name, since Mehrdad (Given by the Sun) is a Persian name. He is an Azeri nationalist and seems to hate Persians. A person like that, with such hatred in his dark heart, does not deserve such a noble name. Khorshid 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khorshid, I have no hathred for Persians/Fars people at all. In fact I am partly Fars and I have Kermani ansestors, as well as Hamedani as well as Tabrizi so I am Iranian with any definition as well as being Azeri. I belive this ultra nationalistic idealogy of small group of people so called "Roshan Fekran e Fars" (Fars Luminaries) who do not respect the basic rights of other other people in Iran, including the Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Baluch. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Geez, how many times do I have to ask everyone here to discuss the topic, not the users. Please stop it. --ManiF 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear by his edits that he is pan-Azeri nationalist who has a hatred of Persians. I am not saying anything wrong. His comments are themselves racist. Khorshid 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you have to assume good faith. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA which are official policies. --ManiF 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Racism should always be condemned. I dont support it and will always strike down what is obviously racist language. It has no place here. Khorshid 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a non-Persian Iranian, I have to say that unforunately both Anti-arabism and Anti-Persianism do really exist and have already had many political implications and induced wars. Therefore I think there is no question about the existence of these phenomena. There is no question about the important consequences of them either. Ajam-Arab story is a long one. And the word ajam mainly means Persians and Persian speakers (who are the prototype of Iranians; like it or not). --Zeelkey11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the article was nominated for deletion, the article's title has been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments - taking out the pointed reference to Arabs - and an agreement on the talk page to splitting some of the content away from the Anti-Persian sentiments article to form the basis of a new article dealing with anti-national prejudice against Iran as a whole.[51] There's also an agreement that a lot more work needs to be done to broaden the article's scope. Some changes and additions have been made to improve the clarity of the concepts the article is addressing. I know some people have misgivings about the whole concept of anti-national articles, but apart from this objection, is there any point in continuing this AfD? Perhaps those who have voted for delete might like to look again at the article and offer their comments. The only problems I have now are regarding POV, not the actual existence of the renamed article.--الأهواز 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I'm willing to withdraw my DELETE vote. I am also quite enthusiastic about AnonMoos's suggestion for an article on the Shu'ubiya. I hadn't heard of that, it seems important, and I want to learn more. Zora 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 19:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow International

Company which does not pass WP:CORP (contested prod; prod removed with the claim that "a company is inherently notable"). Delete --Pak21 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Heights (movie)

The film appears to be a student film. Does not appear in at least the first 5 pages of Google (I stopped looking). The IMDb reports festival screenings and a TV showing. I suspect the IMDb comments are from peers: they sound film student-ish. Delete as non-notable. The JPStalk to me 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo (forgotten to close this debate). DarthVader 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varya Akulova

Suspected hoax, urban legend? 350 kg, for a 40 kg girl and a grandpa that lifted 1200 lbs (see site)? Delete Spearhead 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturne (movie)

Another vanity article for a student film. That the 'official website' cites the creation of this article as 'news' gives it away, really, along with the redlinks. Oh, and the plot also reveals the studentishness: available set (school) + available actors (school kids) = plot (about a school kid in a school). Not in IMDb. Delete as non-notable, and unverifiable. The JPStalk to me 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless information can be found showing this film to be commercially available (ie. not just a student film). Dbertman 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the official web site, this film hasn't even started shooting yet. --Metropolitan90 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While University Heights (movie) was a close call, this one isn't. Delete. B.Wind 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally non-notable film. This is much worse than University Heights. Grandmasterka 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original poster makes unverified assumptions of the movies based solely upon the plot. "studentishness". Story is based mainly in a psychologist's office and a unamed, enviroment. If the original poster took time to read the screenplay, he would understand that it is not mostly about 'school', as he put it. Nowhere in any of the text and/or official website does it state the ages of anyone involved, therefor, it is incorrect and unfair to assume the ages of the cast/crew bassed upon a couple of sentances, which were not properly read. Shooting has also begun and completion dates are listed, this would mean the title in question is, "In-production" which is an acceptable state. Needless to say, should the project fall through, the article will be deleted. Distribution in New Zealand has been obtained and can be verified if need be, Australia's distribution will most likely be handled independantly. Movie has been submitted to IMDB and is currently in the process of descision. Article is non-biased and formatted correctly, references to it being non-notable are speculation to the popularity of it. Article exists so anyone can look and discover what the movie is if they hear about it. Article is not designed as the original poster claimed, 'vanity'. Nor is it designed as a student film. For it to be a student film, it would require me to be a student of a highschool, college or university. Seems I am neither of these, how can it be a student film? Because it focuses on high school students? Elephant is also listed in here as dealing with high school students and that isn't a student film. Additionally, link on the home page back to this and the reference to 'red' writing are invalid and pointless comments. They serve no purpose and do not affect the explanation. cchamber 17:42pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The "unverified assumptions" were based on the information in your blog, which says you are 16 years old. The JPStalk to me 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This mistake has since been fixed while I was looking through to discover the source of your information. I apologise for this confusion. cchamber 20:13pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Nom --Angelstorm 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this film should not stay. Redmist1000 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry C

the page appears to be a vanity page, possibly created by the person himself rather than the page of an accomplished singer/band. Dbertman 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeThis is not a "vanity page". He is an accomplished guitarist and is currently in the process of releasing an album, I will compromise and remove the "accomplished" and "talented" in the article as I can see how that isn't neutral. Is that OK? Thunder Cat
He has done a tour of Taiwan thus shouldn't he meet the standards? This is proved on the website, there are videos to prove as such. Thunder Cat 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made my opposition clear and I have, for want of a better term, stated my defense so I prepose that article is allowed to remain and improve. Thunder Cat 11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying the tour is not notable well it doesn't have to be, only the source of verification does and the source of verification is his website which has videos of it and I'm sure, given time, I could show other sources that are undisputable. Thunder Cat 13:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. if you look on you tube he gets loads of views on his videos so he will be notable. cannon got 31,889 viewings. so he must be notable to some point if that many people are going to watch just 1 of his videos 82.118.120.209 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a video on YouTube is not a sign of notability. Maybe he does meet one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article currently doesn't indicate that or show how it can be verified. If the article is revised to indicate why he qualifies under WP:MUSIC with sources, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he meets some of the criteria he the article remains as an article only has to meet one of the criteria to be able to remain. I will use your advice and revise the article and be sure to include sources but I will need some time to do so so could we remove it from the list for deletion as a small recess so I can do so? Thunder Cat 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've got five days before the article is deleted. If you can't come up with sources in that time, he's not notable. Cheers --Pak21 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I'm going to get any help? Thunder Cat 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm quite new so could you elaborate on "repost" Eagleman please? Rather than just delete surely we could just put it as cleanup and help yourselves to make it better? Thunder Cat 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article Jerry C has already been created on Wikipedia once, and then deleted on 9 April under speedy deletion criteria A7, namely "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages". With respect to cleanup, you're missing the point here slightly: editors are suggesting deletion not because it's currently a bad article, but because it has no potential to be a good article, as the subject is (as far as anyone can tell) not notable. Cheers --Pak21 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright that seems very reasonable and I wasn't aware someone had made the article in the past but if and when he releases his album will that make him notable? Thunder Cat 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:MUSIC states "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" (my emphasis). Cheers --Pak21 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend that (if they've been on significant - major or important indie - labels with a national distribution), plus touring details. Be sure to give independent references (after all, they do get checked). Best of luck in the future. B.Wind 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia submission process, but I have been asked to argue in favor of a JerryC Wikipedia submission. JerryC is without a doubt an Internet phenomenon. Youtube, Google Video, and many other video sharing sites are populated with hundreds of videos of people covering (copying/playing) JerryC's Canon Rock. JerryC videos became popular because of the stark contrast between his high end guitar & compositional talent juxtaposed against the humble back drop of his tatty bedroom. If he had recorded his videos on stage, I'm sure few people would have noticed. However, he does currently have a huge Internet following. I run a non profit JerryC video link site: [[53]]. I have no financial or contractual link with JerryC (in fact I've only emailed him twice). My site gets 40,000 Unique visitors per month, and has had 8.5 million hits in the last 5 months. I would say, that's popular. I think at the very least, JerryC should get a mention on the Internet phenomenon page, but really deserves his own link. It's not about promoting him as an artist, but more about documenting the Internet ripple his video's have caused (the Canon Rock covers). Megazoid --82.152.166.122 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely if someone has tried to make an article in the past and there are so many viewings he must be at least a "notable artist". As to verifying the amount of viewings one can simply go on the websites listed. As Megazoid runs the website he can issue proof to verify the amount of hits he recieves and one can simply look at the number of hits on You Tube. Thunder Cat 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definiton of notable is worthy of note, remarkable or a person of distinction. Jery C is worthy of note, he is remarkable and he is a person of distinction. He is a very talented guitarist, one could easily say he is a virtuoso. Not only this but he is also a very competant drummer and pianist. Not only this but he is very distinctive as the music he plays is very different to what one would normally hear, unique even, apart from his covers of course! There is a vast amount of interest in him all over the internet so surely he is a notable artist at the very least. Thunder Cat 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That definition of notable is becoming out of date as there are other people who are popular and notable on the internet alone. Jerry C is an example of them and we should reform our definition of notable to accept people like him. Does it also not say if the rules hinder the improvement of Wikipedia you should ignore them? Thunder Cat 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be discussed at the village pump, not in the middle of an AfD, in which we must follow the established guidelines. For the time being WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT establish the rules under which this process is run now. Oh, I forgot WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and WP:BIO. B.Wind 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verification The 15th most viewed video on YouTube, is a cover (copy) of JerryC's Canon Rock video by a young Malaysian - FunTwo. Simply titled "guitar" [[54]], it shows Funtwo playing an unaltered version of JerryC's composition in the same setting (his bedroom). It has had 4,612,731 views, and was mentioned in an article on The New York Times website [[55]]. JerryC is mentioned in both the video, and the article. JerryC's original Canon Rock video has been posted so many times on YouTube, that it has diluted its true ranking unfortunately. A Google search for the term "JerryC" produces 134,000 results [[56]]. It is interesting to note, that this is more results, than some of the band entries currently listed on the wikipedia Internet_phenomenon page. For example: "Lemon Demon" [[57]] produces 124,000 results. I personally feel the submitted JerryC page needs to be edited heavily, but some reference to JerryC is warranted on wikipedia. Megazoid --82.152.166.122 14:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this discussion has gone round and round. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not an agent of promotion. This article is premature... It's time to delete it until WP:MUSIC is established. Of course, an encyclopedic article would discuss in some length his work (preferably spelled correctly - misspellings stand out when they're red links). I'd be more inclined to accept the article if it truly had significant substance besides the POV/biographical first paragraph. Admins, is it time to invoke WP:SNOW? B.Wind 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. He isn't notable so I'll just wait until he releases his albums but yeah go ahead and delete it. Thunder Cat 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoP.Track

Not notable. 500 google hits. Advertising Sleepyhead 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techlepathy

I'm inclined to think it's a neologism, given that most Google hits point to Wikipedia mirrors. - Sikon 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick O'Connor

Advertisement disguised as quick 'fact' about a non-notable persson or persons. Deleterious 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, default to keep. Comment on nom: Redirecting this oft used term (to which 41 namespace articles link) to an article about a pornographic website to which two namespace articles link, is against reason. --Ezeu 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active duty

The article is a dictionary definition and the article name is the same as another article with different capitalisation (Active Duty). I propose that this page be deleted and made into a redirect. Clawed 11:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. --Ezeu 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrodollar warfare

Below is a paste of my thoughts as an economist on this issue, including a list of ommissions, errors and misleading insinuations. It is my belief this page will never be free of a measure of bias, and as such will lead to a consistent misrepresentation of the facts for every Wiki user.

Ultimately it is not the purpose of this encyclopedia to air misleading statements, errors, and arguements that are so narrow and unverified as to be redundant.

I also wish it suggest that while individual components of the article are factual, the phrasology, presentation, and arguments are not. All the facts can be found elsewhere in wikipedia, and thus we must question what purpose it serves to bring them together so poorly here to substantiate a fundamentally misleading argument.

