Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 26

< March 25	March 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete A7. --ais523 10:27, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

Lyndsey lawhorn

Not notable WP:BIO Helmsb 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I Come (song)

Crystal-ballism - No confirmation that this will be a single. Suggest redirect to album page until confirmed with source. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No confirmation has been given that this song will ever be release, this is purely specualtion Guylikeu 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballism, at least until there is actually something to say about this song. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guylikeu. Scienter 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to relevant album until sources appear. Ab e g92contribs 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal-ballism. I'm gazing into my crystal ball and seeing that this article's future is hazy. Realkyhick 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. Morenooso 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Citation can be found. Article says "confirmed" - if no reference can be cited, then it's crystal-ball stuff. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--cj | talk 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All That I Got (The Make Up Song) (Fergie single)

Crystal-ballism - No confirmation or source that will will be a single. Also titled incorrectly per naming convenions ("single" instead of "song"). Suggest redirect to album page. - eo 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct until confirmed. Acalamari 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No confirmation has been given that this song will ever be release, this is purely speculation Guylikeu 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual songs should not have their own pages unless they are particularly notable. This song does not appear to be particularly notable. As a result any information about the song should be included on the artist's page. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information here suggests that this song has anything special about it that makes it require an article separate from the album article -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guylikeu. Scienter 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the relevant album until sources appear. Ab e g92contribs 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per above. Although I am down with the Fergalicious one, this one is not confirmed yet. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, or just delete totally, per nom. Realkyhick 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Sa

Singer whose claim to fame is performing at anime conventions. However, she's signed to a non-notable label, the article reads like a profile and not an encyclopedia article, and outside the four albums, two of which Amazon has not heard of (one of the albums isn't out yet), the article doesn't assert any kind of notability. It's here due to the discography, since that probably counts as such an assertion. Core desat 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and reformat. Hopeless Romantic is out, you can order it directly from the record label, like you can order the two anime albums too. Something not being in Amazon is not valid reason to believe some album doesn't exist. Monni 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual or her has been discussed or interviewed on several independent websites; I think she meets WP:N. I would argue that her label's lack or notability isn't relevant in the discussion of whether her article should stay. The article is pretty rough, but I took the liberty of dropping some of the most inappropriate material, etc. Scienter 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scienter. Acalamari 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indepent albums aren't enough for notability. Where are these independent websites, and do those establish notability? --Wirbelwind (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Wirbelwind Sorry for the delay, I forgot to go get those websites. Now I should be clear that I don't know this woman or her work and I think the case for notability is a close one, but here's what I've found: Interview of Kristine Sa on AsiaFinest.com Interview of Kristine Sa on Vietscape.com Interview of Kristine Sa on MillionarePlayboy.com

Whether or not these establish notability is debatable of course but its more than some profiled on Wikipedia. Scienter 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the non-triviality of those sources into question, especially seeing as the first interview appears to have been conducted in an instant messaging program. None of them seem to establish notability. --Core desat 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply@Core desat Respectfully, I would ask you examine the sources I've listed again and see if you still feel that way. I would genuinely appreciate your comments.

[1] To me, this information establishes that if definitely not famous, this website is not trivial. Could you please elaborate as to how the manner in which the interview was conducted establishes or removes credibility? I hadn't considered that point before.

[2] This website has, or at least claims to have, had over 6,000,000 visits. This leads me to believe the source is not trivial (although admittedly not famous).

[3] This website has had their authors' content discussed in/on AOL, CNET, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer. Admittedly, this one is razor thin as the articles by the authors do not credit the website in question to which they all collectively contribute.

Your comment that the websites do not establish the notability of their content by their anonymity is well taken, but my feeling is that these sites are sufficiently non-trivial that their coverage of the subject of the article establishes her notability. As I've stated before, I think this is a close one.

Thanks, Scienter 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to the interviews and not the websites themselves, though all three of the websites are non-notable (they wouldn't meet WP:WEB, but that's an issue for another time). I would never consider an interview conducted in an instant messenger a reliable source. The second and third interviews are better, but they still don't establish anything other than that she's a singer signed to a non-notable record label. --Core desat 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source of the first interview is not instant messenger, its the website that posted the interview, with the mode of the interviewing taking place over some internet chat program. I'm not sure I agree with you on your comment re: WP:WEB, but I will whole-heartedly agree that this is not the place to discuss it. Isn't the point of this AfD discussion to determine whether she herself is notable, irregardless of her music label? My impression of the article is that it is about Kristine Sa, not about her record label. My opinion of the websites are that they are non-trivial sources of information that establish her notability. Thanks for the responses & good points. Cheers, Scienter 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't adequately meet WP:Music yet. Could so in the future, in which case by all means re-create, but we cannot crystal ball on the matter. A1octopus 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus R. Schleicher

Not Notable as per WP:BIO, Google only returned a page with his company on it. Latulla 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a resume. StuartDouglas 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scienter 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomianator. Acalamari 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the edit summary when the page was created says "added Schleichers resume". Leebo ^T/C 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per page history. Wow, how often can you say that? Ab e g92contribs 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or maybve even speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7? Yes, the page history is hilarious, "(added Schleichers resume)". Sounds like User:Yosu123 may have been requested to do so by his/her boss. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I can hear it now: "Miss Fisbee, would you please post my resume on Wikipedia? Thank you!" (Intercom buzzes) "Uh, Mr. Schleicher, what's a Wikipedia?" Realkyhick 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, everyone... it's an unusual edit summary from someone who is clearly new, but seeing as they are invited to join the discussion, I'm not sure it's necessary to make light of it. Leebo ^T/C 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. 70.72.171.181 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Morenooso 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMAT

This is a screaming conflict of interest. The article creator's username is similar to the person mentioned in the text, which is basically an advertisement for her venture. I'm listing it here because she removed the prod notice. YechielMan 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mis-spelled, unreferenced, blatant original; research, conflict of interest, and half a dozen other things a Wikipedia article should not be. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI, unreferenced and not notable StuartDouglas 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Scienter 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: fails WP:ATT, WP:COI, WP:N and almost certainly WP:HOAX. There are zero relevant hits on Google [4]. Cable for that local zip code shows no such channel. [5] What is a "building channel" anyway? RGTraynor 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least give us some website. Ab e g92contribs 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied if requested. WjBscribe 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Warren

TV producer. Most likely autobiography. No sign of significant, reliable third-party coverage and seems to fail WP:BIO Pascal.Tesson 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Goldfish2007 (the origional author whose first edit summary was "Set up profile"). MECU≈talk 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NN and unreferenced or, if this is a genuine error and this is suppsoed to be a userpage, Move to User:Goldfish2007 StuartDouglas 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also amenable to the alternative Move suggestion by Mecu. Scienter 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace until we can get some sources. Ab e g92contribs 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. The Move sounds acceptable also, if we assume in good faith that they thought they were making a user page. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with move option, though my good-faith assumption isn't quite as strong. Realkyhick 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Concur with StuartDouglas. Morenooso 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkipperGuide

Two mentions does not qualify as multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and the rest of the "references" are to primary sources/forum posts. Wickethewok 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scienter 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ooh! But it's a wiki! No non-trivial third party sources. Ab e g92contribs 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ooh! But it's a wiki well known by German sailors! I can think of a few other things well known to German sailors (if yo know what I mean, wink-wink) that don't belong here, either. Non-notable. Realkyhick 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Webster

Christian trumpeter. Authorship by user:Twwebster suggests a strong WP:COI. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable MECU≈talk 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well know in the independent Christian music community. #1 artist on IndieHeaven. Helmsb 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't really seem notable, with few ghits and what appears to be a self-produced cd with no professional reviews. He is however 'most visited' artist on indieheaven, for whatever that's worth. StuartDouglas 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not encyclopaedicSandy100YP 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and being #1 amongst a collection of other NN artists doesn't really cut it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), and it appears to violates WP:COI as per nom. --Roswell native 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seraphim Whipp 11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom asked if he was notable, rather than making an argument that he wasn't. So saying "per nom" seems a bit...wide of the mark, somehow. Xtifr _tälk 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EliminatorJR, who seems to be the first to have articulated the problem properly and succinctly. No reliable third-party sources at all. The apparent conflict of interest (and autobiographical tone) is the icing on the cake. Xtifr _tälk 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frigid Warrior

Low budget film still in production. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & none of the people wikilinked are notable, except the music guy who may not be actually involved with this and they are just using his music. 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Save True...None of these people are wikilinked notable yet, and for the Music, Micheal Hoenig, they are only using his music which makes him tied into The Movie. It is simply a Wikiarticle In Progress 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No entries for IMDB or AMG; a g-search for the distributor ("Quasi-American Super Squad") brings up 0 hits; a search for the title w/"film" give no relevant hits. SkierRMH 07:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scienter 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable plus crystal-ball. Realkyhick 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article even asserts why it's not notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finda

It is not apparent that this page serves any more than a spot through which an advertising directory could receive more traffic. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question can some admin explain to me the history of this article? I got a notification from a bot about this AfD and when I look at the history for Finda it looks as though I created the article with the edit summary "db web"! I'm not that crazy... Thanks in advance for clearing up that mystery. Pascal.Tesson 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I know the answer - the creator account has since been deleted so is no longer showing up. Iridescenti 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, WP:N Orderinchaos78 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per WP:WEB, and reasons brought forward in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finda, as it stands finda is a valid competitor to Trade Me, it is well known, but the name isn't as sticky as Trade Me, also note, reference #1, could technically be called bias due to same parent company, and hence cannot be considered independant for WP:WEB Criteria #1, however the remaining 3 references, are from my knowledge independant. --NigelJ ^talk 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Suddenly, I find myself realising why it's nominated, I did some thinking about this matter on the bus today, and worked out why it should be deleted, the site is not particularly notable, there are been little/no press coverage (even by parent company APN's publications), the company has a small market share, (but still is Trade Me's largest competitor). Not to mention, that one source is bias, and another no longer exists. The other two are from places I've never heard of. My solution is complete deletion for not been notable, or merged into APN News & Media. --NigelJ ^talk 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like multiple reliable sources have been provided. Ab e g92contribs 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it needs editing, particularly concerning capitalization. Realkyhick 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP.--Bryson 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Block

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711

Keep. Executive producer (high and important position) for a number of highly notable productions. Including a Richard Jeni movie [6] and the Screen Savers. Lack of referencing in the article does concern me, but it is not worded in any controversial or negative way, so I think we can allow this to stay for a while. IMDB profile here (though reliability of that source is slightly dubious). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources which meet verification issues are found. I attempted to source the article myself, however due to the fact that this name appears common enough to have conflicted results (unless he is, in fact, a Doctor, Author, AND Producer) I was unable to find anything. Wikipedia policy is clear that sources are necessary for an article, however, and at present I can't find any which are reliable. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was just curious, so I ran his name through IMDB. Turns out he has quite a few notable credits. I aded the link to the article. Realkyhick 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:LIVING.--Bryson 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Johnson (cartoonist)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. There is only one source for his one TV appearance, a simple announcement[7]. Many of the 29 Google hits for "Shane Johnson" "comfort zone" (one of his comics)[8] are not about him and his comic. Only one hit for Shane Johnson and Fratstic (another comic of his).[9] Seems to be a student cartoonist who has not yet established any name in the professional cartooning world. Fram 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete won "Best College Cartoonist Award" in 2004 by a reputable company, but I still don't see this notable enough MECU≈talk 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable at present StuartDouglas 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lot's of potential, but he's not quite there yet. Realkyhick 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was published every weekday for 5 years with a circulation of 16,000. That's good enough for me. - Richard Cavell 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even independent publishing can reach 16,000 and that doesn't make other things notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Paloma Walker 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giubbe Rosse

The actual importance of this café is not supported by sources, while in the latter part the article looks and feels like spam for their publishing activity. The unique contributor to the article, Contributions/Poetry62 is also a contributor (often the main or unique one) to several articles about authors published by Giubbe Rosse: Menotti Lerro, qualified as "the youngest author of the Giubbe Rosse's collection" (which I am going to propose for speedy deletion after this debate), Silvano Zoi (similar to the previous one), Vittorio Vettori and several other ones of dubious notability. Goochelaar 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

Dear friend, my idea of project was to improuve all the authours as much as possible. I love my town: Florence, I love Giubbe Rosse, and I love poets.

The reason because I improuved more one article than others is because Lerro has many pages on internet talking of him and also because I use to read his poetry, considering him a young and clever author and if Giorgio Bàrberi Squarotti (the main italian critic) and Roberto Carifi affirm it, I think we can trust them...

Well, about the notability of Giubbe Rosse... If you read the page about Eugenio Montale you will find also the word Giubbe Rosse inside, claiming the important and historical role it played in Italy and for our literature. Moreover in the actual 'collana Giubbe Rosse' is published the book of Mario Luzi (the most important italian writer we had in the last 50 years), and if Luzi published his last book here before to die, I think there is probably a reason...

My Idea was - when I had time - to improuve as much as possible - all the Giubbe Rosse's authors and some one I think could also help to improuve it, as happen for many stubs...

In conclusion, I just want invite you, before to affirm about the "dubious notability of Vittorio Vettori", to do some more search about this author because his notability is impossible to hide.

The same we can still say about Manlio Sgalambro and others.

Best regards

Poetry 62— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry62 (talk • contribs)

Keep per Poetry 62's arguments. This third party English language source [10] describes the following sentence: "In 1865, Florence was chosen to be the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, and remained capital until 1871. In later years and until the beginning of the twentieth century, Florence was famous for its literary happenings, that produced works such as Pinocchio and which brought writers such as Papini, Palazzeschi, Pratolini to the fore, who were all members of the historical Literary Caffè "Giubbe Rosse"." The following Google-tranlated Italian souce writes about its notable history. [11]. This appears like a notable Florence cafe, especially to the literary world. --Oakshade 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs reworked. Notability seems established but at the moment it's not terribly useful as an article, rather than as a notable topic. StuartDouglas 12:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there could be sources for this; seems to be verifiable. Ab e g92contribs 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources are weak, needs work. But I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Realkyhick 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satellites LV

Conflict of interest and questionable notability. The creator and major editor of this article (apart from a couple of IP editors) is Edgarszilde who is a member of the band. Band doesn't have an website, only a MySpace (99 friends, 1191 profile views), their MySpace lists this article as their website. Google gets 161 hits, a lot of which relate to the other members' projects or are to buy/download their music. Only claims of notability are radio airplay and music video screenings in Latvia; winning the Grand Prix of the biggest rock music festival in the Baltic States "Liepajas Dzintars" (whatever that means); and winning two prestigious Latvian Music Awards in 2003 (Best instrumental album of the Year and the best debut award) ^{misread, award was for side project album}. But still... it's so conflict of interest! If this article goes, can someone delete the album articles and all the images too. kollision 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: First of all, it seems that the conflict of interest is based on the lack of knowledge on music scene in the Baltic States. It is important for me to educate the reader that the population of Latvia is less then 4 million. Only 60% of whom are Latvian origin. This concludes that bands popularity and importance in this country can not be based on millions of webpage hits. This alternative band self releases its recordings, therefore does not depend on any music companies and is respected only by smaller group of people. Of course "whatever that means" music festival, as you call it, in readers home town, assuming it is Texas or even NY, is without any significance, but lets not forget that www is created for everyone in the world and not just for Canada or the US. This band is significant in its region and culture, therefore it is also important that anybody in the world can access this information. Thank you. Is Wikipedia MTV, FOX and Hollywood representative, or informative and educational internet portal? What is critical here? To write about popular but ordinary pop stars who have their own webpages (payed by companies) and millions of google hits, or educate people about more significant and sapid cultural activities of the world?

Note that the above comment is made up of contributions by an anonymous user and Edgarszilde. Also note that my above "whatever that means" comment was at the winning the Grand Prix bit, as in 'how can you win the grand prize of a music festival'. But nevermind. Nothing against your band, but this is Wikipedia, therefore the band must be notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)) and this article should not be used for self-promotion or advertising (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), plus you could do with some Wikipedia:Attribution. If this article gets pass this AfD, I will personally help to clean it up. And remember to sign comments with four tildes (~~~~) - kollision 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability:

As I read through the notability list, Satellites LV has had several charted hits, shows abroad, full albums, singles, newspaper and other printed media articles and interviews. I must add that Satellites LV includes in itself many musical projects who have released records in Russia and Japan. Satellites LV is more considred a group of active (10 years) and mutually conected musicians rather than just an ordinary band. It has won awards and has received positive reviews from critics. Satellites LV is notable in its region. Most of the information online is in Latvian, therefore unavailable to you. About self promotion: This article does not advertise any websites or new albums, singles, posters, t-shirts, or any other merchandise. It has been added clearly only for information purposes.

Attribution:

Satellites LV with their side project Kuba - http://cdbaby.com/cd/kuba http://www.post-rock.lv/lat.htm#sat http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/article.php?id=479775 http://www.tvnet.lv/izklaide/music/Video/article.php?id=5874 http://www.doremi.lv/index.php?genre=7&artist=387&album=0&show_album=1

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly self-released records and winning an award whose notability is itself in doubt, is just not notable - as the original editor himself says they are "respected only by smaller group of people". StuartDouglas 12:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Actually, this turns up a couple hundred unique hits on the Latvian Google [12], which is a pretty high total for a national Google serving a country about two thirds the population of Massachusetts. I'm willing to wait on a more complete article. RGTraynor 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have/ could have multiple reliable sources. Ab e g92contribs 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand and improve. Acalamari 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it does need some work. Realkyhick 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what happens now? Am I allowed to delete this and improve the site? What are the steps? Edgars

You should feel free to improve the article at any time; in most cases doing so materially improves the chances of an article's survival. With an AfD a week old, running with a clear consensus to Keep, the odds the article will be deleted are now enormously slender. Deleting the AfD notice and formally closing this debate will be done by the closing admin. RGTraynor 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscarora Yacht Club

No evidence of notability, page is almost empty, not convinced it is neutral. Shame, it is a completely inoffensive article, but for the reasons mentioned I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Robinson weijman 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any assertion of notability. Delete unless notability can be asserted and attributed before the closure of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _contribs 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scienter 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StuartDouglas 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as your every day MySpace musician—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rhoads

In my opinion, doesn't assert sufficient notability. Lack of references and sources, as well. Daniel Bryant 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

KeepI saw him perform with Wynton Marsalis and Dave Samuels both grammy winners. So i think there is sufficient notability. just lackings in references and sources in my oppinion 74.195.240.49 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ah, but there's the rub, no? An article that is "just" lack in references and sources is a significant issue when there's no evidence that such references and sources (acceptable per WP:ATT) exist and can be retrieved. Mwelch 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this topic is not sufficiently well-known. Mr. Berry 07:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author I see it as valuable information for those seeking it. The topic is quite well-known to those in the industry. Chazlewkowski 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you provide reasons for keeping the article that comply with Wikipedia policy? While everyone can understand that you subjectively feel the article is a keeper because you wrote it, we need objective discussion as to why the article's subject is notable as well as any factual statements being attributable. Thanks, Scienter 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 84.195.238.41 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This guy fails WP:MUSIC with flying colors; he doesn't remotely come close to fulfilling any of the criteria. He's just a session musician, of which there are tens of thousands. NB - all the Keep votes above, so far, are single-purpose accounts. Ravenswing 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author asserts some notability, but there is no source in the article to back this claim up, nor have links been added in nearly a week since this AfD went up. Doesn't seem currently t pass WP:MUSIC StuartDouglas 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Mwelch 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, too many Myspace sources. Realkyhick 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: well I already did my :*STRONG KEEP: However as the author it appears that the general vibe is to have this article deleted. No hard feelings here, I understand why it would be questionable. I personally feel as if it is notable enough to be kept. This is based on his reputation, many endorsers and list of artists he has recorded or performed with. However I fully understand how those who arnt familiar would vote for Delete based on the quality of the article that I made. Best of luck, hopefully the article stays but if not perhaps someone else will create a better one in the future. Chazlewkowski 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, the only reference is a list of artists that use said hardware. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of which being Chris Rhoads Chazlewkowski 08:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Joke nomination.--Hús ö nd 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan

Non notable meme, possibly fun-craft. Shipsnote 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and (if necessary) revise. Jackie Chan, like it or not, is very much in the mainstream. Are you sure you're nominating the correct article? --- Tito Pao 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhair S. Dekmezian

Failed candidate for the Texas state seat. Since he did not win, he is not notable. WhisperToMe 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he scored 1,018 votes? I could get 1,018 votes just by putting my name on the ballot paper. - Richard Cavell 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - he scored more votes than all previous libertarian candidates in that district, something that should be noted in the wiki I suppose. He also gained much more media coverage than previous libertarian candidates, actually taking part in the debates with the Democratic and Republican candidates. He is a minor politician, yes, but one none the less. After all, how many races has Lyndon Larouche won? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evan7257 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete Based on a google search, one can find NO references that are not one of the following: candidates directory and voter guides (WP:NOT a directory); or material created by the candidate or the party the candidate ran for (not reliable sources per WP:RS). As there is a complete lack of reliable source, an encyclopedic article about this person cannot be created. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see his Rice University biography at Here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is other coverage as well Here Evan7257 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Jim Henley had more coverage, and his article was deleted. WhisperToMe 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What goes on in other articles doesn't matter. We have to decide based on the merits of the sources in this article. And since that article is long gone, I can't read it to compare it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, I can access it for you - I am an admin. Also, deletion and addition of articles can establish precedent. WhisperToMe 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It was? That doesn't seem right. Well, if that is the precedent ... Then again, it is common for a Democratic candidate to run and lose while still gaining coverage. Dekmezian was unique in that he gained so much media attention despite being a third party candidate. Evan7257 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he hasnt really done anythin. bein at uni is not notable an the article looks like self promo. look at whos started it an how many theyve done. --Zedco 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he ran in an election, he only scored just over 2% of votes, and does not seem to have done much since. If he becomes more notable, then I'd reconsider. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. What, if I ran as a state rep on the Satanist Party platform, I'd be notable solely on the strength that I had outpolled all previous Satanist Party candidates? Oh boy. RGTraynor 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - I know the subject of the article personally so my opinion shouldn't count as a vote, but I think that the rationales for deletion given here don't quite measure up. The Libertarian Party is a major political party (3rd after the blue and red teams, not the satanists) and there does seem to be a consensus on Wikipedia for including candidates, so to delete them simply for losing doesn't seem very logical to me given that notability doesn't come and go. Unless I am very much mistaken this was not created by the candidate himself and even if it was that is not an argument based on the merits of the article, given that all the info is cited. Savidan 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Few people would consider the Libertarians a "major" anything, and they certainly don't get the third most votes in the land; I'd say the Greens have that locked in now. There are specific criteria for politicians in WP:BIO, which this subject does not meet. RGTraynor 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply at issue here is not whether or not the Libertarian Party is an important political party. At issue is whether or not there is enough reliable source material about which an encyclopedia articla can be written, in-so-far as that source material is written itself by people unrelated to the subject, and in-so-far as the amount of material contained therin is enough to make anything more than a stub of an article. There does not appear to be in existance said source material about this person. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the US, neither the Libertarians or the Greens have counted as major. Anyone from one of them who wins a seat will of course be notable, and in my opinion anyone who loses but does about as well as the other two. (maybe over 1/3 the vote), or , of course, who is notable otherwise. DGG

- reply What is notable about Dekmezian, however, is that even though he only received 2 percent of the vote, he was recognized and referred to in local media as a major candidate. Evan7257 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder Please remember that determining if you get a Wikipedia article isn't determined by how many votes you get in an election, or if you win an election. Its whether you are the subject of multiple media reports. Losers can still can get press coverage. He was interesting enough that there are at least two good articles on him. You have to slog through his 2,000 GHits under his various name combinations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Two stories over the same event do not count as "multiple" non-trivial citations. There is not enough contained in these citations to build an article around. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the notability of the event. DGG 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two is multiple, its not singular. Most of the article comes from the school article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Improv

Article about improv group. No references, no claim to notability, reads like an ad for Monday nights at the George and Dragon Restaurant. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V, and, of course, WP:CHEESE. completely non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I think Niffweed17 listed all of the possible policy arguments in favor for deletion already. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom is right, it sounds like a promo ad. --Dennisthe2 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous voters. Google seems to be revealing nothing notable (except wikipedia mirrors). --Ybbor ^T 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ybbor, there is a lack of reliable source material from which an encyclopedia article can be written. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Niffweed17 and WP:ADVERT.--Paloma Walker 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, and per Niffweed17. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry T. Pringle