For every user that reads this article and is entirely convinced due to a lack of economic education, wikipedia has failed. Here now are some of my specific thoughts:

Fiat Money

In my opinion, the point about fiat money is largely a platitude, nor important in substantiating the theory.

Most if not all currencies are in the form of fiat money (whether they be convertible or not to a commodity). Even in the century from 1800 to 1900, Triffin identified that 95% of new money creation on the European continent was in the form of credit or fiat money - a period largely claimed to be dominated by the Gold or Bi-metallic standard and exchange rate stability.

The principle of accepting the value of fiat money is now engrained in our culture, and moreover backed up by the fact that the currency is "legal tender". I.e. it is illegal not to accept the money in settlement of a debt or other contract.

My point is, that this article is misleading in how it presents the link between the physical fiat money and its value as being weak, when in fact it very strong, nor would it be any stronger if it were convertible to a commodity.

If anything this article should focus on whether the currency is MIS-valued, or will receive a SHOCK to its value as a result of exogenous impacts. To play devil's advocate, if the dollar were freely convertible to gold or some other commodity, and the dollar took a hit in value (say to a fall in international reserve holdings), the dollar would still suffer. The economy would shift from the dollar to gold, in an exact parrellel of a shift from the dollar to another currency.

If we went even further to suggest that the US issue actual gold coins, the theory states that in order to maintain parity, the money supply must vary with the balance of payments. If gold is over-valued at the mint (i.e. there is a reduction in demand for the gold dollar, and the nominal value of gold is greater than that of the domestic currency exchange value) then you will still get a flight of capital from the US, and instead of a shift in currency values (since the gold price is essentially fixed) it would be prices of good that went through the roof instead.

Ultimately, this argument that the a currency is somehow flimsy, and more vulnerable as a result of being a fiat currency is ridiculous. No system of currency could protect against the shocks described in this article.

M3 removal from the statistics

While the article credits the official reasons for the abandonment of the M3 measure, its insinuations are towards that of a modicum of duplicity. Not only is there a risk of this being defamatory, but it ignores the true nature of econometrics. Constantly our system of economic measures are being changed. A cursory glance of the statistics published in the economist will show the myriad of different money measures used across the Globe.

Specifically, correlation between movements in M2 and M3 for the last 6 years are almost 1 to 1. In fact, M2 moves slightly ahead of M3, so any shift in M3, can be slightly predicted by shifts in M2.

The loss of the M3 statistic is justifiable, and moreover is no hinderance to economists in that M2 is virtually a perfect proxy for M3.

A GLARING OMMISSION in the argument

A signification topic for debate among American economists is the issue of China's currency dealings. Greenspan himself has critisized China's maintainance of an undervalued currency versus the dollar.

How do they achieve this? By buying as many dollars as they can get their hands on, and selling their domestic currency. Ultimately....why would an administration hell bent on protecting its domestic currency from losing its value through a fall in foriegn holdings, so openly critisize and condemn the policy which results in the largest foriegn, non-utilised stock of dollars on the planet.

This theory is....largely, rubbish in my opinion, poorly argued, lacking in decent evidence, with extremely tenuous links and furthermore is incredibly short sighted.

It is unencyclopedic, and more importantly, actively misleading and should be removed. I should also point out that many developing nations peg to the dollar, or adopt a full or partial policy of dollarisation (i.e. using dollars as the domestic currency) and these policies are generally opposed by the US policy makers due to the inflationary impact.


....what I ask you to focus on, is that this article will never be anything more than a collection of disparate facts, widely accessible in properly constructed NPOV factual articles across wikipedia, laiden with bias, POV and misrepresentation of economic theory. What purpose then does it serve?

In my opinion, at the least, it does not serve the fact seaker. If nothing else, any impact is greatly exaggerated (an always will be). A study by Flood and Rose estimates the losses at 1/200th of GDP, in terms of lost seignorage.

Unclebob 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (London School of Economics BSc Econ Graduate....for what its worth)[reply]

...and now, back to the AfD
  • OK. But we have an article on creationism, too; so "The theory is whack," is an argument for pointing out that it is rejected by mainstream economists, not for deleting the article. A google search reveals that the only person who seems to use the term is the author of a book by the same name. Change to a discussion of it as a book, not a hypothesis. Encourage Unclebob to quote economists other than himself who criticize the basic ideas therein. --JChap 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some valid points there. However, this topic is so out of left field that there is little or no mainstream criticism of it - this it will be essentially impossible to provide a balanced view on the topic. What little evidence exists to disprove the theory and more over the uneconomic inferences drawn were listed in my critique above. Much of the theoretical analysis above is made on the basis of models created by "other" economists. I apologise if it was not wiktiquette or some such to suggest deletion, but you be hard pressed to find any other encyclopedia giving space to conspiracy theorist's ravings, based on inferences that are counter factual and counter theoretical. There is nothing counter factual about creationism, whereas the inferences in this article are, and will continue to be in order to serve the purpose of the conspiracy creators - long may their books sales continue.

Nevertheless...as a newbie, I'll graciously accept the will of the mob :p Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to contribute to the article, which is now crap. Focus on the book and refutations by mainstream economists. The theory itself isn't notable enough for inclusion. --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is this here? This belongs on the article's talk page in my opinion. You've come here with your opinions and when I look at the article I see other opinions. Bring this to the article's talk page and work out those opinions together into a comprehensive article. Metros232 13:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you acknowledging the page has failed to be NPOV? If not, can I put my "ravings" on the article? Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Metros232. If there are no objections, I'd like to move this filibuster to the article discussion page. Filibusters tend to make me urge deletion regardless of actual validity of the argument. B.Wind 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its not fair to say I ever used the word "like" - my argument is the article is counter factual and counter theoretical. It is in essence misleading readers. Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then should we delete controversial articles like evolution or God just because they might somehow "mislead" readers? Please note that keeping an article isn't judged by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the notability of the subject. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not on AfD. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er....this isn't about controversy. Its not even about debate. Its about factual and theoretical errors, being consistentently represented as accurate because of the skewed nature of the public debate and seeming importance attached to that. Is it weight or quality of information that merits inclusion or exclusion in this encyclopedia? Is there not a parrellel here between this topic and the vested interests of the Congress editing of wikipedia pages for their purposes? Unclebob 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, the decision to keep or delete an article is not depended by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the subject's notability. If the subject does have factual or theoretical errors, you can always mention it in the article (provided that you have some sort of citation to back it up).--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, this article should be deleted. There is nothing notable about the phrase petrodollar warfare; see the results of searches in my comments below.--csloat 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've read the article in full. The subject is notable, but the treatment of it is seriously flawed. It should be rewritten about the book. As it stands, it is just a collection of wacky conspiracy theories. Unclebob made a procedural misstep by bringing this here, but this should be forgiven a newbie. If we keep, we should support him rewriting this steamy pile of pony loaf. Where's a rouge admin when you need one? --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do-over, as content is inappropriate abstract of a book when it should be About the book, as that is the only significant citation. If God was simply a synopsis of the bible, it would be deleted and rewritten from scratch. That is what I feel is appropriate here. --Mmx1 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article should not have been brought to this discussion again. What is the agenda?--tequendamia 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', appears of interest but perhaps does need clean up. --Mr magoo 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a re-write of the article containing Unclebob's criticisms/rebuttal. In that way Wikipedia readers can learn to be more sceptical of such conspiracy theories and also maybe learn a bit about economics as well. --User: Jaganath 11:12 31 May 2006


In general I think the consensus is that the subject is sufficient ACTIVE, at least in the internet domain, to warrant inclusion. In one week from now (when I am liberated from exam considerations) I will re-write the article focusing on the claims of the theory, and a more full and cited criticism and theoretical de-bunking section. I apologise for not using the AfD properly...albeit I believe more effective discussion resulted than would have ever been possible in the discussion page :p. Feel free to Aye or Nay to this idea.

Furthermore, any recommendations as to what procedure would be used if some other "economist" attempted to re-assert the haphazard economics on a period basis, either by deleting the critcisms or by other means etc. would be appreciated. Unclebob 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, what is preeminent in Wiki is not truth, but verifiability. See WP:V Provide sources for all criticisms and debunking, and if another anon attemps to reassert uncited material contradicting what's cited, then it would be legitimate to remove that material. --Mmx1 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse what Mmx1 and Unclebob are saying. The funny thing about this article is that it combines sourced, verifiable statements with statements that include "reportedly" with no indication of who reported it. WP:CB articles are usually much easier to spot. --JChap 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Per my comments from the last AfD on this: Non-notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased). As pointed out on its talk page, most of the google hits for this page point to advertisements for this guy's book or to blogs. On Lexis/Nexis I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase. Not one. A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase. A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing. The only results on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times" and three other pieces that list Clark's book as a reference but do not use the phrase "petrodollar warfare." None of those four sources is from a peer reviewed article or even from an article published in print (as opposed to on websites). This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar. --csloat 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RaPKid Forum

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Gang

Each of these groups seems to be independent and aren't collaborating as this article states. The closest result I can find in searching Google is that S.A.S. does a song with the Diplomats/Cam'ron called "So Free" in which one of the S.A.S. rappers says "This is S.A.S., DipSet Euro Gang". Nothing to suggest this is nothing more than a nickname S.A.S. has bestowed upon itself. Metros232 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio/blanked by author. Royboycrashfan 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alesis Micron

seems like an advertisement to me Krankman 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, could be. :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freshman Academy

Non-notable program at a university. A lot of schools have some sort of transition program for incoming freshmen. I don't even think it warrants mention in the main Brigham Young University article. Metros232 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (less weight given to the numerous suspect sock "votes").--Ezeu 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Mayhem