Recreation of page deleted on March 4. Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, Harry T. Pringle was deleted some two weeks ago. However, it has six secondary links plus the obituary. Is he not notable? If not, then just kindly delete it again. Otherwise, I vote Keep.

````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs)

Delete. Working with WP:BIO, the nom is right - and suffice it to say, while you have my condolences, the late Mr. Pringle does not satisfy that standard. This may qualify under a G4 as recreated. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete. Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Article was deleted on March 4, and has now been recreated. I put the recreation up for speedy under CSD G4, but the article author is challenging. The author of the article asserts the subject's notability by the fact that the author has listed seven links under the "References" section. Those links are:

1) The subject's obituary. Not an independent soucre of information about the subject and also no indication of notability since literally anyone can have an obituary run about their friend or loved one.

2) Web site of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Assocation. Subject was apparently a member of this organization. Not an independent source of information about the subject, though it hardly matters because the web site doesn't mention one word about the subject anyway.

3) Web site of the Independent Payroll Providers Association. Subject was apparently a member of this organization. Not an independent source of information about the subject, though it hardly matters because the web site doesn't mention one word about the subject anyway.

4) Web site of SEARCH Homless Project. Subject was a Director in this organization. Not an independent source of information about the subject. Doesn't provide any more information about the subject, anyway, beyond that he was a director and with the Pringle Resources company.

5) A simple business directory listing of the subject's company. So OK, that might be a decent confirmation that he did indeed have a two-perosn company called Pringle Resources, with annual sales all of $200,000. Not exactly notable, though. Reference is trivial.

6) A campaign donation list that tells us he once donated to the Republican National Committee. Also a bit less than notable. Reference is trivial.

7) Web site of Honor Your Father prostate cancer research campaign Subject was apparently a sponsor of this campaign. Not an independent secondary source of information about the subject, but hardly matters since it provides no information about him beyond the fact that he was a sponsor. Not notable.

As I mention, this article has already been deleted once. And I fail to see how any of these links establish WP:BIO notability even in the slightest. Mwelch 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Was the page deleted through the normal channels, Mwelch? If yes, go ahead and hang a {{db-repost}} tag on the page. If it was originally a speedy, let it go through the AfD process. --Dennisthe2 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not certain. Good point, though, in that it may have been, so indeed no harm in going through the process. I've adjusted my vote accordingly.Mwelch 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mwelch. None of the sources stand up to scrutiny so the article fails WP:N. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mwelch. Sounds like he was a great guy who died too early, but sources don't support WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there appears, from the work of Mwelch, that there is a lack of non-trivial sources from which information can be added to this article to make it encyclopedic. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) special. The editor sometimes makes good contributions but has a shaky grasp of notability standards, and apparently wishes to force us to AFD everything, which is tedious. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N.--Paloma Walker 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mwelch. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable, WP:NOT a memorial. NawlinWiki 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--cj | talk 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos

Article on a MMORPG deleted for a lack of notability for internet materials via a low participation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos. That deletion was initially endorsed by the first deletion review, in which participation was equally thin. At a second deletion review, the consensus was to relist so the Washington Post article that wasn't discussed in the first AFD can be evaluated. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete per the DRV. It's a single story, and given it does have coverage, I don't really want to say delete, but it's only one - and we need a call (and a precedent) for the multiple sources. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's more about the creators of the game and their work on it than the game itself, so unfortunately this game still doesn't have non-trivial coverage to meet WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from needing multiple sources, the KoC isn't even the subject of the Post article, its more about MMORPGs in general and mentions KoC in a couple sentences. Wickethewok 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has 40,000 players. Its been around a long time. With 40,000 players, its obviously not tiny. They even award prizes to the winners.--Padawan3000 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not notability, my friend. Many people look at the toilet paper after they wipe their butt, but that's not notable. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, references lead to the game's readme. And 40,000 players is not grounds for notability, since MMORPGs with millions have struggled to stay after an AfD. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One outdated human interest story in the local paper isn't enough to overturn an AFD even when your local paper is the Washington Post. There has been no follow-up in the 2+ years since that article was printed. Google News turns up a number of hits on this phrase but zero relevant to this subject. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for just general jive turkey-ness. Popularity isn't notability, which is, what I feel, is the only thing that could ever save this article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article keeps getting deleted or vandalized before legitimate sources of information have a chance to fix the article and assert the site's notability. It's a work in progress, and isn't that what Wikipedia's all about? 65.29.77.240 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that was me, sorry - fury 06:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what reliable, independent sources would that be, pray tell? The only reliable source cited so far is a Washington Post article that makes a mere mention of the subject, and doesn't go in-depth into it, nowhere near enough to meet WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely the point I was trying to make in my original comment, I don't know, because the Wikipedia police keep shooting it down before anybody gets a chance to contribute. fury 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right here is a chance for you to show some sources, and we're giving you five days to do so. There's nobody stopping you from show the sources we're asking for. And yet you still haven't shown any. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When this article was last up, yes it was a shitfight, but it will be under control now. Tytrox 07:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, and no potential to rise above that as there are no reliable secondary sources about this game (as opposed to WP's slow-news-day filler story about its creators) with which to reference a proper article. KoC has its own website; we don't need to host a poor duplicate which serves no purpose beyond advertising. —Cryptic 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- World Of Warcraft has it's own Wiki (WoWWiki), but yet it has it's own article. Tytrox 07:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - World of Warcraft has more secondary sources than you can shake a stick at, and yet Kings of Chaos has jack. —Cryptic 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're going to be knocked out of the game (pun intended), then where can we report articles of equal status that are still active to propose for deletion too? Tytrox 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as Cryptic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinel records

Delete Notability (or lack thereof) issues Avi 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP have any notable bands signed up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP at this time. janejellyroll 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Leebo ^T/C 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they have a successful band, album or single to their credit. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism

Delete: Biased and not notable. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to colonialism? Or Weak keep (?) as it seems to be a commonly used phrase on the New Left? Dknow...--Urthogie 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism per Urthogie's rationale that it may be a common phrase in use, but the entry otherwise seems to tie content together without sourcing the connection to the central thesis, thus engaging in a form of original research through juxtaposition. Tewfik^Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism per Urthogie. Change to Delete. Seems like some prank - note that the article's creator and main contributor is the same editor who nominated it for deletion. Isarig 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: No, it's not a prank. The nominator/original author was a bit frustrated, partly my fault (unintentionally) being too harsh on his edits : ( --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colonialism. I'm not absolutely opposed to keeping, it would just need better sourcing. However, the fact that Colonialism apparently already has a section that addresses settler colonialism and has room to expand with sourced material, makes me opt for a redirect. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, will reconsider upon seeing some evidence that this expression is stable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isarig.Baka man 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has too many POV issues to present a balanced viewpoint. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep term is very widely used in pol science & history (explained in colonialism article) as the most damaging form of colonialism, obviously needs it's own article. also opinions on current content ('pov issues' etc.) are not relevant to afd, fix them or discuss on article talk page. ⇒ bsnowball 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much information not relating to the subject. Also very pov-ish, but as above noted, these are not deletion criteria. --Infrangible 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per bsnowball. Agree with Infrangible that POV and lack of sourcing are not reasons to delete. This article has potential but needs to be expanded and improved. --Richard 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment POV might not be a reason to delete, but the extreme pervasion of OR and the entry's generally low quality make redirecting to the main colonialism article and defaulting to its better written section an acceptable use of AfD. Tewfik^Talk 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I'd hate to admit, there is alot of sense in this article. It goes into detail of the "Anglosaxon" expansion across the world. This can be good to read up for a country's respective history (eg. in Australia, "Stolen Generation" is a popular case study if you study the settlement side of the First Fleet etc.). Tytrox 12:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge // Liftarn
Keep per comments above; also note that POV problems do not require deletion to resolve, just pushing the little edit button on the top of the page. Jerry 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve.Harrypotter 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bsnowball, the only issues at stake are content issues that can be resolved through the regular editing process. Yamaguchi先生 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Secret Shows

I was going to mark this as a speedy, but then I reconsidered and instead added a {{notability}} tag. The author removed the tag and rewrote the article so that it reads more like an advertisement, and left a note on the talk page telling people not to "vandalize" the article. While this could be real, it looks suspicious. JuJube 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third party references can be produced to establish the notability of it. The idea that "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is subjective in more ways than one, and isn't in line with any of our notability criteria. Leebo ^T/C 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying this is not an advertisement i just like the idea of secret shows and i think it should have a wiki. Secondly as some of this may be subjective, which can be changed, it is all from the MySpace Secret Shows page. Lastly why would u delete a perfectly good article just because it needs some touching up. After all the more articles the better and i assure you all of this has sources even the qoute: "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is from the official page. P.S. myspace secret shows IS real. o ya and sry for deleting the notice i was just mad u (or someone else deleted the page b4 it was even finished. Martini833 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability. Saying they're notable for bringing bands to small towns is more like an opinion that some facet of notability that is actually attributable/verifiable. Non-notable. janejellyroll 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's definately notable for more reasons. It has famous bands. Over 38 shows and has been running smoothly for more than a year. It is definately as notable as any event in the music scene and saying that it's not because they are "secret" is just like saying things that haven't come out yet and are not announced shouldnt be on wikipedia.. Martini833 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust because a band is notable doesn't mean that everything they participate in is notable. And yes . . . if something hasn't come out yet and is not announced and there is no information about notability, it should not be on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you can give me three logical reason why this is NOT notable instead of trying to counter everything I say then I will admit it is not notable and you can take over. And by the way if i dont think it's logical than sorry no way is this article being deleted without a "notable" (hahaha used ur word) reason. Anyway i worked so hard on it and it is my first full fledged aricle so could u find out the facts (or just read the article cus the facts are all there) youll see that this is no advertisement and it is all *(dare i say) notably correct. BTW this was really hard to do with the wikipedia code i wasnt familiar with so...... STOP ruining a perfectly good article. And again the more articles the better (as long as they have facts which you can cjeck out here www.myspace.com/secretshows.Martini833 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI realize it can be a bit difficult to get used to Wikipedia guidelines and I'm sorry if you feel as if people are giving you a hard time. However, WP:N provides some really good information about how to determine whether things are notable and it says "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." Can you find any sources, other than those affiliated with myspace.com, that identify this group of shows as notable? Nobody doubts that this is a real group of shows. However, the standard for Wikipedia is not truth, but attribution and notability. janejellyroll 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not taking my above comment angrily. But anyways other sources can be found. But i couldnt just do that right now. I'll do that in some time. But why would you want to delete it. Check the sources. And if you could find others that find it notable that would be nice. Thank you again for not taking this aggresively. Martini833 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key here is to show that reliable, third party sources have featured this group of shows in their publications. If no one has written about it, then it probably fails WP:N. About it being your first article, please know that we're not trying to make this personal; it's a matter of meeting the standards for inclusion. Leebo ^T/C 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MySpace or Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found, and the article is good. The article needs some re-writing, but nothing really more than that and getting some sources. And also, everyone, please make sure if you want to comment on this subject, to put comment in bold letters where you would normally put keep or delete. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete' No sources shown outside it self (WP:RS) Not verifiable outside of itself WP:V. Burden in on author to show with external sources how it is notable. If the author needs time to present sources please give him that and I will remove my vote as not enough time has really been given. However if he is arguing that in its current state it is somehow self-notable, then it must be deleted because it's not.--Dacium 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this was not notable then why would i look it up and realize no one had written it and be kind enough to do a well written (non advertising) esssay on it. And according to chizzy it's notable with 3rd parties and well written so its not my opinion. Martini833 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Waiting for sources do not delete until proven to be unnotable etc. Martini833 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment chizzy? Anyway... Chickyfuzz didn't really say that. What it means is if there are no third party sources, it should be merged into MySpace. Also, we don't "hold off" on the process of discussion for you to add more. If you do add more, it would be taken into consideration, but we're not going to wait. Leebo ^T/C 02:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say I have a life and I cant just stay on the computer protecting this article. Anyway if you google myspace secret shows you"ll find non-myspace sources about the shows. I have checked and to my surprise (not really) they were indeed there. Martini833 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. i hope you saw this< Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found,>Martini833 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Block quote[reply]

Comment Well, the discussion lasts for 5 days. Could you possibly add the references some time in the next 5 days? I have a life too, but 5 days is a long time. Leebo ^T/C 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound rude but, why don't you just google it and find them for yourself i dont have time I'm about to leave the computer but would like to know what is going on in the discussions page.Martini833 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Wikipedia:Verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Leebo ^T/C 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. From Wikipedia w/e "WHY DON'T YOU" you're the one that cares... and i think you know this by now MySpace Secret Shows is real and the article is fine. You just don't have anything else to do but delete things because it probably makes you feel good. How about u delete your ****ing profile and leave a good article (in this case myspace secret shows) alone. GAH you got me to tht level were im p***ed off. Thnk you

Reply Okay... I'll reiterate that a deletion discussion is not personal. I ask the same thing of all articles that get discussed. It's certainly not my intention to antagonize you. Leebo ^T/C 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not personal but ur this close to making it! anyway wy dont you delete an article like that article on georgian martial arts.Martini833 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leebo is actually trying to help you by letting you know what you can do (add sources) in the next five days to reduce the chances of this article being deleted. I know that it can feel a bit overwhelming to be in the middle of this right after creating your first article, but try to keep a cool head. As for the other article you mentioned . . . the fact that other articles with similiar faults exists doesn't give any article a free pass. We judge each article individually. You have the next five days to improve the article. I've seen situations before where people have changed their opinions on an article after amendments were made to it. If you feel this strongly, why not channel your energy into improvements rather than tussling with other editors here? janejellyroll 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's secret, then there's no way for us Muggles to find out about it, right? So it should fail WP:ATT, right? And anyway the whole article reads like an ad, right? YechielMan 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They are, as the name suggests, secret" Let's delete this and help them stay secret. Real secret. Croxley 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move important details into MySpace. ^Yes, secret it shall be. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention anything notable on the main Myspace page in a non-advertising way (in short, ^"ditto"). *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless totally rewritten - violates WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT and WP:WEB in its current state. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or condense into a sentence and merge into MySpace's main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty blatant violation of WP:SPAM and certainly fails WP:ATT. RGTraynor 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Janejellyroll and YechielMan. Acalamari 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first of all they are not secret. Did you read the article, they can be found out by doing the folowing... anyways wy does everyone think this is spam. I do not work at myspace or am affiliated with it in any way. I just wrote an article about it and you guys are wanting to delete it because you think im advertising (which i cant do for a job since im not at the legal working age for an advertisement agency. You guys are just haters (who didnt actually seem to read the article) who want to feel good about themselves by deleting perfectly good material. Martini833 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember to assume good faith. Everyone wants to improve the encyclopedia, so please avoid making accusations of ill intentions. Leebo ^T/C 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the numerous policy/guideline violations listed above. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the notability. Yes, MySpace is notable, and yes the bands are notable. But working on that basis we'd have hundreds of articles along the lines of "ClearChannel presents Radiohead US tour 2007" or whatever. It might be worth a sentence in the main MySpace article, but I doubt it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it can be rewritten to not sound like an ad. If one user's causing trouble, I don't see why usual anti-vandal channels can't take care of that problem. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Leebo and janejellyroll. Non-notable outside a passing mention in MySpace. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though "notability" isn't really the issue here...let's start with "verifiability" and then move on to notability. No independent sources at all, and "put this on your myspace page to prove it" doesn't count. Truly "secret" things don't have articles for a reason: they're secret, and therefore can't be verified. --UsaSatsui 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ If you havnt noticed they are not that secret. Before u comment read the actual article. and before you ask someone to check their facts wy dont u check the article first (cus the facts are all there)Martini833 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC) o ya and wy dont u just rewrite it if its such a big problem that it sounds much like an ad (which it isnt)Martini833 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. First off, your argument that it's not "secret" when "secret" is in the title isn't convincing. It also doesn't matter, there's plenty of articles on secret things that aren't really secret. The issue is, there's no independent press whatsoever on this. Supposed I put these words on my page, I found out about a show, and came back with "Oh, okay, these are real, keep them". That still wouldn't be enough, since to pass WP:ATT, you need independent, third-party sources. A newspaper article, a web post from a reliable site, a peer-reviewed journal, what have you. Something beyond a forum anyone can post to. The issue here is not whether it's true or not. The issue is whether it can be verified independently. As the article stands, it can't. --UsaSatsui 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Martini833's "keep" !vote is struck above as he has already said keep once in this discussion. Leebo ^T/C 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the image on the page appears to breach copyright. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Leebo you ~~really~~, ~~Really~~, ~~REALLY~~, REALLY need to get a life. Do you have any other activities in your life because to me you're on 24/7. Basically I've been on once a day at a specific time and you've been online (probably ticking people off) all day (and night long. So again GET A LIFE and get a job and MOVE OUT OF YOUR MOM'S BASEMENT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

This is your only warning, martini - cease with the personal attacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just block him, he's here to spam his silly show and disrupt other people's articles, not make an encyclopedia. JuJube 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do i have to say I am not an advertiser or a spammerMartini833 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You have engaged in disruptive behavior. [13] [14] Why should we believe that you're not here to spam? JuJube 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is the internet and I can't PROVE it but ill let u know im under the age of 14 and cant even get a job at Publix much lesss an ad company. anyway i do not spam i just made my first article on one of my interests so if u think my above comments were rude I'm sorry but feel free to reformat or rewrite or rephrase the article so it sounds like an encyclopedic entry. also dont delete it because it is well written and let me tell you ive seen much worse that hasnt been dleted example: Rancho Verde High School of course u wouldnt delete that because it is yours. and about the references feel free to add them yourself because the rest of the work was mine and it is ALL true and found on their webpage. anyway back to the advertisement/spam issue ive spoken to an admin about this to give me a way to straighten ths out... Martini833 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. im not a newbie this is just my first full fledge article ive done a lot of productive editing and the format is that of the Simpsons Comics and you are free to change it if u have a good reasonMartini833 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, both of you. This discussion is about the appropriateness of this article, not a place to discuss/defend Martini833's overall activities. Take it to your user talk pages, please. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN series of promotions of usually 3rd tier or worse entertainers. Where individual shows are notable they are covered elsewhere and MySpace has it's own article already. This is about promoting MySpace which should be covered at MySpace.Ga rr ie 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could someone please rewrite this to sound less like an ad. Martini833 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After minor rephrasing for this page not to look like an ad this page should be updated by taking off the deletion notice because I have found an article that confirms its notability: "MySpace.com announced today it will commemorate the first birthday of the community's most popular franchise, Secret Shows presented by Chili's, by launching an alliance with Best Buy. Under the deal, MySpace Secret Show artists will receive promotion in more than 550 Best Buy stores nationwide." -ClearStation. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on this or edit this or see the full article please do. Article: http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=7923196 o ya and http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_318.html Martini833 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The second of those two references isn't particularly useful, since it just says "there'll be a show in Japan" or something along those lins. That's not a non-trivial mention. The first one, on the other hand, sounds promising. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're both nothing more than press releases. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I'm not in great health this morning, so my critical faculties weren't quite on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first one is a press release the other is an article like you ppl asked for from a notable source so i REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY think the deletion should be (hahah) deletedMartini833 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, do you see those two large words at the top of the page? -ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martini, whether the notability is asserted or not (which I'm not sure it has been), the deletion discussion remains open for 5 days. You can't make it go away. Leebo ^T/C 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Press releases don't entirely convince me of the notability of "MySpace Secret Shows", since they're by definition written by the company. Can you find an article writing about them? JuJube 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes the first one is written about the us ones and is by clearchannel which is nOT affiliated with myspae secret shows the first one is not a press release it's an article BY clear channelMartini833 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Except at the bottom it says "SOURCE: MySpace.com", killing its neutrality. JuJube 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no the description of myspace is by myspace not the actual article Martini833 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If I write an article and say "Source: MySpace.com" at the end of the article, it means that the entire article is sourced from MySpace.com. Not just some bits of it. If I want to write an article citing MySpace's own description of itself, I'd write something like "MySpace describes itself as 'blablabla'." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Martin, I used to write press releases, and trust me, this is one. (a) It is posted to a discussion board, it is not a news article by an independent news agency. (b) there is no by-line or author other than "business wire" which is a wire service (as is Comtex who's logo appears in the corner. (c) it has the boiler plate "About MySpace" section at the end, common to all press releases. (d) it has contact information at the end for people at MySpace. These are all common elements of press releases, and not of news articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well wat more do you want to keep this article there seems to be more and more that you want evrerytime i add something.Martini833 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The burden of proof remains unchanged. Independent and non-trivial sources are required. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe put a one- or two-sentence mention of it in the MySpace article. This is not a vendetta against a new article writer, Martini, it is an effort to maintain the notability standards. --Orange Mike 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no offense orangemike but u are sooooooooooooooo late65.11.27.42 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion is open for 5 days, Mr. 65.11.27.42. During that time any and all are welcome to contribute. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mladenik

Article does not cite sources, contains no background, etc. Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable battlebot builder. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Leebo ^T/C 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, no sources to assert notability.--Paloma Walker 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Zedco 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete for sure - Not notable --Spe bi 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to notable Run Amok 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian martial arts

Might be something worth adding eventually but this is just WP:OR with very little context and alot of POV. Peter Rehse 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite. Current article appears to be an automated translation (and is thus a little incomprehensible) but a Google search suggests that there is such a thing. "Weak" because it's not clear just how notable it is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The copy can be cleaned up, but not the underlying content. It's trying to advertise how great Georgian martial arts is, so I place it within the G11 category, keeping in mind that I only apply that category to items that aren't really notable anyway. YechielMan 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khridoli.--Paloma Walker 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Khridoli is debateable. 153 ghits which seem to point to one person and web site. I'd afd it also but would rather see how this afd plays out first.Peter Rehse 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright. The whole text is unsalvageably poor writing. - Richard Cavell 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. There are lots of articles in the English Wikipedia which contain poorly translated content. Such articles are usually tagged for {{cleanup}} at a later time. As for being "unsalvageable", I don't think that word means what you think it means... Aarktica 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided that it is rewritten. Otherwise, we've got an ad that's barely in English. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Geagea 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, delete, no hope left here. Pavel Vozenilek 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete For anyone's information, if once translates the text to German, French, Portugese, Italian, Spanish then back to English it comes out looking like this: For informarte that the organization exists in „of Geórgia the martial members georgische (georgische martial of the members of „of the connection “) which has gathered the great materials by the years and sistematizza. That represents of Geórgia, the race of the passage of civilizzazioni western and of the east, it is a country of the cultivación and with other companies, known you with the great relative traditions Kampffähigkeit. Of Georgische the martial members had been enriched and fine in the battles of the meeting of Perser, the Greeks, the novel, the Arab, the Turks and the Mongols and are remarkable people with the relative originality. Among them, the diverse types are gaining „for extort georgische, khevsurian “to fight the packing of the city, a great attention. A detailed list capienza combative to be successful varied with packings of „martial relative of most interesting “is, sprechentricks the arm with the aid of a hat, khintkiria “time of „of strechings of Dolch, „the Morkia de Megrelian “and the etc is on the other hand that under variety, that it is efficient with the combat, of georgische of the members, with the diversity of the tradition and - effectiveness in the hand. The inheritance of the part of Kaukasier is not only cultural on the other hand. Suriel1981 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ad, POV. JJL 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Megabyte