A nice looking webcomic, but little to no evidence of notability. Delete as advertising and vanity. --InShaneee 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I've already done the Comixpedia thing. It's here. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware of the Comixpedia site and the service it provides. Though the reference to this comic in Comixpedia as a Wikipedia import would be somewhat sufficient, I remain opposed to deletion (I believe it is notable enough given its quality and high regard amongst the FanFic community) –BabylonLegacy 11:47, 29 May 2006.
  • Keep: It appears to be an important part of the fandom. -- Eyrian (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's part of an overall bigger picture, alerting fans of an additional branch. -ADW 8:15, 30 May 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.228.35.235 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: I like this entry... keep it. Don't listen to these naysayers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.59.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: What do you mean, no evidence of notability!? It's one of the most spectacular fan-produced works I've ever seen! It's been a huge influence in many areas of the Disney fandom and is often cited in a wide variety of sites. Definitely a "keeper". ---Ray Jones--- --24.170.36.86 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This fan-made work has probably brought more people to fandom than the series itself. I'd even call it a milestone in the history of both fan fiction and fan art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.8.229 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: This comic is vital to the Rescue Ranger fandom, and is an important part of said fandom's artistic and fanfiction history. Please keep it! 152.163.100.201 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)RangerReady23152.163.100.201 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This comics quality in both art and writing makes it more then sufficient in terms of notability, I strongly think it should be kept on wikipedia 128.195.111.119 06:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Gabb[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability in article, no reliable sources. See WP:WEB for what is meant by notability. -- Dragonfiend 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be deleted or not. Perhaps it'd make more sense as part of the main "Rescue Rangers" article. However, I think it's definitely notable, just as much as other major furry works like Jack or DMFA which aren't under debate. It's really a fully-fledged fan-created graphic novel, and was created and released as such. It's an accomplishment which is fairly unique, as most other comics are episodic on-going affairs, often times lacking a single cohesive storyline. Considering OMaM's readership, if it were a regularly comic, instead of a completed work, this discussion probably wouldn't even be coming up. I was directed to this work by Mat Sherer of Badly Drawn Kitties fame, in an off-handed comment he made about a year ago in his blog. (Unfortunately, the Internet Archive is down at the moment, so I couldn't try and look for it. If corroboration is necessary, I'm sure he wouldn't mind speaking for himself. Heck, why not ask notables in community to weigh in?) Mat isn't even necessarily a part of the CDRR-specific fandom, but he seems well-connected to other notables in the community, and his comment mentioned the waves this comic was making. I think that speaks loudly enough about the level of impact it's had. --BeeBot 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Though this may be the only page I've contributed to, I hold no association with "Of Mice and Mayhem" or its author. I use wikipedia quite regularly. However, this is the first time I've come across a page that was nominated for deletion. Given the contents of the page and the subject it was referencing, I was compelled to open a wikipedia account and voice my opinion on the matter. I would also like to note that I have not participated in alerting anyone to this page's impending deletion. I am merely a voice among many who feels this subject is notable enough to warrant a reference on this site. And though I am aware this in not up for a vote, I'm hoping the administrators will at least take this under consideration and reconsider. –BabylonLegacy 12:04, 1 June 2006.
  • Delete I saw this page ages ago, and considered deleting it. However, I put it off to go after even more useless webcomic crap that we had lying around and never came back to it. The guy seems to have some iota of talent, but the arguments above say it's notable to the Chip n Dale fandom? That really isn't enough, because I'd vote to delete an article on the Chip n Dale fandom any day. - Hahnchen 05:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There must be dozens of pages about fandoms, series, webcomics and shows that aren't as noteable as "Of Mice And Mayhem". Yet they deserve a place to. Furthermore, most people got it wrong that it's important to Rescue Rangers fandom. It's considered an accomplishment in the whole furry and anthromorphic fandom. Most of these fans, when asked if they know this comic, are likely to give a positive answer. Even if some have never watched the series itself. And the comic's creator still recieves praise for his work. I find the claim that it has little noteability very dubious. ---CD--- 11:34 2 June 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.51.85 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: If users only edit how come the top directions say anyone is free to discuss this subject, how come when I go to actually edit the page the top reminds me that I am not logged in but it still says I am free to edit the pages, and how come later in the directions it says Please sign your posts on this page by adding ( the squiggles ) at the end ( if only users can edit then they wouldn't have to do this ). Happy editing!, I think anyone is allowed to edit and you don't have to only be a user 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Gabb —The preceding manually-signed comment was added by 128.195.111.119 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. The fandom doesn't matter. And this particular fan-made comic book(s) doesn't look to be much different. Nifboy 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like very good fan fiction, but this does not make it notable. Google returns 96 hits, 44 unique. Looking through them shows no reputable primary sources. Alexa rank of site is 4.6 million, and the linked-to review site has no Alexa rank. This possibly deserves a mention at Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (which it already has), but not its own article. lowercase 10:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This debate doesn't seem to hinge much on whether or not someone is a fan of the show, but it's notability. I'm all for the increase of free information, and I didn't even know about Of Mice and Mayhem until I was checking the article for the RR show to see the chronological airing of the episodes. I'm glad the information was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.187.177 (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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo 3

All speculation. No official announcement, no IMDb page, no nothing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 14:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad Mohammad


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Justice League (TV series). --Ezeu 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Savage Time

What the? No indication what this is (TV show? comic story arc? The name is poorly selected, and the article a mere fragment. Delete Dyslexic agnostic 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary and redirect to Half-time (posted transwiki request). -Ezeu 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halftime

Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Transwiki to wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Beck

Non-notable fim maker. Has produced festival films (see University Heights (movie)) but as far as I see none have been released commercially. Is in IMDb, but entry does not impress, really. The JPStalk to me 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rike Scholle

Has only appeared in one movie which has not even received five votes on IMDb, suggesting it is not of note. Has otherwise had a non-notable modelling career which has ended. I r Barneyboo (Talk) 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Syndicate

A student group at Oxford. Nominating along with The Syndicate (St Edmund Hall, Oxford), an article on the same group. Perhaps it could be put in St Edmund Hall article instead, but it's not deserving of its own article. Metros232 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See OUBC. But this doesn't belong there. See below -- GWO
Comment -- an explanation is in order. During Oxford's terms, there is some serious intercollegiate rowing that takes place. However, there are also many more low quality races before the main events, in which a great many social crews with silly names compete, usually as an excuse to go out and drink heavily the following night. This is one such crew, from literally hundreds each year. (I still have my crew shirt with "Demon Axe Warriors From Oblivion" on it, somewhere). Anyhow, they're not associated with the Boat Race crew OUBC in any way, besides using the same stretch of water. Fun, really excellent muscle-tearing drunken fun, but not notable. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete.--Ezeu 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Axelrod

His 15 minutes of fame are up. He has sunk back into obscurity with no lasting effect on the world. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Ezeu 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyah Likit

Delete. The subject of this article fails to fall under any of the criteria listed in WP:PORN BIO. A previous nomination of this article was met with a no consensus vote. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: all discussion should be stopped until nomination is complete. Article in question has not been edited in any way since March 7, 2006. No AfD tag has been placed. I'll be glad to remove this line and resume my discussion of this article upon completion of the nominating process. B.Wind 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to note: I've placed the tag. I believe I did this, but apparently the edit did not go through for some reason. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. Since there is no evidence in the article of the number of movies she made (the eleven listed is roughly one-ninth the number needed for inclusion in WP:PORN BIO) or awards or anything else mentioned by the proposed threshhold, delete. B.Wind 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Google hits referred to by Capitalistroadster seem to be limited to picture galleries, rather than actual articles on the person. Please, prove me wrong - if there are actual articles from known sources that could be a reason to keep. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google hits aren't enough for porn topics, and 27000 hits is nothing spectacular anyway. I have 15,500 google hits currently, and I didn't even have to take off my clothes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn dellimore

Delete - non-notable person according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Has a handful of Google hits, most pointing to Wikipedia. His site, www.CelebEvents.co.uk, is well-trafficked, but he himself is non-notable and says nothing in the page to assert his notability. Fabricationary 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-G4. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trae

STILL non-notable rapper, page has already been deleted once and was remade. Old discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trae. —Batman2005 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as empty. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleana Apartments

Not only do search results solely come up as an active tourist hotel/apartment block of no apparant great significance, and, it hasn't been updated in over 5 months. L-Bit 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete cleanup tag since December 2005, stub consisting only of 8 words, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above; I'd slap it with {{db-empty}}. -EdGl 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make... and this one sentence is empty of substance. B.Wind 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace Titles in A and N series

From MfD: Replacement pages exist at List of Ace Titles in A series and List of Ace Titles in N series. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England World Cup Song

advertisement, unable to make into encyclopedia article, this is not the only "England World Cup Song," If someone wanted to do a list of various songs connected to/about the 2006 Cup, that's another matter JChap 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macroterrorism

Article is original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Equendil 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was all articles deleted; user blocked for life. DS 00:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Guest

User:Put It Down Boy has been quite persistent in creating what are a string of hoax articles related to the fictional (or at the very least, extremely non-notable) band "Evil Chemistry." No substantial Google hits for the band, the albums, the members, etc. Quite interesting for a band that released an album that "has sold 5.4 million units in the US." Nufy8 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all of the related articles listed for deletion:

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hills Easley

I'm not personally convinced that this individual is notable enough to require an article. I have found no other sources on this individual.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beale Street Barbeque

non notable trademark, advertising -- Equendil 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, along with USIDES. Tijuana BrassE@ 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Sovereign Independent Democratic Empire of Satirocity

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gone" (Spanish Radio Edit)

Failure to meet criterium and lyrics are not covered within fair use Wes! &#149; Tc 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Madachik

Vice president of a company, does not meet WP:BIO, deprodded by author. Kotepho 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious Media

Notability of publication not established. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and Writing Motivation Questionnaire

Only editor wrote the only refrence to this. I might be worth keeping but I think that it should probably be deleted. Rex the first talk | contribs 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Nomination not complete. No AfD template on article page! B.Wind 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Bryn Preece

Prodded by PS2pcGAMER, deprodded by 83.151.228.160 without comment. A grand total of 8 GHits (2 with middle name, 6 without). Either a hoax or just not notable. Either way, he fails WP:BIO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was not really an article. DS 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.B. Vineyard

Was tagged as db-bio, but I think it doesn't qualify. No vote. Conscious 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --JChap 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - take your pick: joke or hoax. B.Wind 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon berries

This list of berries reads like a guide and was tagged transwiki to Wikibooks. I sent the article there, where it was promptly deleted. Regardless of whether or not it belongs on Wikibooks as a guide, it doesn't belong here. TheProject 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"R&B Deluxe" Mixtape

This is some unofficial mixtape hosted by an artist who hasn't even released her debut album yet. The mixtape only returns 11 results when searched on Google and is not notable at all. --Musicpvm 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The real test would be if this was put out / leaked by her or simply a DJ compilation. Some artists such as Jadakiss and Method Man, release music that the label would not permit on a standard album onto a mixtape. Is this a case of that or is this just a DJ compilation and can it be proven the artist released this with permission or at least may have been leaked by them. Ways to determine this would be original track of high studio quality, hints by the artist, promotion of the CD by the artist, references to mixtape only tracks by the artists etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whilst some notable artist are involved, this album seems to be designed not to be released to the public at large, a common practice as Zer0faults points out. Except in very extreme circumstances, unreleased = nn. Ac@osr 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its actually not a extreme circumstance, I didnt mean it to come out that way. Mixtapes have become a way for artists to connect to their audience through means not permitted by their parent companies and recording labels. For instance rapper Mos Def released a track called bin Laden, kind of accusing the Bush administration of knowing about 9/11 before it happened, this kind of track would never be released on an album as the label would never hear the end of it. Sometimes artists use mixtapes because contract limitations or label supression. In a more relevant example artist Lumidee releases her music soley on mixtape now as she resented her label turning her album into a R&B type album, she is a self proclaimed rapper and her mixtape music focuses more on that since she can do it without label pressure. Its oddly enough becoming quite popular as means of expression without the label getting a say. Method Man released an entire album by this method in order to circumvent a force he felt in his label was destroying his music, removing all songs related to his favorite producer. Kanye West has released tracks on mixtapes before their release to find out how they will be taken by the public. Mixtapes are not as they started as DJ mixes that were unauthorized etc. This album may be as legit as any other album this artist has released, just without the support of her label/recording company. That is why I think more information is needed before classifying this. Sorry for the long statement, I just dont want people not to understand what I was trying to say, this phenomenon is actually very popular. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per the insane slav. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am voting keep because this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Its also in my opinion a valid release as her debut has not been released yet and I believe this mixtape as extensive as it is, is a means of self promotion for the artist without label giving the green light. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I changed my vote after finding out more information and reviewing the track listing, this is a DJ compilation as its not artist specific as I was under the original impression. Mixtapes like Freshmen Adjustment by Kanye West are artist specific so I think they are to be held to a higher degree. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Zero Faults. I think it is rash to judge notability too quickly, especially if one is not necessarily familiar with a specific artist or genre, but a DJ mixtape is clearly not notable. Fearwig 05:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This mixtape was released in conjunction with Capitol Records and in coordination with LeToya and her management. It was also featured on Letoyaonline.com, rapmullet.com, and others. This mixtape has reached an international level, and has assisted in the promotion of LeToya Luckett. I know this because I was one of the people behind the release of this mixtape. Both this, and Brandi Garcia's release were structured as promotional releases for LeToya Luckett's upcoming debut solo album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.125.69 (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.

Advert for site of questionable notability. -- Creidieki 01:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for adverts. Average Earthman 11:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. --MaxMad 11:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ad for the shabby. Geogre 12:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 20:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Alexa Traffic Ranking of 460,961. SWAdair | Talk 07:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and list on cleanup. This is a notable site with a poor article about it. anthony (see warning) 13:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (ad) Rico 11:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. RMG 23:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Heresies

We already have an article called Heresy and this is pure original research. Article was deproded by original author, so I am bringing here. JChap 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merton Rule

Two reasons I'm proposing deletion rather than cleanup: 1) copyvio from [63]; 2) the article appears to be a neologism coined by [64], a commercial venture selling solar technologies, which appears to be trying to form a 'campaign' front to promote sales of their own products. DWaterson 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a valid aspect of UK planning, which has become more notable since Merton LBC 1st did it. It is less known as the 'Merton rule' nowadays, but this term rolls off of the tounge much better then the ten percent of the energy used by a new development must be produced by renewable energy hopefully on site, but off site if needs be. This will be enforced through Development Control and a section 106 agreement ... rule.
  • So yes its a Neologisim, but then so are the 'Newbury criteria' and thats common usage.
  • The text is blatantly ripped a promotional site, as i pointed out in its talk page. But i guess you new page patrol and deletion peeps can't be bothered to actually research stuff before you add that tag you love so much huh? It should remain as a much shortened article after it has had a re-write. 'Neologism' ... heh nice word, learn somthing everyday. Bjrobinson 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with revision
  • Yes, I did copy and paste this from TheMertonRule.org[65], and originally copied that from solarcentury[66] too, but I am the person who set-up TheMertonRule.org and I have full permission from solarcentury to use their stuff. As you have noticed they are one of the supporters of the site. This is not a 'front' either - it is made very clear that solarcentury (and sharp) are supporting the site.
  • I acknowledge that the article as stands in not really in encyclopaedia style - I just didn't have the time to edit it when I whacked it up, and was lazily hoping that some experienced wikipedians might help me clean it up and make it more appropriate. ;)
  • Like Bjrobinson points out, this is a valid aspect of UK planning, so I think it should be included here.
  • 'The Merton Rule' is common usage in the renewable energy industry too (its not just planners who use the phrase).
  • Please advise me as to how I can make the article more appropriate, because I would really like it to remain: The Merton Rule is an important planning measure that empowers local authorities to tackle climate change, and the more people who are informed about it, the better.
  • Perhaps I should just mark the article as a stub for now?
  • PS - if the main reason is copyvio, then why is this not being raised here? ;) Jdaviescoates
  • Keep with substantial revision.
  • Perhaps the sensible thing to do here is record our objections and give the guy 2 weeks to revise the article in an encyclopedic manner and then review it again? He needs to be refered to WP:NPOV, and any other guidance we can give him. I agree this term is in professional use in the UK and have heard planning consultants use it, there's not much on the net about it though. Found reference to the term elsewhere other than this contributors material, here [67] but will have to be disambiguated with this [68] relating to equations of motion and work done at Merton College, Oxford.--Mcginnly 10:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep--Ezeu 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss companies

Listcruft again: hugely incomplete, a spam target and hugely redundant to Category:Companies of Switzerland (which is significantly more complete). Should be deleted, as no advantage over the corresponding category is apparent. Sandstein 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but edit article. Just as RJH said above, this article should stay, but we should add more information about the companies ie. CityNightLine is a Swiss Night Train Company, servicing Germany, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands or: Migros, one of Switzerland's major department, shopping, and gardening stores. And so on. We should also remove all those redlinks.

We could also add small company logos nect to each name. The article should stay, and become a more comprehensive list of Swiss Companies.

Jean-Paul--Talk to me 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonslayers

Delete. Non-notable university club. Prod notice (tagged by Melaen: "un-notable university club") was removed. discospinster talk 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DESERT. Homey 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Short

I know noting about straight porn, or female porn stars. This is a blissful ignorance I'm happy to keep. Nevertheless, this article was nominated for CSD-A7 but I'm not sure whether it is or not. And I don't want to do the research to find out (for fear of the lady's comely udders putting me off my Horlicks). So I think AfD can decide instead. No opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Ezeu 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ambrose

Article and author have same name; does not appear to meet WP:BIO, deprodded by anonymous user JChap 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Anonymous User:68.67.155.47 added the following:
"He is known as an innovative and creative artist with a wide range of looks, styles, and experience in the art of set design, with over 25 years of professional experience."
at 22:27, 30 May 2006 (after editors informed subject that Wikipedia was neutral and you couldn't edit an article about yourself). Anonymous User:68.67.155.47 has identified himself as Roger Ambrose on User_talk:Batman2005. Strike my tentative support below and delete with extreme prejudice . --JChap 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC) OK. After giving this one a little thought, I've concluded that the subject's behavior on this site has no bearing on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion on this site and am changing my vote to weak keep as this seems to (barely) meet WP:BIO. --JChap 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was deleted last week by admins after being ruled a nn/vanity page. User "Roger Ambrose" (clearly the subject of the article himself) then re-posted it. This entry meets every criteria of being a vanity article and should be permanently removed and the user banned. Cuthbert11 29 May, 2006
So we have a clash between policies. The fact that he was fast in recreating a deleted page (itself grounds for a speedy deletion) bothers me. The fact that this is vanity, itself grounds for deletion, bothers me. But Roger C. Ambrose is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it should be disambiguated from two actors named Roger Ambrose). So how do we split this baby? Move this to Roger C. Ambrose (now a redirect page), make Roger Ambrose a disambiguation page, and state in no uncertain terms that such autobiographies are not permitted on Wikipedia. The advertising must be eliminated, too - and the awards section and everything with his web site address must go. B.Wind 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- :::The tone of this article also clearly demonstrates why, while not forbidden, autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. An article written by a third party would not read like this. Fan1967 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Userfy and let someone else (re)write the article in a non-hagiographical manner. Sandstein 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and rewrite by someone else per Sandstein. It needs removal of the promotional tone, the multiple self-links, and the excessive CV detail in relation to the notability. Tearlach 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review the revised wording of this article and the removal of multiple self-links put forth for discussion and editorial review. Could this fit your requirements and meet your needs? R.Ambrose
  • Userfy and rewrite by someone else per Sandstein. The changes certainly help, but I'm concerned that the article may be too flowery on the whole to salvage. I've always been a bit confused abot the amount of trust we're supposed to place on the information people who write their own articles add. At this point, Mr. Ambrose, I would recommend regardless of the outcome of this review that you collect as many independent sources as you can find for the article; an article based on reliable and verifiable sources will create a lot less of a fuss. --Maxamegalon2000 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maxamegalon2000, As I follow the discussion and arguements back and forth, I am confused by your advise to me here to collect as many independent sources as I can find for this article. If I am hearing several other editors on this, even if I did this I am not allowed to be involved in the article. This needs clarification. Additionally on the Bob Fink article/discussion I see that editors frown on even close "associates" from being involved. I want to play by the rules and get along here but as a newbie I am at a loss as to the "yes" and/or "no" of this all. Roger ambrose 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Okay, I originally closed this AfD early as a G4; however, after further reading of statements here, on the article's talk page, and on the article itself, I find it inappropriate to close the discussion early and have reopened it to run its course. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your vote to delete, but breaking those guidelines aren't reasons for deletion. They are reasons for clean up and reasons to review an article, but simply containing original research, unverified statements and things that aren't verifiable aren't causes for deleting whole articles. Especially when one can independently verify that the subject has achieved some note in his particular field. Batman2005 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the whole problem. One cannot "independently verify that the subject has achieved some note in his particular field." Indeed, I have independently verified that he has not achieved note in his particular field, yet you have chosen to reject my personal research as "unverifiable." So where is the verification for your so-called "independent" research, Batman? Cuthbert11 3 June 2006
NOTE Cuthbert11 you have not verified anything, you cannot call a friend up (which you probably never did anyway) and say "well my friend says this..." that's non-verifiable. The listing on IMDB, while only a listing, indicates that this person has been active in a particular field for 25+ years, and has (through two emmy awards) achieved notability for it. I wonder why your only edits from the username of "Cuthbert11" are to this page? Who are you a sockpuppet of? Batman2005 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Cuthbert11 above, the article was deleted as a nn/vanity page and swiftly reposted again. Swiftly recreating a deleted page is grounds for speedy deletion. However there is a conflict in the guidlines, since the subject's notability is sufficient to deserve an article. Mr Ambrose hasn't said why he so badly wants his name to appear in Wikipedia's electronic ink (and there is frankly no reason why he should have to), but someone apparently quickly recreating a vanity-style article on themselves like this disturbs me. Perhaps this has tainted my judgement in deciding which policy to apply, but I feel much more comfortable selecting the one labelled "delete". Deleting the page is not "final", it simply provides the opportunity for someone to rewrite it from a clean slate using published sources without having to concern themselves with the baggage in the existing article. Jll 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this needs a complete rewrite, without all the images. The montages are a copyright nightmare and provide no enyclopedic benefit, and the picture of Ambrose receiving the awards makes the neutrality of the article laughable at best. --Hetar 22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD previously contained a mass of essays and lengthy discussions, which I have now moved to the talk page for the sake of clarity. With all of that text here it was next to impossible to identify any shred of consensus, and I felt that moving it was necessary. If you feel your comments were moved erroneously, feel free to move them back, but please try to avoid letting this AfD turn into a collection of incomprehensible persuasive essays agein. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Ambrose won an Academy Award for his work; consequently, I think he counts as notable. I also think that this info should be in the very first sentence. DS 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thousands- perhaps tens of thousands- of people have won Emmy Awards throughout history. That is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cuthbert11 3 June 2006
NOTE Cuthbert11 only edits this page, it's probable that he's a sockpuppet of another user also pushing a delete of this page. Batman2005 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy flip a coin on notability - I'm assuming that the "rca" that created the bio on IMDB is actually Roger ambrose himself, so I'm not seeing any non-self-generated sources of information out there. That's not a ringing endorsement for notability and it means that creating a verifiable article is going to be very difficult. At the very least, I agree with those above that the article should be userfied and if it is to exist, it needs to be created by someone unrelated. BigDT 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there should be an article on Roger Ambrose, but as it stands now, the article is too flawed to remain without a major rewrite by a seasoned editor. 68.184.209.190 04:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A problem is that some AfD are often markedly improved after being listed, but people obviously vote on the listed version. Maybe that's why you didn't give a Keep or a Delete or even a Neutral? I'm inclined to improve this article because I think it has the makings. But I'm not going to do so, because the consensus might be deletion and it will be a waste of effort for me. This is yet another case of an article that could have benefited from Cleanup being sent straight to AfD. Moriori 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to improve it, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Deletion by AFD isn't a bar against creating a new article on the same topic. This article as it is right now is useless, but you can copy it to your userspace, work on it there, and resubmit it once you feel it would pass an AFD. Honestly, though, I am not seeing any non-self-generated information out there, so I'm not sure how easy it would be for anyone to write a good article on the subject. BigDT 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Nihilism

An article on this subject would be useful to have, but I suspect this isn't it and isn't cleanable into becoming it, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Was tagged for a speedy delete but nominator unsure either, so it comes here for the community to discuss. No opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina State Highway 76

No such highway exists in North Carolina. The information presented in this article was copied from an external web site (ncroads.com) and is based on U.S. Route 76, which already has an article. --Rufus843 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. llama

Um... Yeah... I think this is obvious. -Dakart 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isralight

This is really nothing more than an advert for the organisation, whatever it is - the text contains very little useful information. Happy-melon 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters on The Simpsons

What is really the point of this article? Most of it seems like original research to me. If a character is gay we could just as well write it in the article about the character. --Maitch 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep! The article is well written and their are several other articles that cover LGBT themes in popular culture, i.e. television, films and video games. A certain bigoted comment about not being able to "get away" with a list of the straight characters on the Simpsons, needs to learn a thing or two about heterosexism. I would suggest changing the name to.."List of...

User:Browned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.8.73 (talk • contribs) .--MrFishGo Fish 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may want to rename it to LGBT themes in The Simpsons. --Joelmills 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne

Doesn't look notable to me -Dakart 20:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Heart Records, LLC.

The page history suggests that this is a vanity-article. This "independent record label" has apparently released exactly 2 CDs so far. Alexa has no ranking for their website, reporting only that it is not in the top 100,000. Record labels are generally measured against the standards of WP:CORP since they are the businesses, not the musicians. I can not find evidence that this entity meets any of the recommended inclusion criteria.

Note: After the page was nominated for "prod" deletion, the primary author has begun to make this into an essay against Wikipedia's inclusion standards. This appears to indicate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals and standing as a tertiary source. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



There is NO vanity here, only the truth of the matter!

    • Legend Heart Records, LLC. is a SMALL BUSINESS, which is why it would not be found on any corporate indices; therefore, it should not be compared or measured in this manner.
    • "Tertiary" sources still have an obligation to portray current issues, as they really are.
    • Alexa's web traffic reporting is not accurate, as it currently shows NO traffic for legendheart.com. This is a gross misrepresentation; therefore, Alexa should NOT be used as a "credible source" with which to evaluate notability.