Article does not cite sources, does not provide baackground, etc. Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. Oh, and ditch the image too. YechielMan 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fails WP:N, "is a sister bot to Megabyte" makes me wonder if it's a hoax--Paloma Walker 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete "t's a full body spinner with steel blades to shred other robot to pieces. It also cost $11,000 to build." Good lord, delete it already - no notability whatsoever and POV all the way --Spe bi 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it isn't a hoax, but it is a part of the proliferation of such non-notable robot combat entries. Run Amok 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be dozens of these unencyclopedic articles, as you'll see if you do a search for 'Robot Wars contestants', so a few weeks ago I merged and redirected all the ones I could find - about 90 - into a couple of lists to save the repeated AfDs. So Merge and Redirect (minus the photo which is probably copyright) to List of Robot Wars Contestants (Non-UK). EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No -- this article is not suitable for a Merge and Redirect to your page -- the subject was not a Robot Wars competitor. Run Amok 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Avedikian

not notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I'd never heard of him, has a decent-sized listing of works on imdb; he's won a few awards as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ohnoitsjamie.--Paloma Walker 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OhNoitsJamie StuartDouglas 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Acalamari 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notabile- no secondary sources--Sefringle 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why Tom Harrison considered Serge Avedikian as not notable and his article as promotional... I can state that this actor/producer is very popular in Armenia and France, he has quite extensive IMDB worklist. And where's the "promotion"? --Armatura 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable indeed. He also played a major role as the antagonist (Talaat) in Aram, the French movie about Armenians. - Fedayee 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fedayee. ROOB323 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unloved

dipusted PROD for student film that makes no assertion of notability Cornell Rockey 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominator Cornell Rockey 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a nomination constitutes a delete !vote. --Dennisthe2 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only a student film (which has a hard time even gaining notability), but factor incrystalballery, also. --Dennisthe2 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student film. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-sourced crystalballery. Probably a conflict of interest given the level of non-notability. Leebo ^T/C 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as nonnotable; looks like the pages I see at WP:NPP too often. YechielMan 03:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student film. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, low budget film by amateurs, and it's not even created yet. Definately doesn't belong. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur film which hasn't even completed production. Burntsauce 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra phenomenon

The term does not seem to be officially acknowledged let alone notable, and only seems to exist at all in relation to a single website and Yahoo group of Australian Origin Zeraeph 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is absolutely no question that this phenomenon exists and has been noted both in medical journals and in more mainstream media outlets. The only issue is what the name should be: "Cassandra Syndrome", "Cassandra phenomenon" and "Cassandra Affective Disorder" (CAD) have all been used, so the other two names should be redirects. YechielMan 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists and is well documented. Agree on the redirects per YechielMan.--Paloma Walker 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCould somebody please point me to where this is "well documented" stuff, particularly in "in medical journals and in more mainstream media outlets" is, because an exhaustive search honestly failed to yield anything of the kind see Talk:Cassandra phenomenon. Just one woman with a Bsc in psych creating a "Cassandra affective disorder" she is honestly not qualified to create, for which the only verifications anyone can find come from her own homepage which is certainly not "peer reviewed" in any sense and, as such is original research. (The only references to "Cassandra syndrome" we could find anywhere are actually misnomers related to this issue that often defined it quite differently!) There is a single reference made by Tony Attwood MD to "Cassandra phenomenon" which defines it totally differently to Maxine Aston's "Cassandra affective disorder". The only other references come from Judy Singer who runs a yahoo group and self publishes papers on the strength of her BA see Talk:Asperger syndrome and a* lawyer called Sheila Jennings Linehan who surely isn't a WP:RS for psychology at all, even if she didn't somewhat misrepresent all the other sources. I just do not see how such a muddle of "conditions" that contradict and misquote each other, created by people who are not qualified to create "conditions" in the first place, based on entirely anecdotal evidence, with no formal research, could be considered notable? --Zeraeph 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I can't point you to any medical journals offhand, but I can say that the term "Cassandra Syndrome" was mentioned prominently in the film 12 Monkeys. However, the term I remember has the more general definition of (paraphrasing) "knowing the truth but being unable to convince anyone of it." In the film it was applied to people who predicted terrible disasters, whose warnings were ignored. At the very least, the term "Cassandra Syndrome" and the related "Cassandra phenomenon" are real terms, though the current article does not accurately reflect the meaning. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite - I can't dig up any medical journals that contain the term, but I'm fairly certain that the current article incorrectly defines the meaning of the term. "Cassandra Syndrome" was featured prominently in 12 Monkeys (see my above comment) and the term can also be found in a number of texts on mythology, philosophy, and psychology. Unfortunately the only ones I know of are college textbooks, thus making it impossible for me to provide any handy web citations to prove it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe use of the term in one work of fiction really is not enough to make it notable. But if you know of other sources, failing web citations, just tell us what the textbooks you know of are, which can easily be checked and is far more persuasive than citing nothing at all, as at present. --Zeraeph 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then provide book citations. Uncle G 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Unfortunately I took those courses a while ago, and I've since sold the books. I might have some in storage elsewhere, but I don't care about this topic enough to waste most of the day digging through boxes to find two or three ISBNs. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term appears in some fictions, but that does not make it notable. Unless medical citations, or more than the one book, can be found, this cannot be notable. Callix
Delete We did some rather exhaustive research on this term with regards to Asperger's, and made direct contact the sources to whom the term is referenced. Dr. Tony Attwood who is the only credible source (in fact the only one with a graduate degree and whose work is not self published) and he stated the term is not meant to be signify a clinical disorder, but was simply being used in workshops to 'validate people's feelings'.

As for its use in a more general sense (outside asperger's), we don't have anything referenceable, so it looks like we Delete, and future Contributors are free to provide a new article w/ references.

The term cassandra is likely to find disfavor with professionals as it has a) sexist overtones (cassandra is a woman who prophesizes doom), b) is commonly used sarcastically (nobody has the gift of prophesy) and c) the common greek translation is "helper of men" tho a minority of scholars claim it translates to "one who ensnares men."CeilingCrash 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those who believe it to be a medical term seem unable to provide much by way of sources, whilst CeilingCrash has spoken to the osurce of the one reference and he says it's not a medical term at all. StuartDouglas 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the folks asserting it is a well-known medical term seem to be able to find anything to back up that assertion. In spite of the very well-meaning comments that one has "heard" a term used before, unfortunately Wikipedian's memories do not qualify as reliable sources - I know mine certainly does not! Anyway, article must be deleted as it fails WP:ATT and may be entirely fictional. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: However, the first paragraph makes no sense to me (so the article might need some clean up), but the quote of Tony Attwood is very clear to me. Q0 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional reliable sources can be found; no evidence that this term is used anywhere outside the workshop cited. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be mostly a disorder invented by unqualified people. It is not used in the literature. RogueNinja 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Yukichigai. Perhaps move to Cassandra syndrome as well. The terms "Cassandra syndrome" and "Cassandra phenomenon" are commonly used with the meaning Yukichigai describes. The current content of the article, trimmed down, could serve as one example or application of the term. This snippet I found through Google Books hints at the kind of sources that are out there: "Sontag identifies the Cassandra phenomenon as a frequent convention of the disaster genre and one of the standard hallmarks of the heroes in sci-fi disaster films of the 1950s and 1960s - 'the hero tries to warn the local authorities without effect; nobody believes anything is amiss' (1966:211)." Michael Carden, in Sodomy: The History of a Christian Biblical Myth, from Equinox Publishing (2004). See also R.J. Johnston's Dictionary of Human Geography: "If the author is seeking changes to avoid a dystopian scenario, the work may produce the ‘Cassandra effect' or the ‘self-refuting prophecy'" (Blackwell Publishing, 2000). PubliusFL 20:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks to me like the reference Carden is talking about in the snippet I quoted above is Susan Sontag's essay "The Imagination of Disaster," which would include page 211 of her 1966 collection Against Interpretation. If anyone has access to that book or essay, it could provide a valuable source for this article. But I ain't gonna cite it without knowing what it actually says. PubliusFL 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and clarify --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Something I would have liked to come to this article to find out was the connection between science and fiction: was the subplot of Twelve Monkeys in which Dr. Katherine Railly presents a scientific talk on the subject influenced by existing scientific theories of a Cassandra syndrome? Have scientists been influenced by the syndrome described in that movie? Was it a case of parallel evolution? Sadly, all such frivolity has been expunged from the article, leaving only an insufficiently-sourced and specialized article. My weak delete !vote is not so much based on my disappointment at what the article isn't, but instead reflects the fact that at this late point in the debate the primary source is still only the web site of a single non-academic workshopper. —David Eppstein 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with David Eppstein. The appearance in fiction does not count for an article that pretends to be based on science (that would be "References to Asperger Syndrom in popular culture" or such). Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems incredulousness is inherent to human nature, especially when it upsets social structure.

"It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” ~ Upton Sinclair

This seems too diffuse to ever to be a medical disorder, tho i wonder if it appears in literary theory? (Chicken little syndrome? :)CeilingCrash 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: use of the term in literary theory and criticism, see the references I discuss above. PubliusFL 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Toyota Corolla. Shimeru 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Allex

This article is unnecessary; its information is already in the Toyota Corolla article. Butterfly0fdoom 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toyota Corolla. It seems like it's adequately covered in that article. Leebo ^T/C 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toyota Corolla. Different versions of the same car rarely merit their own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On the merits of the argument, a merge/redirect is correct. I'm leaning to a straight keep because I want to cooperate with the template, which is trying to have an article for every Toyota model. Of course, a redirect doesn't totally ruin that, but a separate article might be better. YechielMan 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. I can see YechielMan's point about wanting to preserve the usefulness of the template, but as mentioned a redirect won't harm it and there is no reason to duplicate information for the sake of a template. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to say redirect, not delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct per the other re-directs. Acalamari 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per arguments given above for a consistent template. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the commenters above. When this can be expanded beyond one or two sentences, we can always move it back. Yamaguchi先生 03:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Las Vegas

This is what categories are for, Category:Television shows set in Nevada already covers this subject adequately. A sub-caegory can be created if necessary, though it doesn't appear to be needed. Saikokira 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - better done with a category. A list like this is too indiscriminate. - Richard Cavell 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Las Vegas. This list isn't that long. 23skidoo 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too crufty to merge into Las Vegas. FiggyBee 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful reference, and lists should be kept out of major articles as they spoil the presentation and break up the flow of the text. Hawkestone
Delete per nom. Deor 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Is the proposal of this nomination to remove every entry from Category:Lists of TV series by city setting? Also the Las Vegas, Nevada article is already too long. So while this list might be fairly short, it would expand an article that is likely too long already and still needs expansion in other areas that are also notable and not currently covered. Lists and categories serve different purposes and are not exclusive. Vegaswikian 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avi 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is what categories are for? A list serves equally well, so ... I don't see how that's an argument to delete. No reason has been presented as to why this list is inherently inferior in its ability to manage the relevant information than the category. In fact, this list provides additional information that is not present in the article. Also, I oppose merging this list into Las Vegas, as it would unnecessary clutter the latter article. -- Black Falcon 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per the changes by Vegaswikian, each entry in the list now contains 3-4 columns of information that cannot be possibly reflected in a category. -- Black Falcon 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vegaswikian, I've touched up the article a bit and added another entry. Caknuck 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to list since start of this AFD. I think categories are more useful for this type of topic, but this is more than just a list of titles now. Croxley 05:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list doesn't seem to be merely a list, but includes information that would be lost in a category. I'd also point out that there are shows set in Nevada that aren't set in Vegas (Bonanza, above all, and the handful of shows set in Tahoe). --Charlene 07:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It belongs in Category:Lists of TV series by city setting along with the other lists. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by Black Falcon and TonyTheTiger. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Better off as a category than article.--Bryson 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose instead deletion of Category:Lists of TV series by city setting. --FateClub 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Karma Entertainment

Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this stage as the label has no releases yet. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete record label with no releases. Promises of lots to come, but at the moment that's WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement - has the potential to become... etc. Puff piece. TheRealFennShysa 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iridescenti. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP.--Bryson 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fudokan

Non-notable, full of POV, pictures are NOT fair use, unless the user is the owner of Fudokan Serbia, in which case this may be a vanity page.RogueNinja 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying about my club. Those are pictures i can use to put on wikipedia. The licence was given by my masters. - Snake bgd 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both of these editors are disputing over adding this article to Shotokan - Alison^☺ 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, neither of us wants to add this article to shotokan. What you are probably thinking of is that he wants to add it to the major styles of karate template, one example of which is in shotokan. Based on the fact that I have no heard of this style in 14 years of training, and that google has less than 30,000 entries for it, I think it is certainly not a major style. That has nothing to do with the article itself though.RogueNinja 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Then it OK you think that this article is not major styles of karate. Ok I don't think in same way. I will not add any more this article to the major schools, but then you will not erased this article at all because it is a karate school. That is also for my other article Heian Oi-Kumi, Taiji Shodan and Kaminari
    - Just because something is a karate school does not make it notable.RogueNinja 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snake bgd 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My bad, thank you.RogueNinja 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides having many critera from McDojo (forgotten katas primarily), Snake is not consistent with his facts. He claimed on my talk page that the katas were made in the 19th century, but several of them are named after living people.

- - Sorry people but i don't unerstand what you are saying, maybe Taiji Shodan, Nidan and Sandan, are named by Taiji Kase but Heian Oi-Kumi and Kaminari are not. No matter I will proved that this school of karate is fourth in the world.

Snake bgd 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant context or real assertion of notability; no third-party attribution. The Google test doesn't seem appropriate here. Thirty thousand hits is actually quite a lot, but they seem to be mostly advertising. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Dekimasu よ! 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avi 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes no attempt to indicate notability. There's no indication of how many schools/dojos teach Fudokan, how many practitioners there are or what sets it apart from the many offshoot martial arts of the last 30 years. Add this to the beastly mess that the article is, and I can't see much of a reason to keep it. Caknuck 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this gets deleted someone ought to take a close look at Ilija Jorga as well. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I've listed Image:Ilija Jorga.jpg at WP:PUI. Most of the other articles linked to Ilija Jorga were deleted by prods. Dekimasu よ! 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure how regular martial artists measure notability among the "many offshoot martial arts," but in the Ghits I see sites from Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, the US, Russia, and more, which is enough to convince me that the topic meets my notability standards. However, I don't see anything from independent, third-party sources about Fudokan. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Knights

Apparently someone's idea for a dream anime series. Non-existent, has no reliable sources to even indicate it's existence, much less any notability. Google search for "Armada Knights" brings up 9 hits, none of which are about an animed series by that name. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del nonverifiable. Mukadderat 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax. The wikilinks on the page all redirect back to this page, as well. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google gave a whopping 3 results. This does not exist. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up nonsense. Masaruemoto 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as attack page, or at least a bio with no assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West M. Hays

Blatant attack article on a nn person. Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor. janejellyroll 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Delete Attack page. TJ Spyke 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page, and tagged as such. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close: mistaken nomination: the same person, articles to be merged, not deleted. Mukadderat 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Chysoloras

This is the same individual as in the article Manuel Chrysoloras. This spelling is either an uncommon variant or a misspelling. It is given in the Catholic Encylopedia article, which I just edited and posted on Wikipedia. The other article, besides having the preferred spelling, is also more complete. Rbraunwa 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution in such case is suggestion to merge the articles, since the topic is obviously valid. I am doing this and closing this item. Mukadderat 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedHelp

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MedHelp is notable and should stay on Wikipedia for 3 reasons. 1. It was founded in 1994 and is one of the first Healthcare community sites on the Internet. It precedes by several years, sites such as WebMD, Revolution Health and HealthBoards, all of which have articles on Wikipedia. 2. According to media measurement services such as HitWise and CommScore it is among the Top 10 largest healthcare online healthcare communities on the Internet, with 2.5 million users per month. 3. Several MedHelp articles have been referenced by wikipedia authors in their articles on topics such as Dyshidrosis, Proteinuria etc. Fdesouza 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ unless reliable sources provided. The external links in the article aren't references. There are none in Google News Archive; Google Books turns up some 70 listings as a "resource" for one thing or another, all trivial that I can find. There are placards like this and this that provide some verifiability but seem to be based on self-reported data. There's this origin story. Alexa rank is 8900. It doesn't quite add up to enough.-- Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to weak keep based on new sources, although none really seem to constitute major coverage. Medhelp seems to have credibility that also-ran medical sites lack, so I'm happy to have it here on that basis.--Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nothing at present to indicate this entry isn't just another advert, no reliable sources as per Dhartung. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the feedback, I have added sources -- one article from Time Magazine, 3 articles from the Wall Street Journal and an interview on the US Department of State Global Issues Magazine, all highlighting the work that MedHelp.org does. Is that sufficient or should I add more sources? Fdesouza 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources above, 22 medical-related articles on Wikipedia (eg Dyshidrosis, Milton Diamond, Proteinuria, Addison's disease, Swyer syndrome, Nicotine gum, Vaginoplasty, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Adverse effect (medicine), Androgen insensitivity syndrome, HLA-DQ8, Herpes simplex, HLA DR3-DQ2) cite articles from MedHelp as sources. Doesn't it make sense that we would have an article on MedHelp itself on Wikipedia? Fdesouza 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be aware that's basically a inclusion is notability argument, which is circular. Just because other editors have used it as a source does not mean that there are sources about it, i.e. notability.--Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep in light of additions from Fdesouza, it now appears fine & State Dept reference at least seems to back up notability claims. Although I shudder to think what 'Vaginoplasty' involves. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaginoplasty is everything from repair of torn skin/muscle after birth to purely cosmetic shaping of the labia or clitoris. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to possibly meet our current inclusion standards. The age of the site plus the assertions of importance outweigh my concerns about sourcing. --- RockMFR 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the current sources. I had never heard of it before, but it seems I should have.DGG 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDON'TLIKEIT but, it meets WP:WEB criteria with newly provided sources. Jerry 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon De Santiago

Asserts significance, so cannot be speedy deleted, however I don't the significance asserted is sufficient for the person to warrant encyclopedia article. Furthermore, it appears to be self-authored. – Qxz 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The assertion of significance is a joke at best. This article (or a form of it) has already been speedied once. Realkyhick 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I really don't think that the significance has been asserted. I'm going to tag accordingly. Rockstar915 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, no consensus.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey

Delete Episode articles yes, clip shows no. What surprises me is when I listed this for AfD I found an earlier AfD here that had a strong consensus to delete, but the closing admin ignored this and no one took it to DRV. Ned Scott 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, found DRV here. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June) says it was relisted.. but I can't see where. In any case, even without all that confusion, we still have an article for... a clip show... With fresh minds and fresh eyes, lets look at this article again. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found two more AfDs, here (speedy close because of the DRV), and here. I'm at a loss for words here.. I would like to emphasize again that this is not a "should episodes have articles" debate. I've seen AfDs for clip shows in the past, and I don't see why this is an issue.. this is just weird. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting from the article itself, "On the US release of the season 1 DVD boxed set, "Lost: The Journey" was cut due to space". That's the kind of "episode" we're talking about here... It's not even notable enough for the DVD set. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ob-note: it was rewritten (by me). The article is clear as to why it is a notable episode: as an attempt by ABC to bring non-regular viewers of the serialized drama up to speed, presenting for the first time a linear re-telling of the Lost storyline. Further, it is particularly exceptional for a clip series, as it handily won its timeslot-- up against the original programming of every other network. Finally, it is extensively referenced beyond what is included for even "regular" Lost episodes. --Leflyman^Talk 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: while the episode was only available as a bonus disk from Best Buy in the US, it was included as episode 21 on the DVD box sets in Region 4. see, for example: [15]--Leflyman^Talk 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that it was notable because it's a clip show? That's what you just described... a clip show... "OMG, ABC just told is what happened in the last 20 episodes.. OMG OMG" :P Winning a time slot for a single night of television for a single hour doesn't mean.. much. References are not a problem at all, but notability is. There's nothing here that can't be covered on List of Lost episodes, or even those season articles that we also have. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as the above aren't helpful in persuading AfD respondents of your justification for listing this for deletion. Sarcasm like "OMG..." undercuts your position. The previous AfD, after my rewrite, held a consensus for "keep" -- so the onus is on you to demonstrate how the article has changed since then, or how it no longer meets notability. --Leflyman^Talk 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a weak consensus that was built upon sand and confusion (it sounded good in my head.. but you get the idea). The "consensus" you think you have was wrong, and not a true consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An entirely specious claim; the previous AfD had 9 Keep recommendations to 3 Deletes, including those who previously recommended deletion. The Keeps were specific and clear. For example, since you seem to have missed these:

Notable episode of notable show. Plenty of verifiable sources for it. Capitalistroadster;
the article has been rewritten to be useful and is now a part of the series of Lost articles...BigDT;
Obviously, keep. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. "It's a clip show" is not a reason to delete this article, unless you plan on getting all the other articles on Lost episodes deleted too (which, yes, I would fight against strongly).SB;
This is no longer the same article I originally wanted deleted. It now explains why this is a significant clip show, explaining the purpose behind it, and has references. I wouldn't say I'd keep all articles about clip shows, but this one does a good job of defending its existence here. BryanG

--Leflyman^Talk 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd example you have there isn't even accurate. WP:EPISODE says nothing about clip shows and is a page that specifically discourages episode articles. People often misunderstand the first part of that page, "Wikipedia contains a large number of articles on television episodes. There is some disagreement as to whether every episode of every show "deserves" an article, which leads to a large number of AFDs for such articles. The following suggestions aim to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes, which should help to reduce acrimonious AfD debates." This means that the page hopes to reduce the number of AfDs via merges and preventing episode articles, which is different from not taking existing pages to AfDs. The first example calls it a notable episode, without even explaining why. I don't doubt that you will find people who want to keep something like this, but that means nothing if there is no reasonable logic behind it. -- Ned Scott 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can't pick-and-choose what episodes to feature, otherwise we might as well, for example, delete the article on the Star Trek: The Next Generation clip show Shades of Grey. 23skidoo 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we should pick and choose what episodes to feature, as some episodes are simply not notable. But that's not even a factor, because this isn't a real episode. It's not apart of the story.. it's a retelling of the story. It's about as significant as a TV commercial. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article can't ever establish a real world significance, in that there is no development or critical review. The entire article is basically trivia. Jay32183 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No episode article establishes real world significance; this one at least has actual references, including the rather significant viewership it garnered -- higher than recent new episodes of Lost. As pointed out by the TV critic for the St. Louis Post Dispatch', "the hour-long recap is, for once, not just a cheap way to stretch out a hit show. This time, it's a public service."--Leflyman^Talk 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Pilot (House), Homer's Phobia, Cape Feare, and Abyssinia, Henry all establish real world significance by discussing development and reception. All episode articles should do this, this one cannot. Jay32183 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it's not significant that this episode was (along with the Desperate Housewives special) the first primetime show streamed over the Internet by the ABC network? Or that it is specifically pointed out at Clip show as an example of how "the clip show has been employed more seriously as a means to bring viewers up to date on highly serialized dramas..."--Leflyman^Talk 02:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That leaves two sentences and a bunch of trivia. Those two things are even quite trivial. There is no development, no plot, no effect on the story arc, no reception. Where's the content that makes this article worth having? Jay32183 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have pages for the other recap-shows, nor do we need them. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Merge into Lost (season 1). --thedemonhog talk contributions 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we merge it with Lost (season 1). I think that this article contains solid, real world information that every other Lost episode article drastically lacks, and for that reason it should be kept. Yet creating an article for one clip show will create a precedent that all clip shows are notable, which is not true at all. Therefore I think the most sound solution would be to merge the more notable prose in this article into the season overview article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jtrost. This article contains some of the better content written about lost on wikipedia. Particularly in terms of the episode guides. However, it is lacking in some information because of the nature of the episode itself. I cannot see this being corrected and think this useful and interesting content should be merged into the season article.--Opark 77 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While not my first choice, since the article is mostly trivia, a merge (season article or even the LOE) would at least be better than an individual article. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article actually seems to meet WP policy and guidelines more than most other articles about TV episodes. --Minderbinder 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which ones? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WAF and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for a start: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." --Minderbinder 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's trivial and not notable. Just because it's it doesn't suffer from a huge plot summary does not mean it meets all of our guidelines. You can't honestly tell me that anything in that article is of any importance. It's a clip show. It's not a real episode, at all. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that there are other articles to delete is not a reason to keep this one. Jay32183 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claiming a recap episode as noteable in any way is way out there. Jtrainor 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Lost (season 1), because the sources and real-world discussion are valuable information to be kept and needed in other articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is cited and presents notable information about the clip show. The Filmaker 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue is that the clip show itself is not noteable, not that the information in it is not. Jtrainor 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Are you saying that the subject of the article is non-notable, but the contents of the article are notable? That seems like contradictory logic to me. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem isn't notability at all, it that there isn't enough non-trivial information for the article to stand on its own. Basically, the only bits of nontrivial information are the original broadcast date and the ratings from that night. Whether or not the subject is notable doesn't matter if it is impossible to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Jay32183 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therianthropy (mythology)