Legendheart


  • Delete - I sympathise with the author and I think WP:MUSIC is slightly (although not massively) flawed in its approach to independent labels. However, an article is not the place to address this and the facts are that the label has issued just 2 albums and, unless both those albums have charted and enjoyed particularly high sales, the label itself cannot assert notability. If Legend Heart is genuinely an advocate for the advancement of equal rights of independent record companies then they will need to provide citation to show that this is a key and noted part of their activities that has been covered in reputable media sources. Ac@osr 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We're not free publicity??? Are you an owner of Wikipedia?? Do you speak for them?? NO Publicity Sought! The criterion being applied to music and record companies on Wikipedia, is currently very flawed. The main reason, is because it does not reflect the true state of the music industry. There are, in fact, TWO sides to this industry; major labels and true independents. A record company calling themselves "independent", who is charting on commercial radio; is NOT a true independent record company. Independent record companies, who are unaffiliated with major labels; are being unfairly locked out of the market, therefore UNABLE to chart. This is NOT publicity, nor is it vanity. It is the truth. This encyclopedia should address current issues, as they really are. Legendheart

  • Please sign your comments with four tild marks (~) Ac@osr 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have already stated I do have sympathy with your position but the core of this is that a label, whether independent or affiliated to a major, will, on point of fact, struggle to assert notability having only released 2 albums. The article doesn't even state the artists or titles of the albums in question. Ac@osr 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article was revised to include CD titles
    • Volume of releases has no bearing on the importance of work being done to improve fairness within the music industry.

NOTE: A "tertiary" source still has an obligation to portray current issues, as they really are. Legendheart


  • For the record, as the revised article doesn't include this information, both CDs are by the artist Legend Heart. This is my last comment on this one. Ac@osr 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article was revised to include artist's name.
    • Here is a link to a 2004 news article about Legend Heart Records: "(Businesswire 2004)". Legend Heart: the World's First Self-Discovered Independent Label and Original Rock 'N' Roll Band.Legendheart
  • Comments. Uncyclopedic diatribe about Wikipedia is removed as unrelated to subject of article. Links and assertions of notability must be made in the article itself. Also; the history of recorded music in the United States is full of independent labels that made it big, most notably Atlantic Records, Motown, Elektra, and A&M Records... Some of these labels made it because of a large stable of acts performing on massive US tours. B.Wind 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Delete. These aforementioned labels are in fact major labels. They were only able to "make it big" AFTER they had affiliated themselves with a major label. The truth is, NO true independent label "makes it" without a major label affiliation. The "history of recorded music in the United States" DOES NOT show independents "making it big" because the industry has been monopolized for decades by the majors.
      • I suggest you double-check your research regarding this matter. A&M no longer exists after merger with Interscope Records; the other three were notable independents two decades before they were bought up by majors (records from Motown were originally sold from the trunk of Berry Gordy's car a few years before a period in which one-sixth of all singles sold in the US were from that company, for example). The examples I cited should be inspiration for persevering in a climate in which it is difficult to get a toehold, but it does happen: see Death Row Records. B.Wind 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not diatribe! Knowledge comes with being educated on the reasons why this article should stay in Wikipedia. It had to be explained, and there is no abridged way to do so.

Legendheart

    • True, to a point. There is more to having an LLC, than merely "paying a small fee". Having an LLC also means assuming the responsibility of business ownership. This is NO SMALL task, it is actually a VERY SERIOUS matter. Anyone who is serious about conducting their business, AS A BUSINESS; will form a proper company structure. Legend Heart Records, LLC is a boniafide LLC registered in the state of Washington. It is a GENUINE business, and independent record company. No sense in marginalizing what is a KNOWN PUBLIC FACT.Legendheart

Sufficient to what? Legend Heart Records, LLC. IS an independent record label and a BONAFIDE company registered with the State of Washington; with top rankings in Google for the business in which IT CONDUCTS (MUSIC); ""legend heart" - Google search". "legend heart" - Google search. Retrieved 2006-05-29.. Therefore, Legend Heart Records, LLC. SHOULD be included in Wikipedia's list of independent record labels; because IT IS an independent record label. Legendheart


    • No Delete Sounds like thinly disguised major label sympathizers on here. There have been record companies that started with one artist, since the 50's and 60's. This has no bearing on notability or goals reached. I know many folks, including myself who have followed independent acts, bought their recordings, etc. But when you request them on commercial radio? Forget it. Hey! Certain people are afraid to rub the majors the wrong way, dead wood can't blossom into a flower. Good luck Legend Heart. For what it's worth, not getting on here, is light years from being any kind of big thing lol. Rikrok77

Note: Apparently new users have no right to express their opinion! Rikrok77

  • Comment I see...so...if you are a member who has been on here for awhile, you're telling me that this shouldn't be taken into account? I mean from my experience, members who know each other, and form bonds, groups, cliques, etc., tend to be supportive of each other and their opinions or decisions. And if an opinion differs, there must be something wrong? Hmmm... Rikrok77
  • Rikrok, it's not a group of editors banding together against you. It's about protecting against sockpuppetry due to the unlikeliness of a user stumbling across AfD on their first edit. (Not making any judgements about you.) I am a musician and I sympathize with the plight of small labels. Wikipedia, however, is not a place for advertising or making something notable -- it's for documenting things that have already become notable, and our standard for businesses is WP:CORP, which this unfortunately fails. Sorry, I'm going to have to say delete. Keep up the good fight. ;-) Grandmasterka 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - Just for the record I didn't stumble across Legend Heart Records. I am familiar with Wikipedia, but have not joined until today. I am a lover of independent music, although I am not a musician. I do have friends who are musicians, and they mentioned this article to me. Not that I owe you any explanation. I read the article and it doesn't sound like advertising to me. It sounds like a company description. Sorry, Grand, Fan, or whoever you are...but I just don't believe you. If you are a musician like you say you are, then you are either with a major label or you are a major label sympathizer, and that in itself is very sad. I would suggest looking for sock puppets elsewhere. Maybe even in the mirror (Not making any judgements about you of course).Rikrok77

  • Comment - I know I said I was done with this but the link in the article is grossly misleading. Business Wire describe themselves as the leading source for full-text breaking news releases, multimedia and regulatory filings for companies and groups throughout the world. In other words, this is Legend Heart's own press release, repeated verbatim. The idea that they think they are the only band in the world ever to release their own record is quite the most ridiculous notion I have encountered anywhere on these pages. Ac@osr 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having a press release doesn't make it notable BigDT 11:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sufficiently notable. Jll 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's really ridiculous in reality, is someone who opens their mouth without knowing what they are talking about or having the intelligence to read something thoroughly before embarrassing themselves. This would constitute being grossly ignorant of the truth. Case and point? The only one saying that Legend Heart --the band-- is the first band to ever release their own record, is Ac@osr!

What is being stated is, that Legend Heart Records, not the band, is the first self-discovered, label-band. As for the two posts following Ac@osr, apparently research is "grossly" absent from these obviously lame "run with the pack" statements. This is becoming a huge waste of time, on something that has proven to be extremely not worth dignifying.

You Can't Argue with Ignorance: It is now very clear, that this forum intends to exclude Legend Heart Records from being included in Wikipedia's list of independent record companies; regardless of what anyone says outside of your ignorant clique. Truth is, Legend Heart Records is working very hard to improve fairness for all true independent record labels; in the music industry. This, by the way, is notable (do yourselves a favor, and look up the word 'notable' in the dictionary). A little research on your part would have uncovered this publicly well-known fact, but then you are not interested in knowing the facts; because your closed minds were already made up from the onset of this discussion. The good work will continue, regardless of people like you. You are insignificant to the notability and success of this independent label, and others like it.

To the people who feign sympathy for the "plight of indie labels." You are offensive and insincere; therefore, dishonorable in character. Legend Heart Records does not depend on the acceptance of people like you. The good work being done is self-evident. The future is bright for independent music. This you can never take away. The fact that Wikipedia depends on donations, speaks for itself. And where the primary donations come from doesn't take much to figure out, or the real reason you have fought so hard to exclude Legend Heart Records from being listed in Wikipedia's list of independent record labels.

You are highly unenlightened and closed minded. Scholars in your own minds. The public will know about this experience, and how we were STONEWALLED and EXCLUDED from Wikipedia's list of independent record labels. Everything comes out in the wash. Have a party stroking each other's sad egos. We will not waste another second of our time, or energy. Legendheart

  • Delete While I like the goal of Legend Heart, I'm not crazy about the P.R. staff...This is an encyclopedia, and as such is for subjects that are already notable, not subjects that "will" be notable or are trying to do something notable. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of a company, diatribes against the music industry or railing against a perceived "stonewalling". Honestly, best of luck against Big Music, but this article fails WP:CORP and should be deleted as non-notable. -- Scientizzle 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Legendheart, I had made only constructive comments, not a decision, until your personal attacks. Frankly, I was hoping that someone would add to the article enough to establish notabiility of the label, or of the band that appears to be synonymous with it (OBTW, check your history and you'll notice that pop/rock is riddled with acts with their own labels prior to having a contract or even a hit - Elvis Presley recorded and "released" his first single on a vanity label before he signed with Sun Records, for example. The Beatles did something very similar, too). I wish everybody the best of luck, but there's no stonewalling here: we have repeatedly stated what was needed for inclusion and it's become clear that it cannot be provided at this time. That doesn't mean that it cannot be provided when the label becomes more established, however, and despite the rant and diatrible above, I look forward to that occasion. But for now, delete. B.Wind 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Laudrup

Son and brother of football players now in U16 team. Notability doesn't seem to have been established. Nominated for CSD-A7 and deleted; recreated; nominated for CSD-A7 and deleted; recreated; nominated for CSD-A7 and brought here to break a cycle that could take all night to stop otherwise. No opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete Just an addition to wikipedia, as a link for Andreas Laudrup comes up on Michael Laudrup's page, and there are actually 84 links for Andreas Laudrup, just that some are not english

ChElSeA 17:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)ChElSeA[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:ChElSeA (talk • contribs) , the article's creator :) Dlohcierekim 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mention the World Cup

Doesn't meet criteria at WP:MUSIC (John Cleese is a respected actor/comedian IIRC, not a well-known musician/composer). 90% of article is song lyrics. Song is not notable enough to merit its own article. Recommmend a delete and merge with John Cleese. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate's Web Song Lyrics

Song lyrics are inappropriate even if the movie is notable, which this one, a "film" "released" to YouTube, is not. Yamla 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "film" was subsequently removed from YouTube as a copyright infringement. --Yamla 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep after cleanup, with thanks to Lucky 6.9's efforts. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Toys

Prod was already tried by Tone and Equendil but the creator obviously objects, so I am bringing here for discussion. Seems to be an advertisement for http://www.jadatoys.com/ which has an alexa rank of 165,788. I don't see any notability established, or any reliable sources. --Hetar 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI am trying to build a wiki for collectors of Jada Toys diecast vehicles. Included in this wiki will be a list of thousands of vehicles that I've catalogued over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggbert (talk • contribs)
I suggest reading How to edit a page, Tutorial, Manual of Style and conforming to wikipedia rules (also please quit creating sub pages with no context and gigantic lists, they only end up speedy deleted). Besides, this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not a place to build your own 'wiki' on a given theme. If you're not interested in writing an article about "Jada Toys", this is not going to work. Equendil 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A big portion of what I'm trying to create is gigantic lists of all the released collectibles. Is that okay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggbert (talk • contribs)

I'd say Wikipedia is not the right place for that, in any case, don't start lists of whatever in sub pages if the main page of a subject is not done~, and don't copy/paste huge lists of 'stuff' nobody will know what they are because you're not saying on the page. Equendil 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) While I'm at it, don't give your pages 'LISTS' as a title either. Equendil 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this okay on the Hot Wheels article?

I am indeed "confused" on how to create whatever you want to call this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggbert (talk • contribs)

Then my suggestion stands, please read the tutorial etc (and please also sign your posts on talk pages using 4 tildes). Equendil 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, subject is somewhat notable, and someone else was willing to edit the entry to make it readable. Equendil 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I build this online or do I have to build it offline and upload it somehow when it's done?