Del as clean-cut original research. While Therianthropy survived its vote for deletion on shaky grounds as a term traced 100 years ago and a modern 'net subculture, this taxonomy article is complete OR. The provided references do speak about lycantropy, verevolves, etc., but they don not say about theriantropy, hence, the whole article is 100% original fancruft to be deleted. Mukadderat 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain is this something that could be merged with Otherkin? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh noes. While the article in its current form is much different from the version that went to AfD before it would behoove editors to review that previous AfD before adding to this one. It will also help to check out the "other" Therianthropy article and it's relavent history.NeoFreak 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Therianthopy might deserve an entry in the dictionary but not here. The term is a real term but is not used by the academic community. What this article is refering to is anthropomorphism and shape shifting. The term terianthropy is being plugged these days by a group of folks on the internet that think they are animals are part animal or can transform into an animal, etc. The standard Usenet werewolf type crowd. So while the term is correct the problem is that sources being taken and then twisted in order to apply to the term "therianthropy". It's like reverse research (creation science?). You'll find that almost none of the sources cited use the term, it's an origianl research, neologism that's pretty much unverifiable. NeoFreak 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first blush it looks like the article is fairly well-written and referenced, but as argued above, the references are about the related topics of lycanthropy and the like - they do not deal with the subject of therianthropy. That leaves us with a pretty clear-cut case of WP:SYN. I'm not certain that any of this info can be merged anywhere, either. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go delete here. There is a vast minority of furry fans who follow this line of thought, but I'm nto sure that the article, in its current state, meets WP:N. Certainly original research. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's OR to claim that references talking about X are applicable to Y as well. PubliusFL 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ♠P M C♠ 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grihasoft

Spam No sources given to prove notability, does not meet WP:ORG. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Spam, fails WP:CORP, in that it is blatant advertising and there are no verifiable third-party references given or, from what I can find, available. I tagged this article with a speedy nomination originally and the author has blanked the template twice now. Rockstar915 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no opinion on the notability of the company, but the article as written is blatant spam. Excerpt: "Mission: To deliver superior quality catalog content with quick processing ability at reasonable prices to all our customers...". Ugh. Believe it or not, the article was even worse up until recently, as an anon removed some of the spammiest bits after the article was nominated for AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and prevent recreation since the editor seems determined to keep this spam alive. StuartDouglas 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Tagged it accordingly. MaxSem 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Spam. Acalamari 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. References added during the course of the debate. WjBscribe 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutey Bunny

So its a furry comic book, and the article is totally unreferenced (and has been for months), and doesn't even give a hint as to whether this meets any notability guidelines. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N K@ngi e ^meep! 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no references, no assertion of notability (and not convinced about 'fair use' on the images, either. Although it will be a tragedy to lose the phrase "Vicky Feldhyser, a kinky lesbian fox" from Wikipedia. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely known character in the independent comics genre dating back to at least 1983, who has been published by Fantagraphics and First Comics, two notable publishers (all this confirmed with a simple Google search). 23skidoo 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long-running comic character with a quarter-century of history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References need added but google does show sufficient notability for me. StuartDouglas 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. Well known character and series; merited a mention in Trina Robbins's The Great Women Superheroes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the fact that the search I performed for sourcing turned up nothing which could be considered a reliable source which meets any verification issues. If this can be sourced per WP Policy, I would urge that any comic fans with access to those sources add them to the article. Liking something isn't reason enough to keep an article, especially when your only arguements are based on arbitrary numbers like how long ago it was created. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two print sources, which I added to the article. The information in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Cartoon Animals is generally consistent with what the article describes. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve the article and source. Acalamari 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one improve a source? Milto LOL pia 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - article as stands is worthless, purge and allow recreation once someone is willing to find some references and assert notability... the notability of furry stuff is consistently overestimated on WP IMO. I had a user subpage about that once, but I forgot where it was :( Anyway, most of the top google links are promotional or WP mirrors. WP is based on other work, right? Well, if there's not much encyclopedic information said about a subject, there's not much WP can really say. Milto LOL pia 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't so much !"furry", as simply using animal-morphic characters to avoid treading on copyright toes. The original concept is a pastche of "Cutey Honey", the comic itself successfully deconstructs the Anglo-US/Soviet/Nu-Nazi trichotomy which has polarised world politics since 1933, and it's notable in the sense that people inside and outside the field know of it. Were this a vote (which I know it isn't) I would be inclined to the keep side of the "argument", but as it isn't .... -- Simon Cursitor 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like references were added in. --UsaSatsui 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Slightly more notable than a barren rock such as Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts). WunNation 14:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Thompson

A7:This person lacks notability according to Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. CA387 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the indicators of notability in the WP:MUSIC guidelines is an international tour, which this article says she has done. One of the of the points of consensus to which the nominator refers was that notability might include one who has recorded, which she also appears to have done. The Washington Post seems to have numerous concert/recital reviews which mention her specifically. The article is certainly in need of sources to provide verification for what it says about her. But assuming that's done, I think she meets notability criteria. Mwelch 08:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the info; I'll re-tag it then. CA387 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mwelch. Acalamari 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Commander Keane. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most evil town in America

Nonsense redirect. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense redirect it is. CA387 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Reginald Alford Promquery

Awww. Do we really have to delete it? I want to be remembered after I leave this planet... Taylor.clapp 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blah Pure hoax. And if anyone recognises whence the image has been ripped off, please say. -- RHaworth 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're right - he seems to live up to his article's initials. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pity; the author sure seemed to put a lot of time into fudging it. I got a kick out of reading it through, anyway... CA387 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Tikiwont 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant delete one of the better hoaxes for a long while. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So if you like it, copy it to WP:BJAODN. And curses I missed the initials! -- RHaworth 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete, more's the pity. A good laugh, even if the designation "Count" doesn't actually exist in the English peerage. He would have been an earl, which rather spoils the acronym. BTLizard 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, the page is here. I have no clue what I'm doing with WP:BJAODN, though, so someone else will have to check to make sure everything's kosher. CA387 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Byrne

Fails notability standard Silver seraph 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article provides nothing verifiable indicating subject's notability. Mwelch 07:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable high school biolgy teacher. DGG 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deleted article is now at Michael O'Byrne (Irish biologist). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Bulaon

NN, with suspected COI (almost all edits are by User:Francoco, which appears to be a single-purpose account. Has an IMDB entry, so probably not proddable, but that entry consists of a number of minor bit-parts and that's all. Grutness...wha? 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO section on actors. Not every listing in IMDB is suitable for WP. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Schiff

Article lacks notability. CA387 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would appear to have cellist notability only locally to Milwaukee. Mwelch 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not very notable, but at least there is some published reference to this cellist, unlike most other AfD bios here which have no refs or published sources at all. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because there are references doesn't mean it matches up with WP:NOTE. She's got an interview with the local paper, and a personal website. Hell, I've been in the local paper, and could make a personal website too, but I don't think they'd let me have my own page. ;) CA387 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You're probably right about it not quite meeting standards in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. But it's still a lot better than most of the totally unreferenced, not-at-all-notable bios to which I've been saying "Delete" on each day's AfD list. That's why I said "weak keep" here, mainly because deep down I'm more of an Wikipedia inclusionist than a deletionist. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Rodrigues

Vanity page. The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines. CA387 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - going by Google the subject does seem to be at least potentially notable[16] but article makes no assertion other than the list of albums. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Naruto: Shippūden

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article is a grotesque violation of the subject's copyright. It is a 32 kb+ step-by-step summary of a ~~film~~ series, and ^{I do not know how to even begin to reduce this to something reasonable}. I think the best thing to do is wipe it and start over. WP:FICT does not like this article. Nor do WP:WAF or WP:NOT. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two things: this isn't a film, this is describing half the storyline of the series Naruto; and since when were plot summaries a copyright violation? (I could understand if it were word-for-word transcripts of every episode and/or chapter, but even with this article's size, it certainly is not.) NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Extensive plot summaries without contect provided by external sources are a violation. See: WP:FICT and WP:WAF --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not certain why you thought this was a summary of a film series, but if it were, it is understandable how you would consider this article overwrought. However the source material itself is extensive and serialized over several months and this article does not provide a

substitute for reading the manga. DaoKaioshin 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Also note that it survived a previous AfD over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto I, back when the article was titled Plot of Naruto II. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's used to keep "Plot of Naruto" at a reasonable size, and the content is definitely encyclopedic in terms of the show. It could use trimming. JuJube 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain your use of the word "encyclopedic" in that sentence. This just looks like a depressingly meticulous moment-by-moment plot summary with little context. That's not encyclopedic; it's a fan page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chris is right; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and fair use criteria. No article should consist solely of plot summary, that much is clear from WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT. — Brian (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Wait a minute. There are lots of articles like this on Wikipedia. Episode summaries, book summaries, even movie summaries. How is this article different from them?" Master Endar 08:07, 26 March 2007 (Centeral)
  - Comment - It might help if you consider this the first of a series of such AFD discussions. Please provide examples of similar articles so I know what to tag next. Thanks in advance. Also, please fix your signature. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim and provide with sources (which are definitely out there). There's no disputing the notability of the Naruto series. None whatsoever. This article is a page split from Plot of Naruto for the purpose of size, and Plot of Naruto was originally created to keep the main Naruto page size reasonable. So it fits notability criteria, but needs sourcing. I had it tagged at one point, but it seems that the tag had been removed. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is disputing the the series' notability. What's being disputed is the extensive nature of these summaries without trying to put it into any sort of reasonable real-world context or cite external sources.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why this was nominated. Maybe its length demands a cleanup tag, but this summary is in line with countless examples that are presumably considered valid applications of fair use according to wikipolicy. DaoKaioshin 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you are going to make a claim like that, please include some examples of similar articles that have been said to meet policy with regard to fair use. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This came up last year with regard to one of the other Naruto plot articles -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plot_of_Naruto_I. Personally, I'm conflicted. (1) We don't normally delete articles that could be cleaned up; (2) I'm torn about just how much plot summary is appropriate for serial works. According to the notes, this article currently covers approximately one hundred serial chapters of the work -- how much plot summary is appropriate for 100 issues of the manga? (3) Ultimately, if the article had more out-of-universe info, I would probably be ok with about this level of plot summary, maybe a little less. Given that it doesn't, I'm torn about whether to delete the article to encourage editors to do a better job next time or to leave it in the hope that the editors eventually clean it up. TheronJ 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TheronJ, I know you have worked on WikiProject Comics articles before, so I ask you to think about how many of those articles are merely plot summaries that cover 100 issues of a series in such detail. 52 (comic book) will cover 52 issues when it is finished, but the summary is maintained s at about ten paragraphs, and it has a lot of external sources that discuss the real-world details surrounding the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, Chris. There's no question, IMHO, that the comics project has led the way on this problem, and articles like Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) and Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) are much, much better that the Naruto plot articles - both because they make a concerted effort to include helpful, non-plot information and a concerted effort to keep the plot information limited. I'm mostly torn about whether deletion is appropriate for an article like this, which I agree (1) needs clean-up badly; (2) probably won't be cleaned up for years if ever; and (3) is very likely to constitute a copyright violation because of the depth of plot summary relative to non-plot information. I'll think about it and see if I can come off the fence. TheronJ 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan comments aside, I stand with my previous nom. of Plot of Naruto I. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." --Pentasyllabic 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is in no way a "grotesque violation of the subject's copyright" or a "clear violation of Wikipedia policies and fair use criteria." It fits perfectly with "a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." It takes a bit of plot summary to describe 400 magazines and 250 television episodes. It has to be broken down a bit, and that's what this is, see WP:SS. If you just glance at the page it looks like it's only covering a few episodes, but it's actually covering over 100 issues of the manga. I can see why someone thought it was too large when they thought it was a single film. You also may want to know this is the 43rd most viewed article on all of wikipedia. It's going to get a little bloated when 16,000 people are reading it every day. Naruto related articles account for 8 of our top 100 pages, with about 100,000 page views a day, so they tend to get big. People aren't saying delete because of notability, but just in case someone's thinking it, Naruto gets 32,000,000 google hits. - Peregrine Fisher 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a plot of of a "larger topic", the franchise is large and thus there's a lot to cover, As Wikipedia is not paper and I believe this fits in with our goals to create an encyclopaedia. I'd recommend somebody add some sources, however. Matthew 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After all, various other pages on Wikipedia consist of ONLY plot summaries and spoilers. Also, we are informing people of the plot of Naruto, just in a seperate page because if combined, the article is very long. Hence, fitting in with the enclyclopedia definition. --Omghgomg 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The out of universe details are at Naruto, although I don't know if that matters here. Can anyone comment on wikibooks? It's mentioned in WP:FICT, although from reading about it, I can't really tell if it is an acceptable location for plot summaries. (Jez, I need to stop thinking about this and just hit save, I've run up against the last two comments. and an edit! =P ) --Celain 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Important pageIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that this page is way too large and goes into way too much detail, it can be cleaned up with a whole lot of work. The only real area that has considerable bloat is the area covering the Hidan and Kazuku arc. That arc just ended a couple of weeks back, so we can now take a knife to the section with the advantage of knowing exactly what was important to the storyline. However, I'm not really sure how we can source this besides citing the entire manga? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya!) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it consist of nothing but a plot summary (see WP:FICT). -- Whpq 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess the reason we are complaining is not so much of the plot-for-plot deletion, but it seems that Stargate (both Atlantis and SG-1) and Startrek gets to keep every single episode plot summary, while an anime that is notable even in America cannot (and I am not even going with other anime series that is not licensed yet) George Leung 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Naruto also has an article for each episode: see List of Naruto episodes/List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes. There is also List of Naruto story arcs for shorter synopses. --Pentasyllabic 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Of the nerd topics, I find that Star Trek is done reasonably well - far better handled than Star Wars or Transformers, but that's not difficult - as long as there is a proportional amount of out-of-universe details, the article is fine. If you can suggest problematic articles, I would be happy to look at them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article and start over, but if you do, perhaps you should try the talk page. Deleting the content merely to recreate it though, wouldn't make for less trouble, but more. FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this has been duscussed before and I don't see a reason to remove it. Simply leave it as it is and continue expanding it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.66.22.232 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Why bother deleting it? What is the point in deleting an article just because you have no interest in it? It's highly informative for people who are unable to get the mangas, and is therefore serving it's purpose as an encyclopedic article.
Weak delete No one wants to trim it down, so a wipe should do the trick. The problem is that people seem to think every chapter has to be analyzed in total detail here, but there are other places to get that kind of extensive information. The above-noted Wikipolicies are rather clear that this article needs to be remedied, and has been for half a year now. Treima 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is possible to fix an article, it should not be deleted. This article is clearly fixable. - Peregrine Fisher 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And yet it hasn't been since the last debate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline on wikipedia that I'm aware of. - Peregrine Fisher 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is an aspect of the larger subject of Naruto as a whole and thus not subject to exclusion by WP:NOT#IINFO 7 alone. Plot summary was deemed important to the subject, and forked from the main article, then from the Part I article in a natural Wiki process to keep pages readable and concise. That said, it could certainly use some improvement. It shouldn't be written from such a percise perspective, but rather a general one, focusing on what's important. More importantly, it needs to be well referenced to the source material so people researching the subject can trace their path back to the particular episode or chapter they're interested in. –Gunslinger47 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Contributors to this article fail dearly to make any effort at trimming it down once in a while, but it is much easier to manage than what is at the moment 225 potentially more detailed synopsizes of the same crap. I won't pretend that plot summaries such as this are necessary on Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia to frown on this while seemingly turning a blind eye to larger scale examples is some kind of discrimination. You can give me some line about how single episode summaries have some greater importance than an article with multiple episode summaries crammed together, but the only real difference is that one has cultural references/trivia, and the other doesn't. Also, something of a similar nature that I'd be interested to see if it's anymore acceptable: Category:Dragon Ball sagas. ~Snapper T o 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Detailed plot summaries are unfortunately the least of Wikipedia's legal worries so I hope this AfD will be a wake-up call to all contributors to pay attention to the {{plot}} tag. UnfriendlyFire 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split. I and several other users are working on breaking the Plot of Naruto I & II articles into summaries by arc. You Can't See Me! 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any good reason in deleting this, it's good for those that can't get online manga. It could be improved,yes, but DELETED? That's REALLY not needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shonen Jump Master (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep- As has been previously stated, this article provides a valuable source for those who can't read japanese, and can't wait several months for a single chapter to be subbed. As well, there can be difficulties finding said chapters, let alone actually accessing them. The article could, in theory be shortened, but it would, and should be a group effort.--Megaman3 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm not sure, and this may be my bad memory kicking in, but I also believe this was discussed before and a Keep consensus was made. Also, this is a useful source for people who truly would like to find the information, as with anything else on Wikipedia. As such, why delete something that a good number of people find useful? There's no point, in my opinion. Steelesaber 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, regarding the last three Keep votes: Your reasons for keeping the article are actually reasons to delete as per current policy. No article can serve as substitute for reading the source material. There are good reasons to keep, but this isn't one of them. –Gunslinger47 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an AfD discussion is not a vote either. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this article needs trimming down once more (I may do it myself when I find the time), but I see no reason that this article should be removed considering the many, many other plot synopsises for TV series/movies/books/etc. that exist on Wikipedia, nor do I see any copyright violations. It is not step by step as it omits many details, but it does act as a guide on how the story has progressed. Also keep in mind that adding this article to the main Naruto plot article would easily double or even triple it's size. Djseifer 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think each arc should be given a separate page. Ghos7king 24:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That might be a bit much, I think. I'll try and go over the article tonight and see if I can excise any unneeded info. Djseifer 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without this article, Plot of Naruto would be way too long. And the article can be split or trimmed or something. There isn't really a reason to delete it. Raven23 02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a plot summary written by watching the series and deriving conclusions from it, and it doesn't attribute any of the claims. The only useful thing that this could do (other than amuse Naruto fans, which isn't really a goal of this project) is summarize each episode and attribute fictional events on an episode-by-episode basis, and it doesn't even do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it sound like it should be fixed instead of deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a proper encyclopedia article. If the plot summary were reduced by 80%, the article were renamed Naruto: Shippūden, and the article talked at least as much - if not more - about the conception, creation, and critical and popular response to Shippuden in both Japanese- and English-speaking territories, this could work. It'd be a good companion piece to the main Naruto article, and Shippuden is a fairly significant departure in both mood and style, so it wouldn't be out of place to treat it as though it were a separate series.

I don't think 32K of plot summary (if you can even call it summary) would be a good start on that, nor would it be a useful subpage for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what, are you just all for deleting the article because you don't watch Naruto? I've said it once, and I'll say it again: it is serving it's purpose as an encyclopedic article by providing information. In fact, the article is even titled "Plot of Naruto: Shippuden". Not "Summary of Plot of Naruto: Shippuden." The only "reason" I see for it's deletion is that some people are against Naruto, and just want to mess with Naruto's fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.215.11.249 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fanpages provide information. Road signs provide information. Encyclopedias provide introduction and summary, things that this page fails to do.

If you would like to be provided with the plot of Shippuden, you're in luck! JUMP Comics or VIZ Media (depending on where you live and what language you can read) would like to sell you some comics. Here, we need to be summarizing it (emphasis on the summary) so that we can discuss Shippuden as an artefact of the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split. This article, while indeed in need of serious editing, is still necessary, as Plot of Naruto would become even more enormous. Furthermore, I cannot see why pages that can be clearly fixed are being slated for deletion. I support this initiative by Snapper in any case. Sephiroth BCR 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Naruto is a long series, thus wouldn't it make sense, for the sake of a complete summary, that the summary itself would be long as well? Splitting it according to the arcs is one thing, but this article definetly shouldn't be deleted (somebody already tried, unsuccesfully). Viewtiful Rekk 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is obviously long and detailed enough to provide an alternative to reading/viewing the source material, and thus constitutes copyright violation. The Hidan and Kakazu section is particularly egregious in this. It's also a completely pointless page, as if it were shortened to a decent level (as has been done with longer series) then it would fit in a main Naruto: Shippūden article. That's the sort of article we need, not something that goes against numerous Wikipedia policies like this one. Stylish Alastor the Stylish 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce. While it's true that articles should not just be plot summaries, the existence of one adds to the meaning of the subject matter. Therefore, this article should not be thought of it's own article but part of the Naruto article. In response to claims that the article is too long, I fully agree, though, with the second-to-most-recent arc concluded, it is now possible to clean up that area, which is by far the largest.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i have found this a useful tool to write my fan comic about naruto,to keep up with it so i dont make huge mistakes,it also provides us who dont have access to the original form of the manga to keep up with the story since the dub and the us manga are very slow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and split into seperate arcs I agree it is too large and is in desperate need of splitting into sperate articles maybe an article for each arc? But I've seen plenty of other articles with plot summeries and some with every minute details (please see The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film) article for example) so if this article is deleted I will assume you will go after the other articles also?Sam ov the blue sand 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah splitting between the arcs would also be good (much easer to navigate) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

CommentThere IS too much content in this article, if there is only 300 espisodes now, what will this page look like when there is 400 or 500? Obviously, the article needs a trim, but there seems to be no one who is willing to do it, probably because of its size. Why don't we create a particular board of users who trim the article monthly? I think that splitting the article will create too much of a fuss, some arcs are just not long enough, its not worth an entire page. Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not every single arc would need its own article. The Prelude and the Exposition, for instance, can stay in the article due to their brevity. Everything else has sufficient content to have its own seperate article. Sephiroth BCR 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - People are complaining about the level of detail, but let's compare it to some other page on wikipedia. First, there's about 2 issues of the manga for every 1 episode. This page is covering 100 issues of the manga, so that's about 50 episodes. This page has about 11,000 words, so that's 220 words per episode. Now a Featured Article episode from House, Pilot (House), has about 600 words in its plot summary. Those episodes are twice as long, so it has about 300 words per 22 minutes, which is 136% more than this page. That's a Featured Article, so people who know what they're doing have cut that synopsis down the best it can be done. If you compare it to some Stargate or Heroes episodes, it's even smaller per minute. The more I think about it, this isn't even too detailed, it's just that being on all on one page makes people think it should be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the excessive level of detail coupled with the complete lack of possibility for sourced, encyclopedic content that's the problem. Plus, those lists are equally problematic, for much the same reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's less detailed than the House episode featured article. I'd like to see a consensus on how long plot summaries should be. Until then, using featured articles seems like a good way to judge. Personally, when I write anime episode summaries, I make them about 150 words. See Star of Desire for an example. I think 220 words is pretty good considering the 16000 page views this aticle gets every day. - Peregrine Fisher 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Spilt i think this article may be two long and much controversy because of its usefulness to many users but i think recoomending it for deletion is a rash descision... A wikiproject may be in order to help fix this article. Spilting in to seprate parts can help as well. On another hand i think a good idea would be to trim the Sections to less detail after the episode pertaining to that section is released which can greatly shorten the article over time. Reccomding this for deletion isnt something to take lightly because its two long copyright violation doesnt seem like a pertaining issue as it just records without posting content. if you posted the manga here i assume it would be a different story Matthew2c4u 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that though the article does need trimming, it should not be deledted. It should interefere with deletion policy. It is just too big —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.170.103.177 (talk • contribs).

keepWho told you to speak about others' copyrights? If the copyright holder doesn't care, why should you?--141.213.198.142 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Peregrine Fisher, I think talking about something completely different from the suject is something that should be avoided. Please remember this is a manga/anime with more than 200 chapters not a televesion show with less than 50 episodes so please tell me how are we to shorten the article without splitting into various articles? I also believe that the article was put up for deletion because because the nominator thought this was a film so there is no need for this being here. Sam ov the blue sand, X please passover. 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I believe that people who doesn't enjoy this anime or just hate it for some reason should not have a say on this, as it may only be to get this summary deleted, I also think that if it's too large of a summary then we could devide it into arcs. deviding this aummary into arcs might take a lot of work but I know it's possible and even if i'm not good at this i would gladly help devide it. Ghos7king 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay, enough with the hate accusations. I enjoy the series, but this article seriously needs to go (or at the very least, get split). Put things into perspective. It's not that I don't like the series; quite the contrary. This is the only anime I watch on a regular basis nowadays. However, this is not a Naruto fansite: This is an encyclopedia, and thus its articles have to be of encyclopedic value and must fit a certain standard. Per WP:NOT, articles that are strictly plot summaries are in fact not encyclopedic, and the article on its own is not near Wikipedia's quality standards in terms of its tone and excessive details. This could be fixed, but not without breaking the article into smaller parts. So, I maintain the split decision that I had above, but I am not opposed to an outright deletion. You Can't See Me! 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. This article is a great source of information for those who don't have the actual manga handy, but want to research it. However, the degree to which it covers the plot is a bit excessive, and I feel that it should be reduced to a basic summary of the plot's outline, leaving only the more important events of the series, rather than an in-depth explanation of every little thing that happens. Is it absolutely necessary to know that Konohamaru started fooling around with the Shadow Clone Jutsu after he learned it? No, not really. It does reveal more about the characters, but that's why many characters have their own articles. CrazedNinja 05:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I do admit, this file is massive and would definitely hinder those with slower browsers and computers. However, I see no reason to remove it completely. If it does get too much, how about separating the article into the plot synopsis section of each character, like the Bleach page, or, for example, this page. That way, we can all see plot details attributed to each main character and keep the file size reasonable at the same time. Stuntman15 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree. Kind of Like what the Other person had said. Trim it into other articles. But based on arc, Unless the arc is short, in which case group those ones with the longer ones. Look, plain and simple: I haven't gotten the subbed comic yet, I can't find it either, I like this to be used as a source until the chapter it describes Releases. That way, I know what is going on. Besides, Seriously, Like was also stated quite simply put: If you look at the length of everything that has happened in both the manga and anime of it, you'll see that this plot is actually VERY SHORTENED from what it could be. It needs to be trimmed into smaller arcticles. I tried to do so a few minutes ago, but Wikipedia wouldn't let me. Forgive me if that was wrong of me, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know all the rules in the back of my head.Chipmonk328 9:17 PM, 30 March 2007
- Comment - I also agree. This articles would be better off being separated into different articles. It is what they did for One Piece, so we should do the same. (undersigned)
Delete.- This article is clearly driven by Naruto-fans and is serving no purpose to Wikipedia other than being a place for thea above people who cannot get their hands on the manga to keep up with the series. Hence, infringing copyright laws by providing a substitute to the actual manga. Wikipedia is not a hub for fans :) 216.99.60.104 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is valid information just shouldn't be all that large, some people went overly enthusiastic on the article. It just needs some rewriteing. Lord Metroid 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT--Greatestrowerever 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". You'll need to elaborate. –Gunslinger47 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because though I can see the inherent NOT-ness of it, a reasonable and non-half-assed trimming could clean it up nicely. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentActually I don't think any1 uses this because they can't get the manga or watch the anime mostly because you can just go to youtube.com and read the manga or watch the anime. Ghos7king 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentWell in that case why does wikipedia exist when I can go to youtube? ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand, X please passover. 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naruto plot would be way too long, and the information there is too valuable to just delete. Xepeyon 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a quick question: as this isn't a majority vote, will there be a deadline for a consensus on this issue or will it be one of those 'go on 'til the end of time' discussions? Stuntman15 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will come along eventually, I believe. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find this funny, since it seems i can search wikipedia for several other shows which make a fortune on DVD Sales and the such, and yet their plot summaries are "Organized" yet give away about 500% the amount of details that this plot summary does, even with shows containing less content. I think half the people on this conversation are biased, hypocritical and should quit trying to rain on others parades just to agitate the situation, like the one who started this deletion suggestion- who everyone knows this person is. Guest 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The preceding comment was left by 69.151.254.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UnfriendlyFire 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been considerably improved and referenced since the nomination. WjBscribe 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crab mentality

Original research, personal essay, term appears to be made-up. >Radiant< 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a term I've heard and used all my life, and in precisley the way described in the article, so the author didn't make it up. But still, the article is definitely unencyclopedic and original research. Mwelch 08:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' WP:OR StuartDouglas 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is not made up (it has been used for many years, especially in urban America), but this article is unencyclopedic and violates WP:OR --Mhking 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs cleanup to meet WP:OR. It is a common term that should be somewhere within the wiki universe. Since the article has been transwikied that relieves some of my concern. The problem is that since the article is 2.5 years old and still in its current shape it is hard to say tagging it will bring someone's attention to it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Term is not made up. --Lmblackjack21 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is not made up and refers to a well-defined phenomenon. Article needs expansion and more sourcing but the concept is worthy of an article. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOFIXIT. –Pomte 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiel Mcginty

Obvious hoax, and possible attack page. EALacey 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obscene blatant attack page. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - teenage drivel. So tagged. MER-C 10:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure! Personal attack, possibility of it being a hoax.. what more can you say? --Spe bi 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hill

A cricket player who uses psychic power to win matches. "The source of his psychic powers is his mitt, which he carries around with him any time." Also he knows chinese proverbs and mispronounces people's names. Sounds rather hoaxy to me. >Radiant< 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the nonsense to which you refer was clearly a vandalism edit and has now been removed - please check the current state of the article and advise if you still wish the AfD to proceed...... ChrisTheDude 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hill is most definitely noteworthy and important enough to be on wikipediaSay Hello
Keep after reversion of vandalism. Bio and scorecard from the Orange Free State match from Cricket Archive. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per everyone else. Acalamari 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep only reason to delete was vandalism, which is now reverted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Meltzer

This is just not a plastic surgeon who meets any standard of notability with my field to merit inclusion. He is a somewhat obscure super-teriary specialist with no signifigant academic work or career publishing in our journals. There are some nice elements of the procedures he does that could possibly be merged into some of the other transgender related surgery articles, but Dr. Meltzer himself I feel doesn't really meet the standards of whom I understand wikipedia intends to include Droliver 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was malformed; I'm fixing it now. --ais523 08:48, 26 March 2007 (U T C)
Comment. Appears to be the leading specialist worldwide in his field, which is not that obscure or tertiary. Does WP:BIO really require the leading specialist in a field to have published? "Publish or perish" is a common academic problem, but does it apply to Wikipedia? --Charlene 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as one of the most notable surgeons in his field: 4150 ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Distinctly one of the most notable surgeons in his field as the previous AfD clearly noted. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice he had cited only 1 articles and managed not to give any current academic affiliation. Checked PubMed, and he has published a total of 7 articles total over the last 8 years in specialty journals. On what basis do we say he his a leader in his field? Because he says so?

Look at the sources. One book from a major publisher refers to him on a single page, and another book from a minor publisher does the same. His CV lists also 7 abstracts, and 9 other presentations, including a poster session. The pictures of from either his own site, or a commercial site run by an MD in the area of his former practice,". There are societies and awards for surgeons, and there is no evidence he has ever won any of them. Rather, there is good evidence he didn't,because if he had , this article would surely say so. Neither does his website. He is a member of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons which is good, but then only 3 local societies. I checked two other plastic surgeons at random: 17 societies for one, 19 for the other, both including the main one, "Fellow, American College of Surgeons." A FACS is a distinguished surgeon. But he is not one of that group. Nor is he a member of the American College of Surgeons, a more inclusive group of notable surgeons. He is not associated with any major Arizona teaching hospital, or a clinical faculty member of an Arizona medical school.

What i do learn from the website is that this article does not quite honestly give his credentials. It lists him as clinical professor of plastic surgery at OHSU, while he was actually an assistant professor. The article lists him as a fellow, but this is not in his CV (A fellow is a sub-specialist in advanced training after the completion of full residence training in the speciality. It would have been an appropriate step, if there was any evidence he had done it.)

As for the ghits, there's about one genuine one per 30--an announcement of a lecture. . Many blogs and testimonials, personally published sources, but this would be expected for this subspecialty.--I looked at the first 50 one at a time: One of them says "Unfortunately, Toby Meltzer has since relocated to Scottsdale, Arizona, having been unable to find a hospital in Portland that fit his requirements and would extend him operating room privileges" & blames it on his willingness to do FTM surgeries. I also see "Toby Meltzer considered the standards of care to be mere guidelines. " explained by gratitude that he apparently operates on patients without the standard waiting period. (neither of this should be added to the article, for they are blog postings or the equivalent. I did not come across the many posted complaints that accompany some other surgeons. )

Looking at additional patient support web sites, he does seem to be notable in that special group, and that did cause me to switch from weak delete to keep--just as a scientist can be notable popularly though not professionally, so can a physician. I think I finally got the right impression. He seems to be a charismatic maverick--possibly he does not choose to pursue the usual professional activities, rather than being unqualified.

But I do say keep -- and then all the unsupported information will be removed. The number of his surgeries is unsupported; that he developed the operations is unsupported; and the description of the techniques belong in a more general article unless he can be shown to have developed them. DGG 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD G11. Postdlf 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBMC

Delete: No evidence or even assertion of notability; article reads like promotional piece for the company (a large swathe of it is a blatant copy of http://www.fbmc-benefits.com/corp_profile.asp ). There may be a case for an article on this company if anyone cares to establish its notability, but this is not that article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As WP:CORP StuartDouglas 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (I saw the AfD and thought, surely the Fat Boy Mountaineering Club hasn't become a notable institution since I last saw them covered in Rock & Ice (or was it Climbing?), but then again they might be more notable than the Fringe Benefits Management Company...) Pete.Hurd 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per "d) all of the above" (or even add to it copyvio with all the us and we). Otherwise, {{orphan}}, {{wikify}}, and {{cleanup-rewrite}}. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - in addition to everything else listed, also WP:COI violations - the creator's user page (Jlatimer (talk · contribs · logs)) states he works for them. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless daughters

This claims to be a common motif in literature, but the term, referring to daughters who betray their father, does not seem to be in widespread use in the sense described here. I suggest deletion on the grounds of original research. Nydas^(Talk) 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline OR is a danger for all of the literary motif articles since they rely on opinion rather than fact, but there's enough evidence provided in this one to satisfy me that it is a legitimate motif. StuartDouglas 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, and likely impossible to maintain. Realkyhick 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be a genuine motif, but in this form it's still original research. Masaruemoto 18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article might do better to focus on the motif itself, rather than a list of figures who could be so considered. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Pavel Vozenilek 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As far as I can see, most of the references don't use the term 'faithless daughter(s)' at all, and many of the entries are mythology and history, rather than just literature. Could the keep voters explain their position more clearly?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (delete, delete, redir per anville.Rlevse 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix principle

Also nominated per reason below:

I believe these articles are nearly a speedy deletion under A1, as they contain little context regarding currently established articles, refering to what links here, the pages are interlinked, but do not contain links from other articles (Eigenmode is an exception, due to articles discussing optical signals have linked to this article (until March 19, Eigenmode was a redirect to Normal mode [17]), in which case, I think a revert back to edit 54023351 would be a much better alternative to deletion. In addition, all three article have been tagged with templates such as {{Unreferenced}}, {{context}}, {{OR}} and {{Uncategorized}}, Marc Widdowson has been the sole human editor of all 3 articles. NigelJ ^talk 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No context, original research, no references to speak of. Realkyhick 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further stub material to each article, but there is a real need for an experienced editor to tackle these. I also have not felt sufficiently experienced to attempt the categorisation called for on the page. -- HenriLobineau 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Realkyhick. I believe this could have been put under proposed deletions rather than afd. RogueNinja 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I decided that AfD was the way to go, just to be sure, to be honest, I felt like marking for speedy deletion but I felt it didn't quite meet the criteria. --NigelJ ^talk 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dark age theory and Phoenix principle; restore redirect of eigenmode to normal mode. Anville 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
d/d/r-r per Anville. This is bellow any standard for pseudoscience articles on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Oxford

event was one of many thousands of annual gatherings of lots of Christians around the world. Current sources are the website of the event itself, and a tiny mention in the local press. Note that there was no national press coverage, and the local coverage was minmal. If anything, this deserves a small mention in the Oxford Martyrs or Martyrs' Memorial article. Certainly not werll enough sourced or notable enough for its own article. Batmanand | Talk 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I agree in just about all points per nomination, but if it could be proven to me that "Love Oxford was a history-making Christian event" is correct, I'd change to a weak keep. May I however suggest asking WikiProject Christianity for their view? --NigelJ ^talk 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly historical for Oxford, involving reuse of a very old, discarded law, and bringing out more people onto the streets than in any other public gathering in the city for the last several centuries. I realise Wikipepdia is not a catalogue of reality and all its minor happenstances, but of significant, noteworthy points of fact and history, ones likely to be searched for by users. I think this qualifies for that. Easily. 86.130.247.16 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it brought more people out onto the streets than at any time for a few centuries. Every Mayday, goodness knows how many (I would conservatively estimate five thousand) come out at 6am. Batmanand | Talk 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xettonym

This is merely a dictionary definition with no hope of becoming a genuine article. Contested prod. MER-C 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a stub encyclopaedia article about xettonyms. That an article is short does not make it a dictionary article. The real problem with this article is that it is original research. I can find nothing at all that documents the concept of xettonyms. This is a novel concept being first named and documented directly in Wikipedia, with no documentation already existing outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until xettonym becomes a notable xettonym. --Tikiwont 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no notability. Realkyhick 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as a dicdef. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been transwikied [18] and is proposed for deletion there as well.--Tikiwont 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Uncle G, I could find nothing to substantiate this term. It appears to be OR, a neologism/protologism or a hoax. In any event, it should be deleted.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by UtherSRG. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Arthey

Vanispamcruftisement which fails WP:BIO as non-notable sportsman. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPs Zoocode 1.3

Notability rather questionable, and significant conflict of interest problems. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy as nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orangeplucker 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable in the extreme. Realkyhick 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: NN OR with just 3 Google hits. Tearlach 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g4, reposted, nothing new. NawlinWiki 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McGhie

Vanity piece. Deleted previously, notability not risen since. Gekedo 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete previously deleted, and no claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not even very slightly notable - artciel erads liek a cross between a flyer and a joke. StuartDouglas 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per CSD G7. Xoloz 03:54, 13 November 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.

Rick McGhie

Although undoubtedly notable among the university's students, I don't feel this guitarist is notable enough for an entry. Yes, has been playing for 28 years, but only live and in a small area. Google search brings up few sites, but nothing beyond that that would be given to a small group playing live gigs. Gekedo 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its another puff piece. scope_creep 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete.At what point does one reach "Wikipedia status"? Is it a quantitative "they are known by x number of people" or is it something more complex? While I understand the spirit behind the deletion of pages, I feel that given the vastness of wikipedia it cannot be compared to a simple encyclopedia. I'm sure it is a great feat to have your name written up in Brittanica, for example, but should it be as difficult to be written up in wikipedia? These are not simply rhetorical questions, as I really would like to know peoples thoughts about this. I haven't been editing for that long so I'm still trying to figure things out. Je at uwo 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je at uwo. Take a look at WP:BIO for an explantion of what is required to get listed on Wikipedia scope_creep 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McGhie has attained a cult status at one of the largest universities in Canada. There is not one student who has walked the campus who doesn't know of his musical stylings. Rick McGhie has a a place in the heart of 25 000 students and hundreds of thousands of Alumni. I've seen things on Wikipedia that are far more meager or irrelevant than this entry. I think it should stay.24.42.118.206 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete.I would argue this, Kinu, with reference to WP:MUSIC. The seventh entry of this policy would apply here as Rick McGhie is a prominant example of a local scene of the University of Western Ontario. 129.100.180.234 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies, I forgot to sign in before posting. The above comment is from Je at uwo 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form, which makes no (or an insignificant) claim to notability. The article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC as it stands. Googling "Rick McGhie" returns 582 hits, which is pretty low. I'm led to suspect he's just another one of millions of local musicians around the world. --Hyperbole 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Vyse 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Anti-Messianic Church

This article is obviously a sarcastic hoax. Look at the author's contributions at Talk:Christianity if you aren't sure. Born2x 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relatively clear from the author's edits, especially this one, that either this is abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to proselytize a newly invented religion or this is simple hoax vandalism aimed at disrupting the article on Christianity. Delete. Uncle G 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish for Us to Proselytize our One Sacred Truth on your Web Site, I will Respect your Choice to Sin. But that should not Prevent us from Writing a Factual Article on our One Sacred Truth. Esa29 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if we assume good faith, real religious group recently started, the group itself has not achieved any notability and appears to be unverifiable via any reliable sources. So, without prejudice to the article's author, delete. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know for sure if the author has been serious or not this whole time, but I don't think that's necessarily the most important thing here, a google search turns up nothing on this supposed denomination that I can see, and if there's nothing to even confirm that the subject actually exists since there's no references, well....I don't see why this article should be kept. Homestarmy 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, your Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Fryear, am Proof that we Exist. I, along with our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher, are currently the Only Knowers of our One Sacred Truth, for it has only been in the past Month that we have Learned that we are Permitted to spread our One Sacred Truth to Others. But that I am Here writing about our One Sacred Truth is Proof that we Exist. Esa29 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Wikipedia is trying to be a fairly reliable encyclopedia, and thusly has some standards about what can be in it in terms of reliable references. And part of those standards is that there have to be sources for articles that are notable for some degree, for instance, stuff like blogs or personal websites really aren't acceptable. Trying to reference oneself is even worse, unless you're like some super awesome notable professor of religiosity or something, and by the encyclopedic standards that I presume Wikipedia is going for, referencing oneself really isn't considered useful.... Homestarmy 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously just a joke/sarcasm. The capitalizing of random letters is poking fun of how Christians capitalize He/Him/His/etc when referring to God. The self-referential proof that they exist is poking fun of Christians using the Bible as evidence for the historicity of Christ. There's no real point in humoring (bad pun intended) him. It's a bad joke/sarcasm/religious bigotry. --Born2x 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Its a dumb article. All "sincerity" issues aside, its a dumb article. Its 2 lines long, and is completely uninformative. It covers a movement that nobody has ever heard of. So please just Delete it. And Esa29, chill out dude. If you're serious, then keep your religion, but keep it off wikipedia.--Padawan3000 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can write More if you would like. Other Faiths are covered on Wiki Pedia; why should our One Sacred Truth not be as well? If you wish that I not Proselytize on your Web Site I will not, but why should there not be a Factual Article? 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because your church doesn't exist. It is poor satire. If you were writing about George Bush's long lost twin brother or some such nonsense, we wouldn't be having this discussion, your article would have been deleted by now. But religion is confusing enough to some people that they can't tell the difference between patent nonsense and something that someone somewhere might actually believe. Granted, with some of the cults out there, that line is pretty blurry ... but in the case of your article, it's just silly and an obvious hoax. --Born2x 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to Insist that our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is a Hoax and a Lie, and that we do not Exist? I am an Honest man of God. That I am Here spreading the One Sacred Truth is Proof that we Exist! Why must you Continue to Belittle and Insult us? Esa29 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or proof that you have too much time on your hands ... like every other vandal on Wikipedia. --Born2x 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Assuming that this is not persistant vandalism (if so -- quite the stick-to-it-ness on this one), it still does not pass the threshold of notability. -- Pastordavid 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims to notability. Get some citations and a bit more detail Esa and maybe you can manage a page. Without independent citations, this is clearly a WP:N issue, even if the church is real. Which I doubt... Callix
Delete. Sarcasm and soapboxey, but not really notable. Nothing much turned up. One person existing and saying that it exists doesn't mean that it's notable. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

Redo this in about one week time, then delete it' April first is next week. George Leung 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A joke, and not a very good one. Realkyhick 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Everyone insist that I am a Hoaxer and a Liar? If our Church does not meet your Criteria to be worthy of an Article, then so be it. But why must you be so Unkind as to think that I am merely Perpetrating a Joke? Why must you be so Offensive and Insulting? Is this typical Behavior on the Wiki Pedia? Esa29 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. A google search turns up four links - three here on Wikipedia, and a forum. That's not only a lack of proof of notability, that's lack of proof that it exists. That you exist does not constitute that this group exists - and even if you have created it, maybe it does, but it still is nowhere even remotely near notable. Let's then discount the fact that it reads like a usenet post on alt.christnet.*, and also discount the inherent sarcasm. And let's also completely and utterly ignore the fact that you seem to think that existence alone connotes a qualifier to be included on Wikipedia. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

...aw, buggers, forgot to sign. --Dennisthe2 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer object to the Deletion of the Article; I understand the Arguments for it, and though I am not Convinced I understand it is Pointless to try to change things. But why must everyone Insult me? I have done no wrong here. Why does promoting and sharing the One Sacred Truth make me an object for Ridicule and for false Accusations of being a Liar and perpetrating a Hoax? Esa29 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you are insulted is because you choose to be. Nothing more, nothing less. --Dennisthe2 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may bring something to everyone's attention, from Dennis's google search, that particular forum post in the thread which is relevant to the search term reads as follows:

"I once, as a joke, created the Christian Anti-Messianic church--for followers of Christ who reject the notion that he was the Messiah.

It was a satire of Messianic Judaism.

__________________

Kurt Weber".

Something smells rotten in Denmark. Homestarmy 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a direct link to it? I don't see the forum when I do the Google search. (Maybe Google restricts your results based on your geographic location or something.) --Born2x 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the fourth and only non-Wiki result, from the NationStates forums:[19] Homestarmy 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone be nice please. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Esa definently is related to the person who posted that forum post, i'm just trying to point out, its the only easily accessable evidence available as far as I can tell that this concept exists, and it certainly doesn't look good. Homestarmy 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kurt Weber is one of the two Individuals that our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher was Commanded to Spread the One Sacred Truth to when it was Revealed to him as part of the Book of Fortitude, but he Rejected it and chose to Ridicule us instead. Esa29 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a possible funny aside, the capitalization actually reminds me of German, since I'm pretty sure they capitalize all nouns or something like that. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will strongly support an article on even a very small splinter religious group or sect--provided there is evidence it exists outside the pages of WP. If by any chance an actual congregation can be demonstrated, I think the articles should remain. I'm not going to determine the Truth, but there has to be some evidence that other people Believe. DGG 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Girl McCall

This is a page about a stillborn child on a soap opera that was never even given a legal name. Since there are already pages that have been created for the child's parents, information relating to the child could easily be incorporated onto those pages. D'Amico 11:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A character that was never portrayed in any way is not notable. --Charlene 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parents article. StuartDouglas 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Realkyhick 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a page that has very little to do with one SL of its parents. This SL was a very big part of the show for 8 months. This child had Jax, Sonny, Sam, Ric, Alexis and Jason in her life and baby girl McCall has a grave that IS STILL VISITED. She deserves a page!allie_collegegirl21 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge (and condense). This isn't a character, it's a storyline, and we don't need a separate page for every storyline in every soap opera. Propaniac 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We don't need an article on every single character in General Hospital. Just the major ones, and the minor characters can have a paragraph at List of General Hospital characters. --El on ka 05:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Music Journal

WP:SPAM, none encyclopedic, has to be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Google Scholar and Books: The book The Sell-in: How the Music Business Seduced Alternative Rock calls CMJ's tipsheet "influential". Music Management for the Rest of Us calls it "one of your strongest tools to measure how well ..." Confessions of a Record Producer: "most innovative". It is mentioned alongside the likes of Spin, NME and Rolling Stone in Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo. The publications CMJ New Music Monthly and CMJ New Music Report are cited in a few articles. –Pomte 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent, reliable sources. the YouTube video is as anti-notable as it is notable, and can harldy be reliable or attributable. Until there are multiple independent, reliable, attributable sources this fails WP:N Callix
Keep per Pomte and also CMJs well-known music festivals NY-Times MTV ASCAP etc. In fact, I'm surprised there's not an article for the CMJ Music Marathon. Article does need expanding. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The main journal in its field, and that's notability. In all the expected indexes. DGG 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and reasons cited above which establish notability. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NapalmSunday 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep No question. Their music festival draws about 100k people every year. Toscaesque 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Barbara