Articles can be written online, however, make sure the first version you post is at least a decent skeleton asserting the context, importance of the subject etc, otherwise, this afD is what happens.

A skeleton is exactly what I was building, but it's hard to add the content you're expecting from me when someone keeps deleting it or changing it before I've finished.

  • Comment: Jada Toys is indeed a real company], their "hook" is a more urban, larger scale form of diecast car (1:55 compared to the usual 1:64). I personally don't care much for these but the local Targets and Kmarts are overflowing with them. I think an article would be appropriate but it needs to be considerably more well written than it is currently.Arenacale 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the entries for Hot Wheels, Maisto, and Matchbox (toy company) for an idea of what I intend to build.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggbert (talk • contribs)

Damn...here I go wandering in as an anon despite promising myself not to and I find an article on a subject I'd written about elsewhere. I thought I'd extend the courtesy of replacing the adspeak with an article I'd done at Wikia's Radio Control wiki. Arenacale hit it on the head; most Jada toy cars are "urbanized" late models with "dub" wheels, stereo amps, candy paint and the like. They also have a line of toy R/C cars. For the record, I've done this as a courtesy to Wikipedia since I do remain active on other Wikia sites. I abstain from voting since I am not an active member of this community nor do I plan to be ever again and I leave it up to the rest of you to decide what to do with this. - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Doggbert 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, but you changed the intent of the document to meet your interests of R/C and not what I was trying to create. R/C is a very small portion of what Jada produces. Their primary focus is on diecast collectibles and that is what I was trying to build.[reply]

I merely copied what I'd done on another site. You are more than welcome to change the article to suit your original intent just so long as your changes are within this site's guidelines. That's what Wikipedia is all about. The company is notable, the article encyclopedic and you simply can't vote to delete it because it doesn't fit your original vision. Odds are it'll stay, so why not brush up on the tutorials and bring it up to a higher standard? The former Lucky 6.9 via 74.62.5.240 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Doggbert 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, but I recommend deleting this based on Equendil's response. The meat of this article was going to be the lists of released diecast pieces that could be maintained by a community of collectors. As Equendil put it "I'd say Wikipedia is not the right place for that".[reply]

  • Keep. What terrible confusion - why is Doggbert voting against an article he created? In its present state as a five line article it seems perfect. Dlohcierekim's note suggests that it is sufficiently notable to not need references. -- RHaworth 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Doggbert 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC) See my response above as to why. If opinions have changed and I'm allowed to create lists then I'll continue.[reply]

Again, don't create lists under such a title as 'SERIES' as you did earlier, and at least say what the list is at the top of the article before dumping miles of stuff, and you may have a chance ... Equendil 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've done all I can (and will) do to this. To Doggbert: Sorry about the confusion. I hope you understand Wikipedia a bit better now. To the rest of you: It's been nice swinging by if only for a brief time. Regards, Lucky 6.9 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Doggbert 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the edit. That's basically the same outline I created earlier. I hope it doesn't get deleted again.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Meadows

Unverifiable [71] Delete -Doc ask? 22:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLFY News Programs

This is a list of news programs on a small TV network, which are already listed on that station's page. Several people have prodded this, only to have it deprodded by an anonymous user with the statement, "If WikiDeleters would reead the article they wouldn't delete it." In spite of this, the article has no real information that is not contained at the station's site. Even if more were to be added, this is inherently unnotable. JChap 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Homey 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative fuel sources

Apparent original research on the subject. The subject of the article is already addressed by alternative fuels. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to alternative fules; there is a biog so not entirely OR. --Robdurbar 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OR allegation is made over passages like this in the text: "I think that Canada should be seriously investing in these sources and starting to adapt to them since it is inevitable that soon we will need them and it is better to be ready when it happens." There probably is useful content on the page that can be merged into alternative fuels; it just can't be merged wholesale (like B.Wind says). —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Jones

Not notable yet as playing local gigs; a google search reveals no mentions in national press nor national tours; even with local press I think I found one suggestion of a local radio appearance. Basicially, this is someone who has not yet reached enough prominance for Wikipedia. Robdurbar 22:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Homey 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article thinking it would be a popular topic and I would see many regionally-popular toponyms added to the list. This has not been the case. Nobody has added any toponyms to the list so the list contains only my personal favorites (or whatever else I could think of). Since having my own little personal article, which is of little interest to anyone else, is probably not appropriate, I have listed the article as a candidate for deletion. Rsduhamel 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly say that I no longer want it but I'm kind of embarrassed that I started an article that nobody seems to give a hoot about. If nobody wants to expand the list then I won't object if the article is deleted. Rsduhamel 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Rsduhamel 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handy FamiEight

Dude, this product and article suck poop!

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

The result of the debate was toss it, the discussion's not going anywhere...No consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please "vote" in this section.

offensive phrase. Delete or merge with Israeli occupied territories. Fullsome prison 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation)
  • Comment on nomination I think the proper reason for AFD should be POV fork. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not an offensive phrase, but OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. In addition, this is unencyclopedic: let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable phenom. Article seems balanced. 200,000 google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state". Merge anything useful into Zionism and racism, Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, World Conference against Racism, Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israeli settlements. (See also: Veracini, Lorenzo. "On Israeli 'Apartheids'." Arena Journal 22, Annual 2004: 99. Cooper, Abraham, and Harold Brackman. "Through a glass, darkly: Durban and September 11th. United Nations World Conference against Racism, 2001." Midstream 47.7 (Nov 2001): 2(7)). —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWouldn't your research findings be better served in the article on Israeli apartheid than here in the AfD. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? The concept exists, wouldn't it be better to treat it in Wikipedia than to pretend that it is so offensive that it can not be even mentioned? --Ben Houston 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't find the term offensive. That was the opinion of the nom. Outside of Uri Davis, and perhaps Zionism and racism the term is unencyclopedic. Your example below, in which you contrast tar baby with Israeli apartheid compares apples and oranges. One is an actual term relating to West African trickster folklore, whereas the other is rabid, revisionist, polemical fringe terminology used as a political epithet. There's just as much research to create American apartheid [73], British apartheid [74], etc. We don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentBen's point is definitely well-made, but I do want to commend Viriditas in any case for having spent time to research the article and the concomitant AfD; too often we (I include myself) participate in discussions here without having done the research we ought to have done, and it's always good to see one be pensive and moderate (and, of course, consistent with Ben's note, if the article is kept, Viriditas will surely be able to contribute content and add sources, which is always good). Joe 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best merge per above arguments. — RJH (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)). Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order). The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase. We don't take original research, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV (Charlie Sheen's conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon on 11 September is original research [or derived from the original, largely unsubstantiated research of others] but nevertheless notable). Our article Better dead than red, about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed. Joe 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR concerns and per CrazyRussian and Viriditas. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV by the title. --Rob 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re Joe/Jahiegel. It should provide a summary of the use of the phrase from RS from those that use it seriously (i.e. Uri Davis), why it is offensive to critics, and pointers to the main articles that deal with the related topics. I recently helped develop the article on Tar baby -- it is an offensive term but it was also notable. It was dealt with fairly well. --Ben Houston 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the prevalence of a phrase doesn't make it a notable encylopedia entry; the comparison between Israeli policies and apartheid is a notable topic, but this is covered elsewhere. --Leifern 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fullsome and Viriditas (as well as my own comments on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, in fact I suggested it, I just didn't do it.) 6SJ7 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: There may be a better place for this, but I don't know where. Homey has now re-titled this article so "phrase" is no longer in the title. I moved it back, he moved it back again. During the period this article is being considered for deletion, wouldn't it be reasonable for the title to at least remain the same? It is even more objectionable without "phrase" in the title. Homey also says it is "non-standard" to have "phrase" in the title. Is there an actual rule or accepted style prohibiting it? 6SJ7 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Characterization contained in title may be disputed, but the phrase itself is undoubtedly in notable usage. Having seen some delete votes, every single one seems to be on the basis of factual/political opposition to the analysis done using the term; no delete voters actually even tries to deny the notability of the term itself (or really, the NPOV of the article as a whole). LotLE×talk 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is very NPOV, so much so that I don't see how it can be cleaned up and I am someone who agrees with the sentiment --Stilanas 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to relatively balanced and phrase is confirmed to be in wide circulation in academic and news media (See my Google comment above). And absolutely agree with Ben Houston regarding User:Viriditas's comments. Bwithh 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The concept exists" as Ben Houston wrote, or "phrase seems to be in wide circulation" as you wrote, are not valid arguments. Here, a double standard is being applied inorder to demonize Israel. Where is Saudi apartheid? Are you ready to say that it doesn't exist? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think it's fair to say that the concept of Saudi apartheid exists, and that concept can be dealt with in several articles. I distinguish the two by noting that this phrase is notable not solely for the message it conveys, but also for its prominent and frequent usage, as against the Saudi phrase, which yields only 115 Google hits. Joe 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The point is that the phrase is in wide usage, not that it is being used to demonize Israel. As Joe notes, the phrase "Saudi apartheid" is not widely used (I would note that the comparison of Israel with South Africa partly arises from its historically close relations with SA during the SA apartheid years). Just because you disagree with the politics of a phrase, this doesnt change the significance of its wide usage. Wikipedia is not censored in that way. Anyway, it is also used in contexts where the phrase is refuted and debated - [400 hits on the website of the leading Israeli newspaper] Haaretz (and most of the hits are to do with Israel, not South Africa) (corrected previous 26400 hit result due to typo. By the way, accusing me and Ben Houston of deliberately and maliciously demonizing Israel may count as a personal attack. Please see the rules on this. Bwithh 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't throw rocks while in a glass house. As for "historically close relations with SA" - what's that supposed to mean? That Israelis spread their wicked apartheid to SA? To write a serious encyclopedia, we should distinguish between "wide usage" by propagandists and WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel officially opposed the apartheid system in South Africa, but was also against international sanctions against South Africa. There is a long history of military cooperation and trade between the two countries which continued through the 1980s when international sanctions against South Africa were implemented. South African uranium was vital to Israel's nuclear weapon program. In exchange, Israel helped pre-apartheid South Africa develop their own nuclear bombs. Some nuclear proliferation commentators have suggested there was a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979.[75][76] [77] Not directly relevant here, true, but anyway that was the close relations I was talking about Bwithh 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you imply that apartheid is somehow contagious, all that is irrelevant to the subject. For the better explanation of roots of this quazi-anti-colonial propaganda, see Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge salvageable parts into articles with NPOV titles, per Viriditas. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep the article was being worked on to bring it into compliance with NPOV. The term is clearly a real one, there's little reason not to neccesarily have an article about it as long as you present the controversy over it. Let the peer review, and other editors work on it. --Strothra 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's pretty clear by now that there will not be consensus for deletion. If some people here think this term is actually being used, let it be kept, but we must remove the OR and as much POV as possible, and be absolutely clear that this article is belongs in Category:Pejorative political terms. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the phrase was originally Afrikaans is irrelevant. Apartheid has entered the English language (as well as others) and has been accepted as such for a long time. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid Bwithh 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*undecided : see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox. The issue is: with such a title is there a way with text to NPOV such title and could wikipedia be trusted to get such article to an NPOV state ??? Zeq 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and possibly rename as per Bless sins. Good and necessary article. I saw the phrase on the BBC website earlier today and it is unthinkable tht Wiki would lack an article about the phenomenon. --Guinnog 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the problem with this article: it's not about a phenomenon, but rather about a political epithet used for vilification purposes. Leaving this article would be a violation of WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political campaigns. Pecher Talk 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rubbish! It's a term in common use, and a fair and balanced article. No OR or soapboxing that I could see. --Guinnog 18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, we have articles on nigger and homosexual agenda, so the mere title of an article cannot be sufficient basis for calling it POV. What matters is whether the content is balanced. In the case of "Israeli apartheid", the article is quite neutral and well-researched. Please don't jump from "It offends me" to "It's POV". Al 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In both of these articles, the terms are immediately defined as "derogatory" and "offensive" in the very first sentence. The article in question presents it as a legitimate term. --CommonGround 19:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for bringing this up. However, doesn't that sound more like an argument for changing the first sentence than for deleting the entire article? Al 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Al, it's still a POV fork, however you slice it. The fact that it uses a derogatory name does not lend it any more legitimacy. --CommonGround 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What article do you contend it is a fork of? The fact that it uses a term you think is derogatory is not grounds for deletion. I am sure if we had had wikipedia in the 70s or 80s we would have had people claiming the use of "apartheid" to descrive South Africa was "derogatory". They preferred to call it "separate development" after all. A thought experiment for you; would you object less if the article were renamed to something you found less derogatory, but with the same content? --Guinnog 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Guinnog, I understand that you want the article to stay. There are multiple reasons various people quoted for deleting this article (using wikipedia as soapbox, POV, pov fork, use of derogatory terms, etc.) You can see my reasons by my vote. As far as your name/content change thought experiment goes, if the article did not have the same name and had its content changed to avoid POV and soapbox issues, it would be a different article, wouldn't it? Likewise, if Pinto were designed like Lexus, I'd say it's a good car, but that wouldn't say much about Pinto at all. --CommonGround 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this discussion from the talk page as it seems germane to the debate. Apologies if this offends anyone. Humus, I think we could compromise with the right rename. Common, I can't see any POV or soapboxing in the article. If you agree it is a valid subject for an article, but have criticism of the content of the article, that clearly isn't grounds to delete the article. Wiki articles aren't cars; they're a lot cheaper to make and a lot easier to change! --Guinnog 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh Please check my talk page; Jay informed me that I had my vote in the wrong place. An ever so slight amount of research goes a long way in preventing oneself from 1) causing bad feeling 2) making unfounded accusations and 3) looking slightly foolish. -- Avi 17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so; see [80]. If User:Alienus would stop assuming bad faith he might find it easier to edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I make an error, I correct it. Al 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that you then went and attempted to vote stack yourself? Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Viriditas and Humus. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The article title is certainly a POV, using emotionally loaded terms. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the views of one group over the other by giving them legitimacy. Instead, an objective approach should be found - see analyis by User:Viriditas for suggestions. --CommonGround 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas and Humus. TewfikTalk 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas an WP:SOAP. Nandesuka 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Humus, CommonGround, and Viriditas Elizmr 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. gidonb 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ja, ek praat en skryf wel 'n bietjie Afrikaans ;-)[reply]
  • Strong Delete antisemitic baiting, leftwing style antisemitism should be treated equal with rightwing style antisemitism. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ek ook[reply]
  • Keep WLD 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep it is not our job to determine whether a topic belongs based on whether we personally like a term or phrase but rather to determine whether that term or phrase has entered either the academic or popular lexicon. Like it or not Israeli apartheid is a widely used term with a specific meaning. A google search of the phrase returns 258,000 hits [81] we also have "Israeli apartheid week" on many campuses and the phrase has been used widely in the media. Our job therefore is not to censor a phrase we do not like but to ensure that the article on that phrase is balanced and NPOV. Merging this article with Israeli-occupied territories as some have suggested is not viable since the phrase has also been used to describe Israeli policies within the Green line as well as in the Occupied Territories (even though some reserve the phrase for the latter. Merging with Israeli West Bank barrier is also not viable as the term "Israeli apartheid" predates that project by at least a dozen years and is intended to address much more than that. Instead of trying to ban the term opponents should be working to improve the article and make sure it's balanced and NPOV. Some who hate the term realise that that is not enough to justify deletion, User:IZAK for instance, no slouch when it comes to defending Israel, has posted the following on Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase):
To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Wikipedia article, no question about it. It can present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge those who are trying to delete this article to take IZAK's words to heart. Homey 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I put my comment on the talk page because it is so long:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)#A little research and comment on Google searches 6SJ7 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and if not, merge with Israeli occupied territories, not because I agree with the "apartheid" label, but because it's a term that's with us for better or worse, Wikipedia did not invent it. I do not agree that the article is original research, rather it presents the term in its current incarnation, both pro and con. Sometimes things that we dislike need to see the light of day, and we needn't fear that it will demonize Israel because Israel and what it symbolizes can withstand futile and false assaults against its good name. Let's face this head on, rather than run away from it. P.S. This phrase can join other slurs like kike or hymie -- no-one worth their salt takes them seriously, and the sky won't cave in. IZAK 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I said above, as the phrase has been used to describe Israel's policies towards Israeli Arabs as well as its policies towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, merging the article with Israeli Occupied Territories wouldn't work. Homey 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homey: Your point is well-taken. Yet, I do not see the need for stridency. Israel is a democracy that allows freedom of speech and is mature and strong enough to allow people to voice their views, even when they are repulsive. So far, the only person they banned in Israel was Rabbi Kahane, because he was too "racist", but it seems that many Israelis can live with being tagged "apartheid this-and-that" by leftists and Arabs, so be it. Let's see what Arabs can live with in their "democracies". IZAK 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it is correct to use the term "Israeli apartheid" to describe the treatment of Israeli Arabs, personally I think the usage is problamatic. My point is that it is widely used in this way meaning that a merger wouldn't work. It's not for us to dictate how the phrase should be used though I think an article should be NPOV and not act as if the term is correct or accurate. Homey 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas. -- Karl Meier 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need no seperate page on this term. It was invented by (and is promulgated by) the leftist media. It does not have independent notability, although the article does a good job at showing how presumably "objective" media prefer sticking to propagandistic terminology when it comes to the eternally sensitive Middle-East conflict. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the informative sentences with anti-Zionism. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viriditas. "WHAT?!", you say? The fact that there are articles in the Jewish community that attack and denounce this phrase is evidence enough of its notability. If this phrase were dealt with in a NPOV manner, as all articles should, then it will not become a soapbox. WP:NOT a soapbox was intended to guard against people enforcing their own viewpoint on an article. In addition, Other phrases have been included in Wikipedia, as other editors have mentioned, and they have not become soapboxes for anti-Islamism, anti-Communism, etc. POV Magnet or POV Warring is not a reason to delete. All articles have the potential to become POV magnets, it only depends on the ferocity of the editors to push their own pov. "POV Title" does not apply because the phrase itself is POV, not the article. Policy says, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." However, one must realize that certain titles will result in POV articles. POV Title is simply a simplified way of saying, "the article is POV because the title is POV." In this case, the title is POV but the article can be NPOV. The phrase was coined by a Jewish person, Uri Davis, and used by Desmond Tutu. I don't see how they are "leftist" media, nor nonnotable. Copysan 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think is the significance of Davis being a Jew? Does this make him not left-wing, despite his politics? Or does being a Jew show that he is automatically unbiased? Sheesh. And I don't know how being a pro-PLO Jewish professor and writing books makes someone notable. You'd also better look at Desmond Tutu#Political-views - activism for homosexual inclusion in clergy, activism against Guantanamo Bay detainments, etc. Looks leftist to me. HKTTalk 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said. I have always liked how good Wiki articles on controversial topics were; proof that the Wikipedia process can actually work. Let's not shy away from having an article on an important concept because some people don't like the terminology. We have nigger, cunt and kike after all. A very important principle of freedom in Wikipedia is (arguably) being tested in this AfD process. --Guinnog 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By now, I was particularly careful in my choosing article titles to be NPOV. AFAIR, I have changed Arab anti-Semitism to Arabs and anti-Semitism and some other titles and no one protested. The words you mentioned above are stable common 1-word slurs found in dictionaries. The 2-word combination Israeli apartheid is a neologism slapped together and [ab]used as a political epithet in Cold War and antisemitic propaganda. What's next? Arab intransigence? French promiscuousness? German cruelty? (FTR, I have utmost respect to these and other peoples). I am sure you'll find a bunch of google hits for these. BTW, why is Soviet Canuckistan a redir? How convenient, "A very important principle of freedom" stops with Dirty Jews (why not create this for freedom's sake). ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have suggested this many times. Why not move the article to Israel and apartheid? That shouldn't give problems since we already have Zionism and racism.Bless sins 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because the article is showing the phrase as the object of discussion, not the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy. There needs to be a distinction between the phrase itself and the policies. They are two separate things to be discussed, and I think some of the editors here don't understand that. However, if a discussion about the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy were created, then I would support merging Israeli apartheid (the phrase) into a section in the larger article about the elements. Then, it would be relevent to the greater dicussion. Copysan 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Adding some: As of yet, I see no article, and have not read Uri Davis's book or other sources to know enough to make an article about it. Perhaps somebody has? Copysan 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I Googled these: Humus sapiens changed Arab anti-Semitism with 42.300 hits into an NPOV term with only 455 hits, mostly at Wikipedia. I think that this was a correct change. Pitty that not everyone follows such standards. gidonb 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uri Davis is an anti-semite? Note that I am simply promoting an article of a coined notable phrase. Justify those phrases' notability, and then we can talk. I also agree with removing "(phrase)" to bring it into convention. Copysan 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course he's not anti-Semitic. The PLO is a highly philo-Semitic organization. Oh, yes - and Jews are incapable of being anti-Semitic or even of favoring and publicizing terms cherished by anti-Semites. Sarcasm aside - I am not determining whether or not Davis is actually an anti-Semite. But you are quick to interpret Humus' mention of "in Cold War and antisemitic propoganda" as "only in antisemitic propoganda." It's funny how people see accusations of anti-Semitism as extending beyond their actual target. HKTTalk 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable, verifiable, and sourced. Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as Islamofascism or nigger - we see no need to qualify those as "(term)s" or "(word)s." It seems that quite a few of these delete votes are based on the idea that any suggestion that Israeli apartheid is happening is offensive to them; I don't find that to be a valid reason for deletion. --Hyperbole 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as Islamofascism or nigger" - Done. Homey 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm Homey: Regardless if you are right or wrong -- you should NOT have made a change to the title of this article in the MIDDLE of this heated vote and debate as presumably people who have been voting, particulalrly in the early stages, did so with the original title "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" around. Your actions, as with blocking User:Zeq whilst you were having a discussion with him, are unbecoming of an admin and could be interpreted as both serious POV-pushing and an unfair power-play (having the buttons to switch around redirects and titles of articles) by an admin. You need to take a deep breath methinks and take a few steps back and let the debate unfold in full BEFORE making final changes. IZAK 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, see my "Question" above. After Homey changed it, I changed it back, but he reverted it. Now, there is a discussion (mostly between me and him) on the article's talk page over what the name should be, at the same time as there is this discussion here over whether the article should exist or not. It didn't seem right to me, either. However, for the moment, I am leaving it as is, otherwise, it is heading toward a mutual 3RR violation. 6SJ7 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited own comment -- 6SJ7 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Fine, I've moved it back until the conclusion of the vote but note that the current name is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming policy and that advocates of adding "(phrase)" have not gone through the proper procedure of proposing a change to practice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. When the vote is concluded, assuming the article is not deleted or redirected, I will rename it and I ask advocates of "(phrase)" not to change it back until and unless they've followed the proper procedure for proposing a new convention. Homey 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, thank you. IZAK 05:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys but i moved it back to its original name. Discussion about moving titles should be prior to the action itself. Discuss it first and decide what to do with the naming. Cheers -- Szvest 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
Homey, I appreciate the action that you took here on the name (although I have since had to move it back since someone else changed it), but I do not agree with your intended action if the deletion request fails. I have read and re-read Wikipedia:Naming policy and there is nothing in there that prohibits a parenthetical to indicate that the subject of a title is a phrase as opposed to an actual thing, process, phenomenon or whatever. As I said on the article's talk page, the fact that parentheticals are discussed only in connection with disambiguation pages, does not mean that is the only time they can be used. Therefore I suggest that if this article is not deleted, you initiate a discussion of renaming the article, including your opinions about what the naming policy is or what it should be, before moving the article. Maybe that needs to be the next vote created by this ill-advised article. 6SJ7 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you think that the procedure advised in Wikipedia:Naming of proposing a change of practice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions should not be followed in this case?Homey 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because as far as I can see, no change in policy (probably a more applicable term than "practice") is being proposed. You have not shown me anything that says that this parenthetical in the title is contrary to current policy. (And you don't need to refer to my quip about "maybe it's time for a new standard," that was based on your representation that the parenthetical was against the rules, which I believed at the time, but which upon actually reading the rules, does not appear to be correct.) 6SJ7 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, the phrase is POV but the article need not be. CJCurrie 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. heqs 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above also, due to the imsense complexeity and conterviatalaity of this debate I request that this dicussion be kept open longer than the usual AFD time period, so that it can be fully resolved. Tobyk777 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Israeli-occupied territories; two perfectly good articles which covers the same concept from differing angles. This will make the end-result more NPOV. dewet|✉ 06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keeping the article does not mean implying the Israeli apartheid actually exists, only that the concept itself exists (as Google will prove). It does not matter whether it's propaganda or not. Loom91 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above I have heard it many times in the English speaking world.75.2.106.46 07:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term. Wikipedia should present the reasons why some people think it is a useful analogy and others believe it is propaganda. David Sneek 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable expression, as the referenced article by Archbishop Tutu demonstrates. Moreover, this article has too much cited content to be simply merged to the logical place, List of political epithets. We have articles about epithets and vulgarities (such as nigger and fuck) not to encourage their use or to proclaim them as acceptable, but rather to describe them. --FOo 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete this term is a pure propaganda word and therefore pov per title. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas. --tickle me 12:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The phrase is widely used in Israeli political discourse. Dr Uri Davis has published two editions of his book Israel: An Apartheid State, which explains and justifies the term. There is in Israel a Committee Against Apartheid [86], and the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine [87]. We should also include a link to the article by Dr Moshe Machover, an Israeli exile in London, who argues against the use of the term because the situation in Israel is worse than apartheid [88]RolandR 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hyperbole and RolandR. --Alsayid 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork but create an article Status of Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories to discuss such issues. Fred Bauder 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Serendipity (clicking the random article link) brought me to this article. Reading through it, I can't see any justification for it's deletion. The neutral point of view is admirabily adhered to, not least because the first line of the article concedes that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is contoversial to some. As for those who claim the article is original research; this is not so. Many scholarly articles by Zionists, Jews, Arabs or neither exist online and in print.
  • Strong Keep: Earlier in discussion, it was described as a 'rabid, polemical, revisionist fringe term'. If this is true (and it may well be) It is perhaps inevitable that any article on the Arab-Israeli politics will attract controversy. But what is important is that we do not react to the clamouring of one group or another - down this route lies the dangers of revisionism and the erosion of Wikipedia as a valuable source. Wikipedia has rules. Let's simply stick to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.180.176 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - fine as a clarification of the meaning of a phrase, as long as we keep it short and to the point, not allowing it to descend into a debate. --Coroebus 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: For my part, I think apartheid has little in common with Israel and is grotesque oversimplification being used for dramatic effect, but enough notable people find some value in the term that is definitely deserving of an article. Besides which, it's well sourced and balanced. If you feel it is a purely propaganda term, this article would be the perfect place to debunk it using lots of sources. It will be a hotspot for vandalism and edit wars, but as long as everyone sticks to the facts (and doesn't delete any) we should be fine.