The player played just in Malta but hasn't played in any professional league. He played for one of the weakest national teams in Europe but just in qualification round since he is from a weak country like Malta but not to any euro or World Cup final phase. And his team nothing better than last position!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRBN (talk • contribs)

Keep - internationally capped player, regardless of how strong the team is. Archibald99 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the player is capped by his NT (BanRay 08:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP:BIO does not say for players who have played for the national team rather than those who have played in a fully professional team. Also with his national team, he has never played in a great competition rather than in qualifications. It is very easy to play to such a national team, since it is so weak. User:KRBN 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 12 caps and 3 goals with a national team StephP 11:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Capped by NT, played for teams who have played in UEFA tournaments and who appear to be professional, including Floriana. StuartDouglas 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an international footballer. ArtVandelay13 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: he is Wiki-notable notwithstanding comment above. Springnuts 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep quality of stub not a reason of deletion. Matthew_hk t c 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appear to be sufficient available sources. Addhoc 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if he's played for his country, however small they may be, he is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. This was a tough one to close. A significant portion of the "keep" comments made did not cite policy, and seemed to border on WP:ILIKEIT. However, even discounting these, I couldn't find consensus to delete; WP:NEO is a guideline, and I don't feel comfortable asserting WP:IAR to apply it to this article when I couldn't find consensus to delete in the first place. This close places no prejudice against renominations of the article, and I strongly caution User:Davidhc to remain civil, constructive, and non-argumentative in future AfD debates. Badgering editors with views different than your own with incivil commentary is not acceptable. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman (unit)

Not notable, neologism, full of OR, does not cite sources other than blogs, all relevant content about the term is at Atrios already. Croctotheface 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:NOR. This is an absurd example of OR. Not one of the cited references in the sprawling "examples" section actually uses the term "friedman unit". Blogs and their ilk are not generally reliable sources; certainly not to establish currency of a neologism. This article belongs in Disinfopedia or dKosopedia, if anywhere. By the way, this article and its impending deletion has been commented on by Atrios^[20]; expect some puppetry. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this neologism catches on...Meanwhile we can transwiki the term and redirect to Atrios.--Tikiwont 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kaustuv. The article itself seems to give two different definitions for a Friedman unit, so it may not even be eligible for transwiki-ing. Redirect to Atrios after deletion. The "examples" section is nothing short of WP:SYN. Risker 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - a first summary This article should not be deleted. Many of the points below have been drawn from the previous debate on whether or not to Merge the article. The result of that debate was for the article not to be merged.
- Reliable sources: Apart from the secondary debate over whether millions of people reading hundreds of blogs that repeatedly use the term Friedman Unit count as a reliable source, the term has appeared in print media as referenced in the article. If you have problems with the print media that the term has appeared in, then please do not just say "that doesn't count" or "that's not a reliable source." You will need to explain why those specific publications are not reliable in the context of the wikipedia guidelines.
- Neologism: The neologism rule is in place to keep people from using Wikipedia to coin a term. In the case of the Friedman Unit, the term is already widely used without the help of this article. While the google test does not assure notability of a term, the many and varied hit results for the Friedman Unit show that it is widely used by millions of people. If you no not think that millions of blog readers do not count as the wide use of a term, then please explain why they do not count.
- Wikipedia is not a print medium: It is a founding principle of Wikipedia that is has space for entries that would not otherwise make it into a print encyclopedia. Because if this rule, it is important to remember that if an article is in doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution and keep the article rather than delete it. If you think that Wikipedia does not have space for this article, then please explain with evidence.
- I don't like it: While the "I like it" argument is not a good reason for keeping an article, it is also equally important to remember that "I don't like it" is not a good reason for deleting it. Editors on both sides need to ask themselves this question before they make their arguments so that they do not do a disservice to the Wikipedia community by letting their subjective opinions overshadow their reason.
For these and many other reasons that I am sure other people will list, this article should be kept. Davidhc 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, millions of people use this term? Please provide a reliable source for this. Several political bloggers have used it, although notably the person for whom it is named does not. I can't see any comments above that use the "I don't like it" argument. As to the WP:NEO argument, given that search results for just about any term in Wikipedia will show Wikipedia in the top 5 results, the fact of an article here pretty well guarantees that Wikipedia has an effect on the popularity of a term (which one could term the "observation affects the outcome of an experiment" argument). There have been other recent examples where news sources and blogs have taken their information about current events right from the Wikipedia articles in development at that time. The term was coined by Atrios and deserves a place in the article about him. There is no consistent definition or usage of the term at this point. Until that stabilizes, the article should be deleted with a redirect to Atrios. The examples have to go regardless of whether or not the article is deleted. Risker 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a) What print source are you talking about? The only source I saw brought up on the discussion page was a Huffington Post article that spent a total of three sentences discussing the term. I heard tell of a single mention in Editor and Publisher that is inaccessible to most readers, including myself.
- b) From WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." So far, we just have three sentences from HuffPo. Blogs, like it are not, are not considered reliable sources on WP.
- c) I think you're misstating WP:PAPER. Nobody is arguing that we should delete this article because it would not show up in Britannica, or anything to that effect. WP:PAPER does not justify the inclusion of articles that are poorly sourced or cover topics that are not significant enough. Those are the points of contention here, not whether this article would be included in a paper encyclopedia.
- d) I don't see anyone using the "I don't like it" argument here, and I don't expect anyone will, so I'm not sure what you're saying. If you want my subjective opinion on the term, I'm a fan of Atrios and think the term is funny and illustrative. However, objectively, it does not come close to meeting the requirements necessary to have an independent article on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "hundreds of blogs that repeatedly use the term" is the form of argument that is required at Wiktionary, because it is an argument about whether a word is in use. It is irrelevant to Wikipedia, because it doesn't demonstrate the existences of reliable sources that document a subject. Counting Google hits is not research. To demonstrate that reliable sources exist, you have to cite sources that document (not use — document) this purported unit. You have to show, with cited sources, that this unit has been researched and documented outside of Wikipedia, in accordance with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Excluding the sources that cite this Wikipedia article itself as their source, and the unreliable sources such as pseudonymous postings on discussion fora, there is not a single source in this article that documents this purported unit. There's only one source that even documents the fact that one person has made the same prediction repeatedly, something that is incorrectly presented when presented in an article on a unit of measurement that has not actually been documented anywhere. Uncle G 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is full of citations, and not all of them are blogs; apparently, this term has indeed gained some currency in the print media. I can't see any policy this violates. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "gained some currency" mean? I mean, the article itself says something to that effect, but it seems to be incorrect. If anything, the section that lists publications that have used the term is misleading, as it cites blogs (say, from the Washington Monthly) but gives the impression that the term has appeared in print edition of the magazine. Croctotheface 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy, given that it takes roughly thirty quotations from different people talking about things that may happen months into the future and synthesizes from them the novel conclusion that there is a unit of measurement. Uncle G 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if this term really is "widely-used in print media," where are the reliable sources demonstrating such? None of the sources cited mention the "friedman" at all. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See fourth paragraph. Bill Oaf 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and Publishers Just to give one example of a secondary source: Along with the listing on the main page for the Friedman Unit, there is in individual entry in discussion page on the use of the term in an article in the print edition of Editors and Publishers. This article, you can read an excerpt included in the discussion, acknowledges that the term is widely used and is accurate in its description. This is all that is needed to verify the term Friedman Unit and keep this entry. The whole point of a secondary source is to find a reliable source (in this case a print article that was written by professional journalists and approved by professional editors) that documents the use of the term. The purpose of a secondary source is to provide documentation of existence, not act as proof of existence in itself. If you have any proof that the Editors and Publishers is not a professional print media, or that the article is a hoax, then please I would like to see it. Also, please read the article and the article's comments page before you post here and vaguely claim that reliable sources do not exist, because both the article and the discussion reliable secondary sources clearly. Davidhc 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have done several WP:HEY efforts on behalf of neologisms, and some of those resulted in a keep or no consensus result; obviously, I'm liberally inclusionist. In this case I looked around and saw little that could be done, as much as WP:ILIKEIT. I pushed and prodded in the merge discussion for reliable sources and the elimination of original research, and there was some improvement -- but ultimately there are only marginally reliable sources even using the term at all, such as The Huffington Post. Now, I could defend a list of citations of "in the next N months" predictions if and only if they were accompanied by a citation of a reliable source calling that prediction a "Friedman" (and I personally would accept Atrios for these, as this is a subarticle on his term, as long as notability had been established otherwise). I am pretty sure that a very brief such list could be extracted for illustration purposes in the Atrios article. But he hasn't done that for all of the examples cited; the list seems to be merely finding as many "in the next N months" citations as possible, which only really illustrates what Atrios is originally complaining about, i.e. the prevalence of such predictions. So most of the list would have to go even if notability were established, because it's synthesis. All that said, I have urged that the authors of the article give it a more appropriate home such as Demopedia or Dkosopedia, where the predictions may be compiled under more hospitable inclusion policies. I would indeed like it if this term were a notable neologism, but as it stands, I don't think it passes muster. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There's no denying the term's indebtedness to Atrios; however, the phrase has currency beyond Eschaton (one of the twenty most influential publications in the U.S., in my opinion) & beyond the blogosphere in general--I've heard it in conversation. It's a succinct critique of U.S. policy in Iraq and, more pointedly, of the U.S. media's failure to question authority. Billbrock 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of references in the opening paragraphs that establish this term has expanded beyond Atrios' blog - even into "mainstream". The specific political motivation in using it aside, it does seem to have become widespread in certain significant circles. If the big list of examples in the later part of the article is too ORish or otherwise unweildy it can be trimmed or removed, but that's a content and cleanup issue rather than an AfD one. Bryan Derksen 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I came upon this article and found it to be useful; I have seen the term in a number of places and was pleased to see that Wikipedia had an article on the emerging meme. Along with others, I added some sources demonstrating its use in various mainstream publications. Bill Oaf 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the supporting arguments previously mentioned. In response to the Editors and Publishers argument, I'd like to point out that the article merely mentions in passing that certain bloggers use the Friedman Unit. The term appears once in the entire text, while the article itself is devoted to a different subject. However, notablility requires the topic being the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works. This neologism has never been discussed in any level of detail by a reliable source, let alone being the subject of one. — Kelw (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for acknowledging that the term has been referenced in a reliable print media. Davidhc 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Dhartung claims to "like it," then goes on to ignore all the sound arguments for keeping it as Editors hashed out over the past month in the Talk page. (I just lurked on there as I assumed those who favored merger or deletion were just a bunch of trouble-makers whose suggestions would not be taken seriously.) Many who favor deletion ignore the clear acceptance of web sources in the OR guidelines. Dhartung asserts, with no basis in fact, that HuffingtonPost is a "marginally reliable source," when (as the Talk pages make clear) it is written by well-known and highly-regarded journalists -- repeated below. He dismissively makes passing reference to "even using the term at all, such as The Huffington Post" -- while failing to mention that the phrase "Friedman Unit" won HuffPo's award for "best new phrase of 2006! That's much more than "using the term at all"! And it casts doubt on Dhartung's objectivity and good faith in this discussion.

Here is just one of the many sound arguments on the FU talk page, all of which apparently need to be copied into here if critics are not willing to engage in good faith discussion:

The original-research guidelines state: "citing book, print, or reliable web resources [sic] demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion." So web resources are explicitly allowed...
Huffington Post is a reliable web resource. It is: (i) widely read (online outranking US News & World Report, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Washington Times, over the past year). (ii) Its feature-story writers include some of the most notable names in American politics. Well-known journalists among its blog-writers alone[21] include [starting alphabetically with "A"]: Chris Ahearn (President of Reuters!!), Mary Ann Akers (columnist for DC insiders' magazine Roll Call), Charles Alexander (23 years writing for Time Magazine), Roger Alford (law professor at Pepperdine University), Graham Allison (Harvard University professor, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for 12 years, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, author of six books in political science and policy), Jonathan Alter (senior editor and colunist at Newsweek), Eric Alterman (prolific writer and commentator), Tom Andrews (former US Congressman from Maine), George Archibald (over 20 years writing for the Washington Times), etc. -- those are a few examples just from the list of last-names beginning with "A"! Huffington Post is not just some random blog populated by anyone who can type. (iii) The lead author on the Huffington Post article[22] that declared Friedman Unit to be the "best new phrase of 2006," Rachel Sklar, is widely published in: The New York Times, The New York Post, The Village Voice, Glamour, New York Magazine, The Financial Times and numerous other publications, and is a frequent guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country TV show.[23] In short, Huffington Post clearly fits the criteria for a "reliable web resource" which "demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion," as specified in the Wikipedia guideline on no original research. And HuffPost declared "Friedman Unit" to be the best new phrase of 2006.

Again, that's just one of many dozens of sound arguments for keeping this article, despite any doubts raised on first-glance. Eugene Banks 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post may be a reliable source. However, the article that mentioned the term was about another subject and spent a total of three sentences on the term. As others have noted, that is not sufficient to establish that a neologism should have an article on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to clarify, everything that is "not original reserach" does not automaticlaly become notable. In order for a subject to have its own article, it must be notable. As such, your quote from WP:NOR deals with whether or not text can be included within an article, not whether a topic can have its own Wikipedia article. The standard at WP:N, as others have mentioned, is being "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works". I don't see a single published work, let alone a "substantial' or "non-trivial" one, of which the Friedman unit is the subject. It was mentioned in a trivial way (3 sentences) in a Huffington Post article. It was not the subject of that article by a long shot. It was apparently mentioned in passing in an Editor and Publisher article. Again, it was not the subject of that article. Where's the notability here? Croctotheface 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best protocol, should all discussion on this be placed here (copied here -- as only a small portion of the anti-delete arguments have been so far), or left on the article's Talk page? I'm increasingly suspecting that the arguments for deletion are a disguised form of POV, most likely relating to the highly contentious Iraq war. E.g.:

Do not delete. I spent only 5 minutes googling this term, and what do I find: an interview on CNN TV, by Howard Kurtz no less, in which Tom Friedman himself is asked about his repeated use of the "six month" time-frame. No mention of Atrios. It is such a common notion that Kurtz doesn't even feel the need to name his source. He doesn't use the exact two words "Friedman" and "Unit", but there is no question what he is referring to: "you [Tom Friedman] were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions 'the next six months are crucial in Iraq,' 'the next six months.'" This article never should have been flagged in the first place. Eugene Banks 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, whenever someone uses an "it must be" type of construction, it's because he or she believes something but recognizes that the sources don't actually support it. In this case, you're arguing that "there is no question" over what Kurtz is referring to, but if there were, why doesn't he mention it? Why do you need to hang your hat on the rather dubious notion that this term is SO notable that nobody even needs to use it? We're dealing with a neologism that currently has its own article, not a question of whether Friedman was criticized in a notable way over his repeated use of "the next six months" in relation to Iraq. I would agree that in the latter case that it is completely legitimate to mention that Friedman has been criticized. That could go, say, here: Thomas Friedman#Friedman Unit. However, the fact that a subject meets the threshold of verifiability required to be mentioned WITHIN articles is not the same as achieving notability through ~~multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources~~ being "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works" per WP:N. Without notability, the term can't have its own article. Croctotheface 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article on the Friedman Unit cites at least three print publications which cover the term in their articles. This meets the guideline of "multiple non-trivial published works." If you disagree, then please explain how these three publications do not meet the "non-trivial" standard. Davidhc 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me by pointing them out here? All the publications I see cited in the paragraph I assume you're talking about mentioned the "unit" in their blogs, except for E&P. Croctotheface 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the term must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Even if The American Prospect or Washington Monthly mentioned the term in the print edition of their publications, and not merely their blogs, "mentioned in" or "used in" do not meet the standard of notability that I quoted. Croctotheface 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. An interview of Friedman. Lots of talk about "six months." No use of the term "Friedman unit." If I had seen that interview, would I have any reason to think that "six months" would equal "Friedman unit" or vice versa? If the term was not used in the interview, then the interview cannot in any way be used as an example of the term. Risker 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-trivial sources There seems to be a lot of confusion over examples that people bring up in discussion and the examples that are in the article. (If you have good examples of the use of the term, please add them to the article.) The sources currently cited in the article are:

Editor & Publisher
The American Prospect
Think Progress (the official online publication of the Center for American Progress),
Daily Kos
Washington Monthly
Huffington Post

If you want to delete this article, then you are going to have to prove why ALL of these sources do not meet the non-trivial guidelines (I would say most of them are way above the criteria for non-trivial). You can not just go on slamming the Huffington Post or examples that are not in the main article and then say there is no notability. Please stick to the text. Davidhc 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed E&P and HuffPo at length already, so I won't repeat those arguments again. Daily Kos is a blog. The American Prospect citation is from TAPPED, the publication's blog. The Washington Monthly citation is from Kevin Drum's blog, which is published on the WM's website. In your last comment, you said that "three print publications...cover the term in their articles". In fact, this coverage is from blogs, which is not the same thing, per WP:Reliable sources. Besides that, these blogs just use the term, which is enough to satisfy inclusion in Wiktionary, but not here. You have yet to show that the "Friedman unit" is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Croctotheface 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that the term Friedman Unit is covered in all of the sources listed above. Please also note, that as explained above in the discussion, the wikipedia guidelines do not exclude blogs. So please explain to me why this article is up for deletion? Davidhc 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per official Wikipedia policy WP:A, blogs are self-published and therefore cannot be reliable sources. I'm not sure which Wikipedia guideline you are referring to. — Kelw (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is valued here, first of all. Second, "covered in X sources" does not establish notability. As I've said more than once now, WP:N calls for a topic to be "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works" for it to meet the threshold of notability required for it to have an article. I have not seen a single published work that the "Friedman unit" is the subject of. I've seen it used in a couple of blog posts, and maybe mentioned in passing here or there, but that's it. Regarding blogs, I suggest you reread WP:RS. Blogs written by experts whose blogs cover their area of expertise can occasionally be used as sources for content, subject to very specific restrictions, per WP:SPS. Kevin Drum's blog, for instance, may have a sufficient pedigree to source content, though even something like that could very likely lead to disputes. However, something can be sufficient to source content within articles and still fall well short of establishing notability required for a topic to have its own article. I'd recommend rereading all the policies and guidelines at issue here if you're still a bit unclear about the difference. Croctotheface 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, do not merge, do not blank. Croc, firstly, you seem to be engaging in the following style of argumentation: You make argument X. Opponents make arguments A, B, and C. You then conclude "We've already discussed X," trying to get the last word while ignoring the previous discussion. (And if X is rebutted, you then add argument Y.) WP:Reliable Sources concludes: "This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." This has been done, with Friedman unit, many times over. Additional sources keep being added -- I just added CNN (see above). The fact that E&P has an article with FU as a subject is really all a WP article needs as proof of reliable sourcing and non-original research. (Perhaps a definition of "subject" is in order? Wiktionary: "Subject: 1. In a clause: the word or word group [usually a noun phrase] that is dealt with.") You keep raising the bar on this article as to what a reliable source must be. (Now it seems you're saying it must be the only subject of an article? That's ridiculous. Or perhaps only appearing in a mass-circulation magazine? But E&P is far more notable and credible than e.g. Time Magazine. Each time you ignore new evidence and previous arguments I suspect you are surreptitiously engaging in POV.) The fact that HuffingtonPost is a highly credible online source (whose authors and editorial process are better than most print outlets) also stands alone as sufficient sourcing. (Perhaps we should examine the credibility of journalists and editorial process in other sources frequently used on Wikipedia; the Washington Times comes to mind immediately.) On a whim I just Googled and discovered that the FU concept has been picked up in French, as well, e.g. "Ca vaut les six mois de Friedman pour un dénouement en Irak." The fact that there are many sources for Friedman Unit (including the others cited elsewhere, Kevin Drum, CNN, Washington Monthly, etc.) casts doubt on your willingness to engage in reasonable discussion.

Secondly, part of the confusion may be a philosophical difference. What is important is the Platonic ideal of the concept, the abstraction. Ideas are more important than physical manifestations of things. So what is important about "Friedman unit" is the concept (including the never-ending series of six-month projections about war that are forgotten as the period ends, and the widespread uses of this concept which needs to be demonstrated by examples). Thus, the fact that Kurtz on CNN did not use the 10 letters (a, d, e, f, i, m, n, r, t, and u) rearranged to spell "Friedman Unit" is truly not important. There is no doubt that Kurtz, interviewing Friedman about the latter's repeated use of a never-ending six-month horizon in regards to the Iraq war, is discussing this concept. Critics of this page may be more Aristotelian in outlook, but there is room on Wikipedia for articles of both types, and measuring up to one approach or the other is not grounds for deletion, merging, or blanking. Being overly concerned with minutiae and detail about guidelines is not helpful for Wikipedians, especially when combined with a tone that is perceived as condescending, even if it is not being used as a cloak for POV. Eugene Banks 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point: what is important, per WP:NEO, is very much the "abstraction", in this case the neologism ("Friedman unit") in question, rather than the concept. To quote the guideline, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." (Emphasis in original.) So, yes, to your first point, sources that establish notability DO need to be ABOUT the topic of the article. That is, indeed, ~~the whole point~~a major tenet of WP:N. Croctotheface 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm going to ask you to chilll out a little bit regarding the tone of some of your comments. I don't think it's really productive to accuse me of being a POV pusher or accusing me of moving the goalposts or anything of that nature. These type of comments, per WP:CIVIL, are generally not considered productive for discussion and establishing consensus. Croctotheface 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Editors and Publishers article is a reliable secondary source about the term, it is not an article that simply uses the term. Davidhc 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the text I found through a Google search here is accurate, then this is an article about the concept of Friedman repeatedly saying "the next six months" that mentions the term in one sentence, but it's not an article about the term. Croctotheface 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the full text of the article. This full article definitely confirms as a secondary source that the Friedman Unit is an accurate and correct term for describing the use of the phrase "The next six months" in the style of Thomas Friedman. As you can see, the article starts by presenting the term "the Friedman Unit" in the opening paragraph, explains how it applies to the use of the phrase "the next six months", and makes a special note that the word did not originate in the article itself. This is what a secondary source is supposed to do. Davidhc 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article is about Friedman and his procilvity to talk about "the next six months", not the term. The article MENTIONS the term, but it is not ABOUT the term itself. Basically, the Wikipedia article covers the term in far more detail than any other source. This should simply not happen. One sentence in E&P, three sentences in HuffPo...that's just not enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that "Freidman unit" is a meaningful phrase with descriptive power and so forth. However, that in itself does not merit a WP article. The term can be covered in Atrios and at Wiktionary to the same effect. Croctotheface 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The E&P article is about the Friedman Unit, it talks about nothing but the Friedman Unit, in fact the article proves that the Friedman Unit was not a "one off" event because the main body of the article is on how Thomas Friedman continues to use the Friedman Unit. This article in combination with the other references given meet the criteria of "multiple non-trivial sources". Please see my next entry. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is legitimate as determined by the wikipedia guidelines and so it shoudl be kept. The "multiple non-trivial sources" given in this article prove that this article is a legitimate entry in Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. There is nothing more that you can ask of an encyclopedia. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the E&P article mentions the Friedman Unit in one sentence and then talks about a different subject. As other editors have already said many, many times, that is simply not enough to meet WP:A. I don't know why you say the article "talks about nothing but the Friedman Unit", because that is just not true. You don't need to bring this up repeatedly and bold every paragraph. And I'm not sure which guidelines you keep referring to, but without reliable sources this article would certainly not meet WP:NEO. — Kelw (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: if you merge with Atrios you also have to merge with Thomas Friedman. The 'next six months' phenomenon in Friedman's columns is notable and supported by multiple non-trivial sources, dating from the original FAIR article. If editors are prepared to migrate discussion of the phenomenon to the Friedman entry (where it currently has an 'original research' tag) then discussion of the 'Friedman Unit' neologism can be migrated to the Atrios entry with an appropriate cross-reference. But I think the Friedman merge cannot be ignored, and has to occur at the same time, because the 'next six months' phenomenon is not limited to discussions by Atrios. Holgate 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not contain any verifiable information that hasn't already been merged into Atrios. If you wish to merge into the Friedman article, that can be done from the Atrios article after a consensus is obtained on the Friedman talk page. You might argue the "six months" phenomenon is notable, but in my opintion this article on a neologism is clearly not notable and needs to be deleted. — Kelw (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense whatsoever. the elements of the article that should be merged into the Friedman article (on the repeated 'next six months') are ones that shouldn't be merged into the Atrios article, on basic relevance grounds. Hence my vote: the 'next six months' material is notable and verifiable for Friedman, and dumping it off in the Atrios article as a half-way house just shifts the issue without resolving it. If the neologism is notable enough to merge with the Atrios article, then the thing to which it refers needs to be in its proper place. (In short: if A coins term B to refer to what X says about Y, then the discussion of Y needs to be on X's page, not A's.) Merge to both, or keep for now. Holgate 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain a civil tone and refrain attacks like "that makes no sense whatsoever". If you insist, you can take out what doesn't belong in the Atrios article and place it in the Friedman article. The "six months" phenomenon can easily be summarized in a single sentence on Friedman's article, with a reference linking to the FAIR article. Beyond this, all the content is either original research or already merged. There is no need to keep this article around if you want to merge into Friedman's article. — Kelw (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reflexive accusations of incivility: WP:CIVIL is not a cudgel to be waved indiscriminately. The 'six months' phenomenon deserves more than a single sentence, but I'm going to deal with that over at the Friedman article and start a more substantial merge. Holgate 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have pretty well defined the debate here. If the article was called "Six months," then it would be overwhelmingly well sourced. The point is that the reliable sources do NOT use the term "Friedman Unit." Politicians and pundits have used the "six month" expression for (lest I date myself) generations, about all kinds of situations. The article gives a definition of the term Friedman unit as a "six month period" but then exclusively provides examples from the Iraq war discussions - not one of which uses the term "Friedman unit" or the variations ("Friedman," "F.U."). Risker 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument for looking to see if there are sufficient secondary sources to use for an an "Antecedents" section (cognates before "FU" was coined), while keeping in compliance with OR/synthesis guidelines. Since these may be more likely to appear in books, not digital form, it may be some time before these are unearthed. But this is no argument for deleting the article.

I think we've reached a degree of consensus here, Kelw: I've sketched out the 'six months' criticism on the Friedman article, providing mutual links between that section and the Atrios article. That's the space that this neologism should really occupy. The quotations are worth saving somewhere, though Demopedia/DKosopedia seems more appropriate. Holgate 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huffington Post as a reliable source: although there are blog-sections on HuffPost, it is far more than that. As the Editor of Salon magazine recently wrote: "I root for the Politico [website] and other growing publications less new to the Web, like the Huffington Post and Josh Marshall's growing Talking Points empire, because if Salon is right about the future of Web publishing (and I believe we are) we can't, won't and shouldn't be the only ones (besides bloggers) [sic] making an independent go of it out here. So I applaud the Politico and the journalists who've been lured from old media to explore the new world." So the editor of Salon distinguishes HuffPost from bloggers. It does not make sense to apply WP guidelines on any old blog to online news sites edited and written by experienced and highly-regarded journalists. Eugene Banks 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - While blogs might not be reliable sources in general, they are precisely what is needed to establish the usage of a neologism. If you take a walk and every third person you meet uses a particular neologism, it doesn't matter if the people you've met are experts on the subject the neologism is part of, or whether they are experts on usage, or whether they even properly understand the word or are using it correctly. What matters is that their very use of the word establishes the diffusion of the neologism into the general population, which is really the point. So, if a lot of different blogs are using "Friedman unit", then the word is in usage, whether or not the bloggers understand the first thing about Iraq or Thomas Friedman. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a dictionary's job, not an encyclopedia's, to document usage of words. Pan Dan 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is, however, an encyclopedia's job to provide background on what it means, where it came from, what provoked its coinage, who coined it, the spread of its use, debate about the meaning, etc. etc. etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Comment: Last night I went through the first 500 google-hits on the term "Friedman Unit." Out of that 500, there was exactly one link that constituted a reliable source, and it is already in the article. Perhaps more crucially, there were also almost 100 mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and at least 50 more that said "Wikipedia defines...." And of course WP was #1 and #2 on the google-hit parade. In other words - Wikipedia's entry is directly or indirectly responsible for 150 out of 500 of the top google-hits on this term. It certainly looks to me that WP:NEO is an issue here. Risker 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that there are reliable sources for this article. Please see my own test results below. Davidhc 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An experiment: This may seem like overkill, but I ran a quick test of my own because this is an issue that is important to ALL entries in wikipedia. I ran three variations of google searches for the Friedman Unit to see how it faired alone, with, and without wikipedia in the search criteria using the search terms:

1) "Friedman Unit" 2) "Friedman Unit" wikipedia 3) "Friedman Unit" -wikipedia

The results were as follows:

Friedman Unit alone: 259,000 (Wikipedia entry was first hit) with: 587 without: 261,000

(NOTE: if you run Friedman Unit without the quotes you get over 1.5 million hits)

To get a random sample of wikipedia to compare it to, I hit the "random article" link five times and did the same test on the pages it gave me. The results were as follows:

Thottiyam alone: 546 (wikipedia first hit) with wikipedia: 92 without wikipedia: 510

Air transports of heads of state alone: 226 (wikipedia second hit) with: 154 without: 64

Yamaha DX7 alone: 127,000 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 963 without: 118,000

Music at Work alone: 77,900 (wikipedia 6th hit) with: 553 without: 73,100

Enfield Town F.C. alone: 559 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 226 without: 508

As you can see, ALL the entries came up with wikipedia in the top 10 hits. Also, the Friedman Unit has by far the best ratio of with to without than any of the five random entries, which means that by the argument given above, we would have to delete ALL of these entries, and I am sure many more. The reason wikipedia shows up is not because of the popularity of any given article, but because of the popularity of wikipedia in general. When people want a source to link a topic in their web page, they link to wikipedia. All the copycat sites know this, and so they farm off the wikipedia entries to get traffic. Hence there is a big difference between a site that mirrors the wikipedia article and someone saying "as defined by wikipedia" in their web page. Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article. Davidhc 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor already mentioned, counting Google hits is not research. Do you have any "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term" to satisfy the standard set at WP:NEO? Please recall that the "six month phenomenon" that the term describes is NOT the same thing as the term itself. So far, all I can see that you have is three sentences from HuffPo and one sentence from E&P. Where's the beef? Croctotheface 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Croc if you got confused. If you scroll up a bit, then you will see the comment that I was responding to. But thank you for repeating the fact that google hits alone do not insure notability. I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat that fact in order to refute the claims of neologism that I was responding to, but I guess it would have been sufficient. Still, when you read the comment I was responding to you will see that Risker in his google search gave further confirmation to the fact that one of the references listed in the article is in fact a "reliable source." Davidhc 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not actually responding to what I asked. I asked if you know of a reliable source of which the "Friedman Unit" is the SUBJECT. That is, not merely mentioned or used in the article, but article itself is ON the "Unit". Not on Friedman or his proclivity to set arbitrary dates in the future, but the actual neologism that we're talking about. It is my contention that I have yet to see a single reliable source that is ON the Friedman unit. I've seen a one sentence mention in a reliable source. That does not establish notability. Do you know of any reliable sources of which the "Friedman unit" is the subject? That is, if you asked the author of the piece what it is about, he or she would likely say, "well, this is an article about the Friedman unit"? Croctotheface 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an overly stringent interpretation of 'reliable sourcing', and ignores the multiple non-trivial standard that has already been demonstrated. Nowhere do the guidelines on reliable sources, notability, attribution, original research, etc. state or hint that an article must be the sole subject of a reliable source. Nor do guidelines say that these sources must be about e.g., the etymology, origins, history, definition, existence qua neologism, or usage of a term, that would misconstrue the guidelines. Much of Wikipedia would fail this test, and not just crappy articles. A source in which the concept is a theme or featured prominently is clearly sufficient. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Friedman unit is not the subject of reliable sources as cited in the article, it's Talk page, and above. For example:

It is a significant subject of the E&P article, as Davidhc enumerated above: "The E&P article is about the Friedman Unit, [...] in fact the article proves that the Friedman Unit was not a 'one off' event because the main body of the article is on how Thomas Friedman continues to use the Friedman Unit." It would, of course, be very difficult to write an article on it and not "mention Friedman and his proclivity to set arbitrary dates in the future," as E&P did, so of course those subjects are present as well.
The online magazine Huffington Post, a reliable source (as documented above), deems the phrase "Friedman Unit" to be the best new phrase of 2006.
The phrase is a also significant subject of the CNN interview; even if the exact phrase itself is not used, Kurtz is clearly asking Friedman about the concept.
An online column (not a blog) for The American Prospect notes that "Friedman has become justly famous for the Friedman Unit -- a 6-month, endlessly renewable time period that will prove critical for Iraq."
As noted above, the guidelines' caution on use of blogs as a source is not absolute. And in this case (as discussed on the Talk page and here), there are good reasons why one might also consider blogs (such as DailyKos or the thousands of others that use the term) as "multiple non-trivial sources'. Namely, the concept FU contains within it a critique of traditional media (for a lack of critical reporting on the Iraq war early on), hence its widespread usage in informal circles as well as the reliable sources documented above.
While Google is not a reliable research source, on the other hand at some point in establishing the widespread usage of a term, quantity has it's own quality, and 250,000 hits for "Friedman unit" should not be ignored.

Etc. Twedle 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the guideline, that's fine, but it's unambiguous here. WP:NEO says, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The word "about" is italicized WITHIN THE GUIDELINE. Some people here seem to be operating as if WP guidelines and policies say something like "if a topic is mentioned at all in any reliable source, it should have a Wikipedia article." That is not the case. Croctotheface 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, and as discussed above, the cited articles are about the term (as well as other subjects). "Some people" is an unrefutable charge. "as if... something like... 'topic mentioned at all in any reliable source'" -- sarcasm is not constructive. Btw, the page on neologisms is simply an ongoing discussion of possible guidelines. There are four higher levels of policy and dozens of other guidelines. At the top, see for example the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Below that, see the Simplified Ruleset of 15 rules. Below even that, see the Wikipedia:List of policies with 42 policies. Where "neologism" fits is one section below even that, under "No Original Research," for which the main policy is: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." FU clearly fits this overarching policy. And within WP:OR, the emphasis is on attribution: the guidance is only against neologisms "without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." The roots of the Neologism page, which is one layer further down, stated: "Wikipedia doesn't accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google)." This was strengthened to weed out editors who created a term on their own blog, then -- with no little other adoption of the term -- promoting it within Wikipedia. Although a few Google hits to random blogs set up by just anyone are no longer seen as a reputable source, FU goes far beyond this. BipDeBop 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary section break

Keep. It's out there, it's in use, it's a popular concept. I don't understand the urge to strip Wikipedia of articles. Nor do I understand people who contribute to an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit turning up their noses at blogs. Vidor 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about people slamming blogs. In general its a good guideline to have as it prevents people from pushing their own ideas and then backing it up with their own blogs. Also, in the current case of the Friedman Unit, it has all the references it needs to meet the criteria set out in the guidelines, so people can go on slamming blogs all they want, it won't make a difference. Davidhc 06:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article cites many cases of people saying things will happen in 6 months, 3 months, 6-9 months etc. It cites no use (except by a blogger) of the term itself. If some one can come up with a citable use of the term 'Friedman unit' itself, they should do so and add it to the article. Otherwise it is a mere neologism. Peterkingiron 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, these issues (usage, citations, reputation of online magazines, role of blogs) have been addressed above. BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Re: neologisms. Since this seems to be the main focus of requests for deletion, I've synthesized some of these points here, with minor improvements/ clarifications/ rejoinders. I hope this is OK with others. (My apologies in advance if not, I'm not trying to claim credit for these, nor put words in the original commenters' mouths, nor just repeat them. I'm trying to move the discussion forward.) BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neologism rule is in place to keep people from using Wikipedia to coin a term. In the case of the Friedman Unit, the term is already widely used without the help of this article. While the google test does not assure notability of a term, the many and varied hit results for the Friedman Unit show that it is widely used by millions of people. (User:Risker asked for a reliable source on the estimate of "millions." An appeal to logic: with 260,000 Google hits for FU, including a number of widely-read online magazines and blogs, it is reasonable to conjecture that on average each hit was read by at least 8 people, thus two million is a reasonable working estimate for purposes of discussion.)
Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. (The E&P article does not just "mention the Friedman Unit in one sentence and then talks about a different subject," as discussed elsewhere.)
What matters is the widespread online use of the word establishes the diffusion of the neologism into the general population, which is really the point. (The article goes on to provide far more than a mere dictionary definition.)
Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article.
Please also note the the restrictions on neologisms are designed to prevent the creation of new terms through Wikipedia, not describing existing uses (from secondary sources). This article does not "define or introduce new terms or provide new definitions of existing terms," it simply reports on an existing neologism with widespread adoption. "Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Attribution," which this article does. The primary source for the term was (it seems) Atrios. The secondary sources include the Editor & Publisher article, and references in the journals listed in the article. This page is a tertiary article.
WP's VfD/AfD process has been horribly mangled, if not outright broken, for quite some time now, as people move beyond the entirely laudable goal of culling vanity cruft and spam to grind all of the sharp points off of articles at the edge of Wikipedia — precisely those articles where Wikipedia is most useful, IMHO, in that one can find plenty of good information sources for "Yugoslavia" or "Aaron Burr", but not so many good information sources on, say, Kazu Kibuishi's Copper. I think that "Friedman Unit" is squarely within the ambit of acceptable articles for Wikipedia.
Trying to squelch a legitimate new term is as much an abuse of "avoid neologisms" policy as is trying to promote a not-yet-accepted term. (Perhaps someone should revise the neologism policy to reflect this. As Bryan pointed out, WP guidelines are in a state of flux, especially on WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.)
While it is true that "other crap exists" is not a valid argument unto itself, it is also true that guidelines emerge up from the consensus of editing on other articles. In the context of all the arguments for (and against) this page, consider why is Cheese-eating surrender monkeys an article if FU isn't? The "Cheese-eating" article even begins by stating that within a year or two of inception "the phrase began to fall into disuse." Why don't those who favor deleting FU also favor deleting "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? (I do not advocate this.) Here are just a few other hastily-gathered random examples of neologisms with articles in Wikipedia: WikiWikiWeb, PmWiki, CRC, Delimiter, InterWiki, Metacharacter, Spyce, Leet, l33t, n00bs, B1FF, -izzle, boxen, warez, SFV, kewl, CDisplay, CDisplayEx, Zipeg, ARJ. If all these are allowed, then why not Friedman unit? Converely, if FU is deleted then all these and thousands of other neologisms must be as well. (We could invite their editors into this discussion, perhaps relocated onto NEO:Talk, but this would seem to be unnecessarily provoking controversy. However, if a strict interpretation of neologism guidelines were adopted here then it would have to be applied to all these other articles as well.) Unlike most of these examples, FU does in fact does have an article about it in reliable sources, including E&P. Even if it did not, an encyclopedia should not discriminate against neologisms with a social, controversial, or political usage, while allowing neologisms relating to technology or the Internet.

BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm no longer going to attempt to engage in the specifics of the debate here. If editors are going to insist that an article that mentions a term for one sentence is "about" the term, I don't really think that there's much hope for arriving at any kind of common ground. It seems to me that most of the arguments in favor of keeping amount to "it's important" or "I like it", which, obviously, are not the same as notability. I want to repeat, for probably the second or third time, that any and all relevant information about this term can be presented at Atrios and, potentially, Thomas Friedman. The current page can become a redirect. Nothing of value will be lost in doing this: this is not an attempt to erase the term. It simply does not meet the standards required to have its own Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for deletion

When I originally merged I used the following arguments. I consider them still to be valid and I still think the article should be deleted and a summary merged with Atrios.

WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:

The Friedman Unit is undoubtedly a neologism. The source is recent and known. Secondary sources almost invariably use the same primary source, Duncan Black's weblog.
While the page makes note that such things must be referenced, WP:NEO specifically mentions page intended to track the growth and adoption of neologisms as an example of infringing articles. it should be noted that this is the primary purpose of this page.

WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:

Few if any of the "sources" listed in the main table have ever heard of the term "Friedman Unit", let along used it themselves. Using them as "references" for the Friedman (unit) article directly fails WP:SYN.

In addition, and importantly:

Practically all of this is taken from sources Black has linked himself. In essence, it's just a distillation of a bunch of Eschaton posts.

There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.

This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia.

Chris Cunningham 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Keep?? No consensus for keep

Thank you Croctotheface, Risker, and Dhartung for changing your position from delete to keep with edits. If there is now a consensus to keep the article, then I think it is time to end the deletion debate and move back to the normal editing discussion on the article's talk page. If you would like to edit the article, however, please refrain from deleting large sections without reaching a consensus through the proper discussions. Davidhc 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have most certainly NOT changed my position from delete, and you know perfectly well that is the case. Regardless of the merit of an article, I personally feel if I am going to to take a position (whether keep or delete) at an AfD, then I have accepted an obligation to try to improve the article. The fact that the three of us have all deleted the original research from the article, only to be reverted with tags such as "vandalism," makes a mockery of this process. I have retitled this section because the former title borders on NPA, and at minimum is beyond presumptuous. Risker 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was pretty bizarre as well. Croctotheface's last comment was a belief that the best result would be a merge and last edit was a removal of the contentious table. How this can be construed as a U-turn is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is very much for delete with redirect to Atrios. This comment from Davidhc strikes me as very, very strange. Croctotheface 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear at this point that there is no consensus to either delete or keep. With some improvements and judicious content decisions, this article should be a keep, especially in light of the multiple reliable sources cited as using the term. Bill Oaf 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Take the law into your own hands We have not heard back from Dhartung, but if you all are still strongly for deletion, then your efforts to erase large sections of the article currently under debate in the absence of any consensus over those sections, can only be interpreted as having the intent to override the AfD procedures. It is important to note that there was no "editing" involved, only "white blanking" whole sections of the article along with their external references. Once more, the table section that was deleted was not debated in these pages. Much of the debate centered on the references in the body of the text, not the table. If you have issues with the table, then I suggest that we end the deletion debate and move back to editing, or that you debate the contents of the table in this discussion, and keep pushing for deletion. However, if you want the article deleted, then you are going to have to either wait for a consensus, or wait for an administrator to weigh in, as specified in the discussion guidelines. You can not take the law into your own hands and start deleting the article at your own discretion while a debate is ongoing. This is not my opinion, this is simply following the guidelines of a discussion. I am going to restore the article so that it can be debated properly without censoring the very text that we are supposed to be debating. Davidhc 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice during AfD discussions to edit the article. In most cases, these edits serve to improve the article and often help the case of those seeking to keep. It seems that your declaration that by editing the article, I was somehow "changing my position from delete to keep" was an attempt to use this AfD discussion to make a WP:POINT. Instead, I was making an edit based on the fact that I saw basically nobody, regardless of their history with the article or opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, defending the inclusion of the table that I deleted. I also want to note that this is not a discussion over whether to delete certain bits of text in the article, but rather whether to delete the whole thing. If this discussion is closed as keep or no consensus, that would not be an endorsement of everything within the page. This case is a content dispute. Your leveling accusations of "vandalism" (in edit summaries at the page), "blanking", and "censorship" do not add to the discourse here. Your assumptions of bad faith do not aid the goal of reaching a consensus about what is best for Wikipedia. Croctotheface 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to share with the community, Croctotheface saw it fit to leave the following warning on my talk page (I have since removed it):

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Friedman (unit). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Hindutva pseudoscience has been redirected to Hindutva propaganda by the creator of article. Aksi_great (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva pseudoscience

Delete - There was a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience but it was rejected because the nominator was a sock of a banned user. That aside, the logic used to AFD it still holds Namely:

The term gets A whoppin 0 google hits
The term is a neologism, not used in the referenced work
The article was supposedly "created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s)" by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) (a rather funny epithet to describe those criticizing this user who obviously is above wikipedia policy)
Synthesis of sources to push a point
Violates WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NEO, WP:OR Baka man 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (slight revision of my previous comment) as an attack page, and certainly without any redirects. This criticism could be merged as appropriate into the actual article pages on the various subjects (actually, it is there on all of them already). I am on good terms with some of the eds. who created this article or support it, and hope to remain so. But they made a mistake; the mistake impairs their good repute; and they would serve their cause best by agreeing to the deletion of this article. Whatever one might think of some of the hypotheses discussed, it would still not be right to use WP to express personal views--and certainly not in an article deliberately so oriented and so titled. This is the very model of a POV fork, of the most blatant kind. (Subtler POV forks use subtler titles). It illustrates perfectly the importance of NPOV. Renaming is possible, but something like "Hinduvtva pseudoscience controversy" would not help much. Many other subjects on and off WP have shown that the best way of refuting what one thinks nonsense is to let it be expressed freely. If one thinks it merely wrong, that's handled by balanced presentation. DGG 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a) Google with [+Hindutva +pseudoscience] gets 566 hits: not all that many but certainly not none.

b) Nanda and Sokal both make a serious presentation of the mix of postmodernism, pseudoscience and religion that is being pressed into service, apparently with political aims. There does appear to be a real and current phenomeonon (and one that seems to discredit both science and genuine religious believers).

c) There also appear to be clear examples of heavy promotion of one or two Indian scientists on Wikipedia; and occasional claims for discoveries in mathematics that stretch credibility somewhat. For myself, I feel that outrageous claims are disrespectful towards the early mathematician, and possibly towards religious pioneers also.

It is not easy, however, to see an easy solution. I'll have a look at the entries for the BNP, Christian fundamentalism, Dawkins and Reductionism and maybe change my mind. Davy p 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is not about "hindutva"+"pseudoscience", rather "Hindutva pseudoscience", a nonexistent, and cruftlike term.Baka man 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"out of India theory gets four hits on google scholar[24]. I expect you to submit that article to Afd as a simple show of good faith before you argue any further here. dab (𒁳) 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The term "pseudoscience" is associated with "Hindutva" in a number of scholarly works, including some cited in the article. I don't find any examples of the phrase "Hindutva pseudoscience"; but what's important is that a number of scholars have written about a phenomenon of ideologically/religiously motivated re-writing of Indian prehistory associated with the Hindutva movement. The WP reader might be better served, however, if this material was in Hindutva; if not, this article should be a spin-off of Hindutva in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, bad faith resubmission (by Bakaman, who is very close to an rfar these days). Valid topic, concerns of imbalance (cite your acedemic sources!) and title (suggest a move!) nonwithstanding. speedy keep in fact, there is simply no way a well-referenced article will be deleted (as opposed to merged or moved), quite regardless of afd vote ballot-stuffing by ideological tag-teams. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I stated the same in previous AfD. To Akhilleus and Davy p, please read this [25]. The case here is exactly Original Research. Let us wait for the term "Hindutva pseudoscience" to be accepted as something academic, and not jump on the wagon.--Scheibenzahl 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hindutva propaganda", which is a redirect to the article under discussion here, gets 572 hits on google scholar. If there was any good faith involved here, people would make suggestions for moving and/or merging. If any good faith was involved here, there would have been attempts to debate concerns on talk. As it is, this is just painfully obvious politically motivated trolling by lobbyist editors. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. I argue that there can be no shadow of a doubt at this point that it is a well-sourced discussion of genuine pseudoscience now. speedy close per WP:IDONTLIKEIT please, bring move suggestions to talk. "Synthesis of published material" or "selection bias" in this case means "selecting" academic sources and ignoring blog postings and crank authors, which is just what we do on Wikipedia. I don't know if Scheibenzahl is aware of this, but Bakaman knows this perfectly well, and it is not possible to assume good faith here. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith resubmission, obvious filibustering to prevent encyclopedic treatment of the pseudoscholarship underlying the contamination of a number of other articles by a bunch of POV-pushers. rudra 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it has been moved to Hindutva propaganda and expanded. My merge and delete vote in the previous AfD was because of "Hindutva pseudoscience" in the title and a little content that could easily fit into Hindutva. The content of the article is legit, but it has a POVish tone, which makes it look like an essay/original research -- this needs to be fixed. I would request dab to delete the redirect "Hindutva pseudoscience" -- it's neologism (if dab doesn't delete it, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion). utcursch | talk 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- no, I maintain Hindutva pseudoscience is a legitimate term. The collocation is a straightforward title, and it is nitpicking to allege that the "term" doesn't exist when ample evidence has been presented that Hindutva propaganda is classified as pseudoscience. This is a mere matter of choosing a concise title. An obsessively correct title would be pseudo-scientific currents in Hindutva propaganda, and we can yet move things there, but without the bad faith attacks on the article as such, this wouldn't even be an issue. Of course the article takes a "pov" opposed to the pseudoscientific literature. You may or may not be surprised to learn that our Creation science, Dowsing, Bible code and Ancient astronaut theories do precisely the same. It is "cultural relativism" or "political correctness" gone terribly wrong to assume that Indian pseudoscience should be treated less rigorously because, after all, "it is cultural" (viz., because you think the poor Indians don't know any better: they do, but they have their cranks and madmen just like people do in the west). dab (𒁳) 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia you can comapare these:[26][27][28]

[29] with [30], and still look like a knowledgeable person. Coining a term is not "nit picking", and blaiming others of bad faith shows only bad faith on your side, because you think any one who opposes this term is "Hindutva"-vadi.--Scheibenzahl 10:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Gjertsen

Stub on a Norwegian You-tube celebrity, previously deleted via AFD, and protected due to recreations. The nominator at deletion review intends to replace the stub with a translation of the article at the Norwegian Wikipedia.[31]. That article has several references, most of which appear to be in Norwegian. ~~If there is a relevant Norwegian Wikiproject or deletion sorting noticeboard, could someone notify them, as this discussion will be better if folks that can evaluate the sources show up.~~ This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. I also notified the relevant WikiProject. GRBerry 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to demonstrate notability, just needs proper translation and expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are probably 3-4 or more sources that meet WP:ATT of semi-substantial coverage, that normally pass WP:BIO. [32] [33] [34] the most obvious ones. MURGH ^disc. 02:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hogne 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google News Archive search turns up results in five languages. The WSJ profile is enough by itself for me. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This decision does not preclude a merge, which seems to be the nominator's goal, but if a merge is to be performed, the history must be kept in order to meet the terms of the GNU license. Shimeru 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leura Collins

Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject! --Futurano 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject of what appears to be a major labor relations case, decided by the Supreme Court, but not known by her name. But there may be problems about BLP. DGG 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean something wrong, I'm just a newbie. I joined that Notability project thinking "I can use common sense only here". Not sure what am I authorized to do further. But my nomination step meant that I was supporting deletion of the article and merging its text into Weingarten rights. --Futurano 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perlovka

Apparently is the red light distrcit of Prague. Does that mean it warrants its own entry, or can it be merged or deleted? Montchav 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can probably be merged into Prague, although there currently isn't a section about the red light in that article. (By the way, I sorted this under "Places and transportation") Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - If the article is sufficiently expanded (looks like it'll need a helluva lot of work, though), it probably could stand on its own, with just a blue link in the Prague article. As it stands, however, it could be deleted under CSD A1 or A3.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In fact it is not a red light district but a street (with some prostitutes around in the night but basically a normal street in the centre of Prague). Its official name is Perlová ulice (Pearl Street) but the name Perlovka is used as the shortened version colloquially. You can see it on the map. Because it originates in the Middle Ages, I would not delete the article, only rename to the true name of the street.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a street in Prague if expanded, strong oppose to merge to Prague. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The street is only known as a place of prostitutes in Prague. If needed it may be mentioned in Prostitution in the Czech Republic. Otherwise there are 0 notable things. If kept do not rename, next to nobody uses the official name. Oppose merging anything into Prague. Acc. to [35], a publication by Prague magistrate, they pushed the prostitutes out of the city centre. If true then in decade two the street will be forgotten once again. 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? In all official sources, maps etc. I've ever seen, the street is cited as Perlová ulice, and the naming conventions are clear. "Perlovka" is only Prague colloquialism (something like Kurfürstendamm vs. Ku Damm in Berlin - we use the official name and Ku Damm is a redirect). - Regarding the notability, the street's history and architecture has been mentioned in many reliable sources, therefore I guess it can be regarded as notable enough to stay. I suspect that this anonymous editor have not seen the article because it mentions at least one notable building in the street.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, officially it is. Perlová ulice in Plzeň may claim the name as well. IMHO there should be an article about the monastery and possibly the modern house and these could give a brief info about the street. Keeping not so good article about NN street (as opposed to individual structures) may encourage people to generate dozens or hundreths of such stubs. Pavel Vozenilek 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small and fragmentary to be worth keeping. No reliable sources. Otherwise why shouldn't we have an article on every street in downtown Prague? Re-creating an informative article with reliable sources might be allowable if notability could be shown, e.g. history books that specifically comment on the street. Plus, we could be exceeding our mandate as the English Wikipedia if we keep articles whose only verification is in Czech. EdJohnston 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The Filmaker 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is little here to justify keeping the article, and I note that the Czech WP does not appear to have an article on the street.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If we had a WP:STREETS guideline, this would undoubtedly fail. RFerreira 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "No reliable sources." - there is of course a lot of reliable sources, the first external link in the article leads to the official site of Prague 1 District and it specifically comments on the street and its history. - "If we had a WP:STREETS guideline, this would undoubtedly fail." - the street is about 700 years old and a part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site - the historical centre of Prague. It was there already before we knew that America exists.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - hoax. -- RHaworth 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Baker (actor)