--Irongaard 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • An obvious keep: That someone don't like the phrase is not a reason to delete an article. // Liftarn 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taking a propaganda expression and put it as a title of an article, will only make it another constant battlefield. The title itself says it all, no matter what is written inside the article. This AfD debate is just a "prelude" of what we gonna see around such title. Viriditas suggested already where relevant contents can be placed instead of openning another energy consuming non-encyclopedic title. Noon 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • White vote (not abstention: I cast a neutral vote). While the expression itself is definitely common enough (see comment below; Haaretz, Haaretz again, Gush Shalom: Israeli Peace NGO and 180 articles in Gush Shalom in English concerning the term "apartheid"; and also the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban: here NGO Monitor explains; Al Jazeera and Mordechai Vanunu here. I decided not to vote "keep" for the time being because I do not believe in polarizing Wikipedians like that, although that edit-warring has already started in other articles. I would ask those who ask for the "deletion" of this article to ask themselves why it was created in the first place, and if this was a response to genuine problems about editing? I refer anybody alien to the context to the Hamas article, where it is clear that NPOV is not respected simply because of the overwhelming number of presumed pro-Israeli users who are only intent on describing the movement as a satanist baby-killer movement, without any real concern for true geopolitics, political science and explaining where does this movement comes from, what has it done (bombings, but not only that), etc. The creation of such articles (as "Israeli apartheid" IMO appears inevitable as long as a whole bunch of users here — whom I completely respect the personal opinions — accepted to cease doing POV-pushing on some articles, in particular the Hamas which I can talk of for having contributed quite a lot and having discussed with various users of the page — globally they are only three or four people who are willing to do other things in this page than depicting it as an evil movement). Using Wikipedia as such a platform will only lead to polarization, which this page accounts for. Hence, BLANK VOTE! (I hope presumed pro-Israeli users understand that this is a concession from my part, which is probably doomed to failure for the most radicals of them... I hope pro-Palestinian users understand that we have to find the best way to solve this problem, which is mainly radical Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias since obviously most pro-Palestinians & people in the Arab world do not have such access to computers as the population here. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - without addressing the body of your comment, the last presumption of obviousness that you make deserves a reevaluation on your part. I question whether it is the most constructive view of WP editing one could take. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm not sure having well understood, but in any cases I don't think this is the place to judge an user's contributions to Wikipedia (especially when I'm one of the only neutral vote here, thus indicating that I do not want to play this dividing game!...) Tazmaniacs 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - POV and inflammatory. Talpr
  • Delete - As per Viriditas. IronDuke 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the phrase has been established as notable. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be a neutral article. "Offensive" is not a valid reason for delete, the question is whether it is notable (yes) and verifiable (yes). Nigger, Kike, Raghead, (and Final Solution) are offensive phrases too (the last immensely so). As to Vriditas' "soapbox" argument cited by many, it seems to me that deleting this smacks of that more (in spirit) than keeping it does. Derex 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that it is Viriditas' rationale, rather than policy citation, that is popular:
I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".
As such, I cited Viriditas' argument in that it expresses that this term is merely part of a targeted propoganda campaign. As such, the article is about a neologism (see WP:NEO), and consequently, it violates WP:NOT in that it makes WP into a publisher of what Wikipedia policy considers original thought. Wide usage among heavily political outlets doesn't stop this from being a neologism, nor does the fact that it was fabricated in the 80's. HKTTalk 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bwithh's links in the comments below go to notability, well established in my view. Neologisms are frowned upon because they are seldom notable. Reporting on something is certainly different than promoting it or from publishing it as original thought. This thought is quite well-established outside Wikipedia. As such, it is worthy of a neutral article. My take is that you are misinterpreting and misapplying policy. Derex 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly clear, without the word "(phrase)" in the title, it would be unacceptable. An article about the use of the phrase by others is fine and constructive. An article where Wikipedia itself uses the phrase in an ordinary context would violate NPOV. Derex 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I do not vote to delete because I consider the term too offensive for Wikipedia or something like that - but the content simply should be placed under more encyclopedic titles. -- Heptor talk 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely unclear what, if anything, "certain delete" means, particularly in light of Heptor's followup comments which suggests "Merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete". Homey 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon confusion. While some of the content may be salvaged, the article is generally a soapbox. The salvageble parts should be put in other articles by the way of normal editing, but I do not want to vote merge to imply that all of the contents are salvageble. -- Heptor talk 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the info could be usefull much of it based on sources which are not relaible enough according to WP:RS and indeed many of the arguments and counter arguments do not hold water. The article has become a usenet news group in which both side debate the issue. The propsal above to "Create claims of racial segregation in Israel or some similarly-named article, and merge articles like Israeli apartheid, apartheid wall, et al., into it. " seems a solution. Zeq 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, Humus did provide a better reason. But the thing is, I think it would be a POV fork if it didn't have the ("phrase") in the title. The way it is now I think is fine. —Khoikhoi 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this interesting. You vote to keep, making it marginally more likely that the article will remain, but you base that on the word "phrase" being in the title. Please note that if it does remain, the person who created the article says he will move the title to eliminate the word "phrase." At the same time, I, who think the article should be deleted, put "phrase" back in the title on the theory that if the article does remain, having "phrase" in the title made it less POV. It's all sort of ironic and confused. 6SJ7 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Comment

I've moved the above comments from the voting page to the talk page, which is where extended discussions belong. Pecher Talk 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little research and comment on Google searches

As some others have said during the course of this discussion (either on the article's talk page or here, or both) there is too much reliance on Google searches to "prove" the notability of a term. Google hits may be indicative of something, but I am not sure what, and the other question is, where do you draw the line? How many Google hits are "meaningful"? Just as a little experiment, I decided to plug various terms followed by "apartheid" into Google and see what happens. All of the phrases I put in were in quotation marks, for example "israeli apartheid," "islamic apartheid," etc. (I think the absence of quotation marks is what results in statements on the main AfD page that a certain search revealed millions of hits.)

Please be assured that by "testing" any particular term I did not mean a slur against that group, religion, or whatever. I just typed what popped into my head. So don't anybody be offended. It's just a little experiment.

Here are the results, which are grouped together in what seems like some logical order and in numerical order within the groups:

  • "israeli apartheid" 247,000
  • "american apartheid" 84,700 (note, "u.s. apartheid" got 2,250)
  • "arab apartheid" 334
  • "palestinian apartheid" 270
  • "indian apartheid" 117
  • "serbian apartheid" 37
  • "chinese apartheid" 23
  • "russian apartheid" 5
  • "bosnian apartheid" 1
  • "jewish apartheid" 2,010
  • "islamic apartheid" 735 (note, "muslim apartheid" got 458)
  • "christian apartheid" 24

And here is one I was surprised by because I thought I was making it up, but obviously I wasn't:

  • "sexual apartheid" 17,100 (apparently most refer to bias based on sexual orientation)

Now, what does all of this prove? I am not suggesting it proves anything, other than that you can find just about anything on the Web. So, where do you draw the line? "American apartheid" sure does get a lot of hits, so why isn't there a Wikipedia article about it? (At least, I did not find one.) I am not suggesting that there should be such an article, but does that mean that there is some "magic number" between 247,000 and 84,700? Or, does it mean that 247,000 hits, by themselves, do not justify a separate article? (Somewhere a lightbulb turns on of its own volition.)

Maybe Wikipedia should not aspire to be a reflection of the informational chaos of the Web, but rather an oasis from it. (Hey, that was pretty good, can I copyright that? Not if I post it here, I guess. Oh well.) 6SJ7 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Israeli apartheid is around 3x more than American apartheid. Also, note that people use Google Test in addition to the Scholarly Article-test and notable person test. Desmond Tutu, presumably a first hand experiencer of apartheid has used the phrase. I think he would konw about apartheid. Copysan 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No argument that Tutu knows about apartheid, but (with all due respect) what does he really know about Israel? Elizmr 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 6SJ7: see Global Apartheid, Sexual Apartheid and other Apartheids. Homey 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I find the author's introductory paragraphs interesting and correct, and his conclusion laughable. What he is saying is, the use of this phrase is intellectually lazy except when he thinks it is applicable. And then, by denigrating the use of the phrase for any purpose other than what he wants to use it for, his use of it as an epithet becomes that much more powerful. I think a similar attitude went into the creation of the article we are talking about on this page. Fortunately, some people can see through things like that. 6SJ7 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Dirty Jew"+ produces 57,700. Desperately need an article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we should have an article on: "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" . After all much like Homey took a web apge from "globalexchange.com" one can use this as a source : http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20829_Palestinian_Death_Cult_Lynchings&only .

after all the argument of google hits is a two edge sword - this search give 720,000 (6 times more than "Israeli aparthide":

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Palestinian+%22Death+Cult%22+OR+Lynchings+OR+Lynching&btnG=Search

For now, I will not be dragged down to this level. Zeq 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your search - "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" - did not match any documents.". No Google hits at all. Clearly not notable. // Liftarn
Google hits is obviously not a proof for anything, since it only directs to sources, some of which are reliables, others no. These are the real things to base themselves on. For the expression "Israeli apartheid", a simple search leads to find it being used:

I also noted that we already have articles for global apartheid, gender apartheid and sexual apartheid. // Liftarn

Which for some reasons have all of a sudden all be listed for deletion... Tazmaniacs 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_29&oldid=55820451"