Hoax. Larry the Cucumber is voiced by Mike Nawrocki and there is no Richard Baker in The Nightmare Before Christmas or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. JuJube 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless at least one reliable source can be found. —dgies^t_c 06:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Larry the Cucumber was voiced by Mike Nawrocki. Likely hoax article. - Hewinsj 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7. It's a hoax, but even if it's true, I can scare up no notability for this person. --Dennisthe2 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Otto

A valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfo (talk • contribs) 2007/03/26 00:52:30

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ricky Otto genuinely is a former professional footballer, that much is true (see this link), however everything else in the article is clearly total bollocks, so I !vote to delete without prejudice to recreate if someone ever fancies writing a legitimate article on him..... keep now that someone has written a legitimate article about him ChrisTheDude 12:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1 In light of the rewrite, I change my vote to Keep Kntrabssi 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest of keeps possible now that I've rewritten it to be about the actual person. Played professional football in England so definitely meets criteria for notability. Possibly semi-protect to stop morons messing it up. Keresaspa 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, former professional footballer, good enough to get a mention on Football Heroes. Qwghlm 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - on reviewing the edit history, it looks like there was a prize for whoever could add the most outrageous statement to the article. Prior to the rewrite, the article was, as ChrisTheDude says total bollocks. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following rewrite. Oldelpaso 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.A.T.u. Come Back (novel)

Irrelevant and insignificant

How is it irrelevant or insignificant? It's a book thats being turned into a movie.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the assertation that this is being turned into a movie isn't supported by either IMDB or their official website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search reveals a number of news websites reporting the production of the film, and novels that have any distribution (or are adapted for film) meet notability requirements. Both the novel article and the article on the film need sources and references, but as I say a quick Google seems to indicate a number of (English-language) possibilities, which isn't bad for a book published in Russia. This AFD nomination should be speedy closed based on the fact that no one appears to have signed the nomination, which calls into question its intentions. It can always be re-opened in the proper form later, if desired. 23skidoo 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable enough and growing in influence. The article does need to assert it's value and importance more but that is another issue. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a real book, that was really published and is being made into a movie. The information is all over the internet. Even if it wasn't, the book was written by a member of the Russian parliament, adding on to not only t.A.T.u. reference. Fortyfeet 03:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan goddesses

First of all this page looks to me as an essay. Second, I don't see what it adds. It treats four ancient Greek goddesses with their own article. So, what is it? A mere repetition? I hope I am wrong but IMO this "article" has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. Yannismarou 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unencyclopaedic, no attempt to write this article from a NPOV. Fails WP:NOR and WP:RS. We already have the valid info elsewhere. --Folantin 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an original research Wiccan essay that puts forth a reinterpretation of already documented Greek mythological figures. NeoFreak 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the content, but it is not the correct place for it. Slavlin 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No doubt this might have a place on the FuzzyNewAgePedia, but here, it blows holes through WP:NOR, never mind WP:BOLLOCKS. RGTraynor 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article serves no purpose that couldn't be served by a category for the named goddesses, all of whom have articles of their own. Check to make sure nothing on the specific goddesses is new, move to the right page is so, then delete. Alba 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay, fails WP:NOR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as this could be a good article, given a complete overhaul. Goddesses are a BIG part of Wicca, and they are not interpreted in the same way as they are in mythology. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if said overhaul occurs.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... which properly belongs in the Wicca article, or perhaps a Wiccan treatment of mythological deities article. RGTraynor 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky Waiters

Non-notable video game. Expired prod removed by User:NYC JD with the comment "deprod. 1982 video game published by notable publisher - worth an AfD". The article remains an unreferenced stub, containing nothing in the way of notability for the game. There is no information on innovative features, high sales or other large popularity, industry awards, authors, new programming techniques, or so on. Mikeblas 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable game by a notable publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain why you feel this is a notable game? Most of the comments here are on the verge of WP:ILIKEIT or are speculative at best. Burntsauce 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a reference from a major UK computer magazine, a link to the game's manual and a cover image. Lack of information or article quality is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The link to the manual is nice, but it's self-referential and self-produced and doesn't establish notability. The magazine reference is trivial, and does not establish notability, either. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's true, but bear in mind that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and I think we all know that this game would have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published references/reviews back in 1982, but not surprisingly VIC-20 magazines from that era are hard to find on the Internet. This is clearly a mass-market game (it was released in Australia as well as the UK and US), and the information in the article is verifiable at least. --Canley 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. There are plenty of things which happened before the advent of the Internet which are well-referenced. The reason? They're truly notable, unlike the subject of this article. An aggressive marketing campaign with widespread distribution is not a criteria of notability. The difference between a policy and a guideline is that a guideline has room for "occasional exceptions" -- not classes of exceptions, which you're apparently prepared to allow -- and a policy doesn't. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a video game that achieves widespread release should generally have its own article, at least if it had any reviews in mainstream computer/video game magazines of that era. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep' - Virtually any brick-and-mortar published video game from this era is inherently notable. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can you point me to a policy, or even a guideline, that establishes the inherent notability" of video games from this era? Also, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me which eras include games that have been established as inherently notable, and which eras have been identified as not inherently notable. Thank you! -- Mikeblas 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer: I am aware of no such chronological criteria, and I doubt if one will be adopted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a need to delete a game from a major console of it's era. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may see a need if you read through WP:N. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Everything has been moved to "Wacky Waiters" Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Manhart

One of three people in similar circumstances, nothing to indicate that there will be any ongoing notability, the case itself can be covered adequately in women in the military without the problems of giving undue weight to a single incident in her life, which is essentially what this article is about. People get busted in the military from time to time, it sometimes makes the news for a day or two, occasionally the case is noticed for some wider reason, very few of the individuals achieve lasting notability. In the mean time we have an article which focuses on one minor incident in the subject's life, which is the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention, and that seems to me to violate WP:BLP Guy (Help!) 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Made national news in US and Western Europe, you can find articles in CNN.com, she was discussed on Anderson Cooper 360°, etc. Notability established as far as I am concerned. Hektor 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Hektor on this. The subject of the article was the subject of news stories on two continents, many newspapers, at least one very notable magazine, television news shows, etc. Just because the other two women don't have articles isn't a reason to delete this one. Wikipedia isn't finished, we're still writing articles. To use that as an argument isn't logical. Dismas|^(talk) 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, if you want to delete this article because the subject is only notable, according to you because of "the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention", then please go ahead and put the Monica Lewinsky article up for deletion. She's only notable for one event. Everything after that was as a direct consequence of that one session of oral sex. You can also nominate Shawn Hornbeck since the only thing that he's notable for is being abducted, sodomized, and then found. The fact is that these people made the (inter)national news and are therefore notable. I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting... Just trying to make a point. Dismas|^(talk) 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of coverage and commentary. I added some to the article, here are more: National Ledger Fox News MSNBC ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately Keep. This "event" garnered international attention. The reason because the two earlier cases haven't gotten an article is because they didn't get this amount of attention and still date from a time when the internet coverage was minimal and information scarce. -- user:fdewaele, 26 March 2007: 16:50.
Keep: plenty of press about this, to me that satisfies notability. Someone doesn't have to have 'continuing notability' to be in Wikipedia; lots of people are famous or infamous for one single action. This is a rather minor degree of such, to be sure, but enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would be extremely interested in an explanation of how being on the cover of a major international magazine with a circulation of millions, being the subject of commentary nationwide and on the national newswires, and being forced to resign from the military under fire can in any way imaginable be described as a "minor incident in the subject's life." RGTraynor 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a related discussion concerning a purported image of this individual is here. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable secondary sources; this incident made national news. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per everyone else; plus, she seems notable to me. Acalamari 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . "A single incident in her life" seems to be underplaying it considerably, and she obvious does not come under BLP. DGG
Keep per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottwhite

CV style article on individual with no particularly notable achievements. Warofdreams talk 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created by what appears to be a single purpose account, so conflict of interest looms large. Reads like an advert - complete with phone number, subtle! - and probably is one. What do we do with adverts that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic"? Ah, yes, WP:CSD G11. That'll be a speedy delete then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Angus McLellan - just a CV. StuartDouglas 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resume spam! Self promotion! Speedy G11! Hulk smash! Alba 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of General Hospital characters. WjBscribe 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattie Drake

This character never existed on-screen and has solely been referenced in a past format. This information could easily be included on other, more relevant, pages. D'Amico 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All too easy: Merge to List of General Hospital characters. Alba 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian conjugation

This is a gargantuan (190 kb) set of tables for conjugating verbs in Bulgarian. We have many excellent articles on languages here, and they all contain similar tables. But those articles provide a mix of different things - historical analysis, phonology, grammar, etc. The problem here, is that it is almost all tables. Something like this is better suited for Wikibooks, or Wikiversity. I just do not see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. And it doesn't help that most of it is in Cyrillic, as the average English speaking Joe or Jane will just see a mass of gibberish.

Someone has put a ton of work into it, so I don't want to see it deleted altogether, but it really needs to be completely migrated off. If anyone sees anything else at all like this in other languages, feel free to apend this AfD. Ultimately, though, Delete, for the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some similar candidates for a Wikibooks migration are Bulgarian pronouns, Bulgarian adjectives, and Bulgarian nouns. These three are nowhere nearly as bad as above, but they would make a excellent counterparts for any Wikibook on the Bulgarian language. These three articles contain good info that could be put into an expanded (rather than chopped up) article on Bulgarian grammar, just with less unencyclopedic detail. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be that Bulgarian requires a much larger article than Latin conjugation or Latin declension, but we also have those articles, which are also heavy on material presented in tables. Neither the relative familiarity of Latin over Bulgarian, or the fact that Bulgarian is written in Cyrillic, are really very convincing arguments to delete this. I cheerfully agree that the article could use more analysis, which might lead to making some of the tables redundant, if they are generated by regular sound changes; but someone who knows more about Bulgarian should make those edits. (My old Americana contains several Latin tables, but no Bulgarian ones, but that's no excuse for us not having this. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. I don't know a great deal about Bulgarian but I do know it has an extremely complex verb system - therefore a long page is inevitable (this is a legitimate case of ignore all rules as far as article length goes). The Cyrillic argument doesn't hold water either (maybe you want a transliterated version alongside the original?). --Folantin 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The length of the article is owed to the complexity of the matter. I think a transliteration will only unnecessarily blow up the article. Instead, an introduction in English would probably be helpful. --GFlohr 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conjugation is a complex and lengthy thing in several modern languages. I have two books whose sole purpose is to give tables of conjugations for French verbs. The first has 90 tables. The second has 115. Our French conjugation article is significantly less than comprehensive. Uncle G 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not speak Bulgarian but I believe it is of interest to keep this article. The size argument shouldn't be used as a reason for deletion. I have proposed an article split for the same reason, although it has not reach a consensus... Francisco Valverde 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what additional analysis the article needs but I accept suggestions. I see that Spanish conjugation and German conjugation have no additional notes (They have fewer tables but what can I say? Bulgarian definitely needs more), French conjugation and Portuguese verb conjugation have very little and Latin conjugations has a lot but it explains when to use the tenses - something I have done in Bulgarian verbs. It is true that some of the tables are nearly identical. If it is better to write that the verb X has almost the same conjugation as the verb Y, but its Z form is different, I'll do it.

Here's how I explained the conjugation in the main article Bulgarian grammar before I decided to make the article similar to the German and Spanish ones:

Present Tense

Verbs form the present tense according to their conjugation. They take the following personal endings:

Personal endings
Person	1st and 2nd conjugation		3rd conjuation
Person	Singular	Plural	Singular	Plural
1st	-а/я	-м	-м	-ме
2nd	-ш	-те	-ш	-те
3rd	-	-ат/ят	-	-т

These endings are placed directly after the form of the verb in third person singular (that is why it has no ending - it just ends in e, и, а or я), except for -а, -я, -ат and -ят. Before these endings are added, the final е/и is removed.

First conjugation verbs which in third person singular end in:

a vowel + е or in -пе (also including дремя, скубя and their cognates) take the endings -я and -ят (играе - играя/играят, къпя/къпят, скубе - скубя/скубят) - I type;
a consonant (different from п) + е take the endings -а and -ат (изплете - изплета/изплетат - II type;
-чѐ (notice that the final syllable is stressed) take the endings -а and -ат and in first person singular and third person plural they change the ч into к — речѐ - река̀/река̀т - III type;

Second conjugation verbs that in third person singular end in:

-жи, -чи or -ши take the endings -а and -ат (кръжи - кръжа/кръжат, мълчи - мълча/мълчат, греши - греша/грешат) - IV type;
anything else take the endings -я and -ят (види - видя/видят) - V type

VI type verbs are all the verbs or the third conjugation.

Past Imperfect Tense

In order to conjugate a verb in this tense, one has to know the verb's past imperfect basis, to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):

Personal endings Past Imperfect Tense
Person	Number
Person	Singular	Plural
First	-х	-хме
Second	-ше	-хте
Third	-ше	-ха

The basis is formed from the determiner of the verb's conjugation (its third person singular form in the present simple tense). Here are the rules for forming the basis (there are also a very few irregular verbs):

Verbs of the first and second conjugation:
- the stress of the conjugation determiner falls on the last syllable (or the verb is monosyllabic) — these verbs change the final е/и into я (плета̀ - плетѐ - плетя̀+х, твърдя̀ - твръдѝ - твърдя̀+х, спя - спи - спя+х) - I type;
- the stress of the conjutation determiner falls on the last syllable and the letter preceding the final е/и is ж, ч or ш — the final е/и changes into а (пека̀ - печѐ -печа̀+х, троша̀ - трошѝ - троша̀+х) - II type;
- the stress of the conjugation determiner doesn't fall on the last syllable - the final e/и changes into e, which means that the basis of some first conjugation verbs coincides with their determiner (игра̀я - игра̀е - игра̀е+х, ва̀рдя - ва̀рди - ва̀рде+х) - III type;
verbs of the third conjugation - the basis always coincides with the conjugation determiner (казвам - казва - казва+х) - IV type.

Past aorist tense

Similarly, as in past imperfect tense, verbs have past aorist basis to which the following personal endings are added (they are the same for all conjugations):

Personal endings Past Aorist Tense
Person	Number
Person	Singular	Plural
First	-х	-хме
Second	-	-хте
Third	-	-ха

Rules for forming the basis:

first conjugation verbs which in third person singular present tense end in:
- -те, -де, -се or -езе (except отида, ида, везя, бъда and their cognates) — these verbs change the final е into о (плета - плете - плето+х, дада - даде - дадо+х, донеса - донесе - донесо+х, вляза - влезе - влязо+х), except in second and third person singular. These forms preserve the е. Nevertheless they still differ from the present forms in stress position - I type;
- -рече, -тече or - пече — че changes into ко (река - рече - реко+х, изтека - изтече - изтеко+х, опека - опече - опеко+х), except in second and third person singular. These forms preserve the че, but still differ in stress. - II type;
- -сече or -лече — ече changes into яко (сека - сече - сяко+х, облека - облече - обляко+х) except in second and third person singular. These forms preserve the ече, but still differ in stress. - III type;
- a consonant + ре — the final е changes into я (умра - умре - умря+х, спра - спре - спря+х) - IV type;
- -бе, -ве, -не, -пе, -оре (including веза, гриза and their cognates) — the final е changes into а (скубя - скубе - скуба+х, падна - падне - падна+х, ухапя - ухапе - ухапа+х) - V type;
- -че (different from II and III type) — че changes into ка (плача - плаче - плака+х, дъвча - дъвче - дъвка+х) - VI type;
- -еже (including verbs of the second conjugation ending in -ежи) — еже changes into яза (режа - реже - ряза+х, бележа - бележи - беляза+х) - VII type;
- -ъже, -рже (except вържа and its cognates) and -риже (except харижа and its cognates) — же changes into га (лъжа - лъже - лъга+х, стържа - стърже - стърга+х, стрижа - стриже - стрига+х) - VIII type;
- -иже (different from VIII type) and -аже (including вържа, харижа and their cognates) — же changes into за (кажа - каже - каза+х, ближа - ближе - близа+х) - IX type;
- -ше — ше changes into са (пиша - пише - писа+х, бърша - бърше - бърса+х) - X type;
- -жее, -чее, -шее — ее changes into а (възмъжея - възмъжее - възмъжа+х, закопчея - закопчее - закопча+х, вършея - вършее - върша+х) - XI type;
- -ее (different from XI type) — ее changes into я (живея - живее - живя+х, пея - пее - пя+х) - XII type;
- -ае — these verbs are irregular, some of them change the ае into а, others change it into ая (желая - желае - жела+х, омая - омае - омая+х) - XIII type;
- -ие and -уе — the final е is left out (гния - гние - гни+х, чуя - чуе - чу+х) - XIV type;
- -ере — ере changes into ра (пера - пере - пра+х, разбере - разбра+х) - XV type;
- -ме (except дремя and its cognates) — ме is left out (взема - вземе - взе+х, приема - приеме - прие+х) - XVI type;
second conjugation verbs: the basis of these verbs ends in и, я or a (only verbs that have ж or ч before the final и in third person singular present tense), but most of them are irregular because one can't be absolutely sure which of the three letters to use. Here are the rules:
- verbs that in third person singualr present tense end in ши — the basis is the same as the form of the verbs in third person singular present tense (their conjugation determiner) (реша - реши - реши+х, довърша - довърши - довърши+х) - XVII type;
- verbse whose stress doesn't fall on the last syllable (except видя and its cognates) — the basis is the same as the conjugation determiner (рабо̀тя - рабо̀ти - рабòти+х, мѝсля - мѝсли - мѝсли+х) - XVIII type;
- verbs whose stress falls on the last syllable and:
  - are transitive — the basis coincides with the conjugation determiner but there are many exceptions (изгоря̀ - изгорѝ - изгорѝ+х - "to burn something", вманиача̀ - вманиачѝ - вманиачѝ+х, умножа̀ - умножѝ - умножѝ+х) - XIX type;
  - are intransitive and:
    - don't have ж or ч before the final и in the conjugation determiner — the final и changes into я but there are many exceptions (изгоря̀ -изгорѝ - изгоря̀+х - "to burn", излетя̀ - излетѝ -излетя̀+х, изкипя̀ - изкипѝ - изкипя̀+х) - XX type;
    - have ж or ч before the final и in the conjugation determiner — the final и changes into а but there are also exceptions (мълча̀ - мълчѝ - мълча̀+х, лежа̀ - лежѝ - лежа̀+х) - XXI type;
- verbs that in third person singular present tense end in ои (except стоя and its cognates) — the basis coincides with the conjugation determiner (напоя - напои - напои+х, броя - брои - брои+х) - XXII type;
third conjugation verbs — the basis always coincides with the conjugation determiner (ядосам - ядоса - ядоса+х) - XXIII type;

I have deleted most of this because I saw that in the German and Spanish articles there are no such explanations. But I preserved a small part of it in the article Bulgarian verbs.

Note that this does not include some important verb groups and the conjugation of the participles.

I, personally, find the above more confusing than just tables because for example the verb играя in the present tense is of type I, in the Past Imperfect of type III and in the Past Aorist of type XIII. If I had explained the conjugation of the participles, it would have been of some other type. In the tables it is just type 18.1. I wrote the tables using and correcting information (mostly dialectisms and wrong classification) from the Bulgarian wiktionary. Arath 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the transliteration. The article is for people who are interested in the Bulgarian language, for people who want to learn Bulgarian. When someone starts learning a language the first thing he has to master is the language's alphabet. The article isn't just a bunch of phrases for travellers. Arath 16:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll recreate as a redirect to airdancer.--Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man

Notability Kntrabssi 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unotable, it showed up for one quick flashback in the Family Guy move. Redirect to Airdancers. Thanks Andrew! Kntrabssi 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One joke from one episode of a show. No refs to back up the author's claims of notability in response to the prod tag; highly doubtful that any exist. Also, to repeat every joke from a cartoon show with screenshots would be copyvio. Feeeshboy 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to add that the creator of the offending page removed a prod tag added by above user. Kntrabssi 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is correct. Feeeshboy 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy with an Orbital Laser One joke from Family Guy, of many jokes. Family Guy itself doesn't have an article for the concept of a "Manatee Gag", so why should this individual joke qualify? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an extremely rare term that in my eyes do not need its own article. If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be done in another article. Summer Song 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These things exist in real life, except without faces. I just have no idea what they are called. But yeah, delete. Recury 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Those are called Airdancers, ~~and since there's no article there, there's noplace to redirect this to, so just delete~~. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and started an Airdancer article, with a sentence about the Family Guy joke, and a redirect there might work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AWESOME. Recury 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so much better! Feeeshboy 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was actually an article already, called Cold-air Inflatables. However since Andrew's article is much better I've redirected that one to his. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction is not fact. Clearly an encyclopaedia article sourced to a work of fiction, especially a work of comedy fiction, isn't going to correctly describe the real world. I was going to opine that a redirect seemed pointless, until I read the fascinating note at the very bottom of this page that states that people do come to companies that sell these things and ask for "Wacky Wavy inflatable flailing arm tube dudes". Redirect. Uncle G 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:DAFT (note that this can still be DAFTed even if turned into a redirect...). Grutness...wha? 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seen briefly in Family Guy. Constitutes cruft. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airdancer as noted above - not a recurring character. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Image:Wackywavinginflatablearmflailingtubemanandgrandma.jpg should also be removed. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect either to Airdancers or Merge+Redirect to whatever Family Guy episode that's from.--Wizardman 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (Struck through to prevent COI as I close this)--Wizardman 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Redirect to the Family Guy episode this appeared in, as Wizardman said. Plasticbottle 06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one-episode joke, unencyclopaedic and non-notable Suriel1981 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. WjBscribe 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtowerites

Delete This is an extremely rare term that in my eyes do not need its own article. If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be done in another article. Summer Song 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A term being rare does not indicate nor imply it's factual inexistence. Your opinions, should not be the foundation of a deletion of factual and verifiable information about a subject. An encyclopedia is the keeper of information, whether that be historical, rare, current, it's state is irrelevant. If one were to apply your 'opinion' to rare subjects, wikipedia as well as many other historical archives of information would cease to exist. Protector of the Truth 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging this article with the main article where this information is interjected would be better than a redirect. Unless the plan is to add this article to the main article and have the redirect point to this information within the main article. Protector of the Truth 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses. Epbr123 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses should easily be sufficient - the term exists and may be used as a search term, and as always, redirects are cheap. Not much info here to merge anyway, and since it's little more than a pseudonym it'd be silly to have its own article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan. Recury 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge with Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses: (i) The redirect has to be somehow motivated in the target page anyway and (ii) the term does not seem to be a common alternative name for Jehovah's Witnesses. While there is one historical source, the current usage is rather a label for a certain criticism. If there is consensus it can still be moved to the main page later.--Tikiwont 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan. There's nothing here other than a brief discussion of the term; the term and any other relevant information can be mentioned in Jehovah's Witnesses, if necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Redirect. Peterkingiron 19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.--Isotope23 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XPRESS, UAE

Originally listed as a speedy delete, it was contested with the contention that this is an important newspaper in the UAE. I changed this to a PROD and posted on the talkpage that it needed to be demonstrated with reliable sources that the contention is true. This was deprodded with no appreciable evidence provided that this is in any way notable, so I'm nominating it for AfD. Isotope23 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article's main contributor just posted a list of links on Talk:XPRESS, UAE that may demonstrate notability. I've not had a chance to read through them yet, and some appear to be blogs, which are not reliable sources really, but some are from more established publications and may demonstrate notability here.--Isotope23 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good enough for me... Trade Arabia is part of the MSN network and XPRESS is covered in quite a substantial article. The paper has just been launched about a week ago, so non-notability claims are understandable, but it does appear to be the subject of multiple reliable sources, and is published by the company that produces Gulf News. --Canley 14:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; start with merging the articles into the main article. Alba 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that I've had a chance to go through the provided references. I agree with retention here. Since there are no !votes other than keep, I'm going to withdraw the nomination.--Isotope23 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather films in popular culture

I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons. Now it's been split off into a completely different page. The article contains non-notable information references that other media has made to the films. So basically any time anyone says "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." or "Take the cannoli." it's detailed in this article. This information is trivial and unencyclopedic. Because it is essentially a trivia section in disguise, it violates WP:AVTRIV. I understand that it provides examples of the impact The Godfather has had on pop culture, which is why a few references should be given as an example within the main article (such as the frequent references within The Sopranos), however only as examples not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather". The Filmaker 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivia sections disguised as articles, do not good articles make. Yet another "in popular culture" article that does nothing to try and elaborate on the importance of the topic in pop culture, let alone attempt to attribute sources. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every mention of the films, every time a line that was in one of the films, every time a line that sounds kind of like a line from one of the films or any time another film or TV show has a scene or a character that reminds an editor in some undefined way of something from one of the films. WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:ATT and probably a bunch of other policy and guideline violations. Otto4711 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff list. The nom was correct to condense and remove the trivia altogether as per WP:AVTRIV. Krimpet (talk/review) 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some pop culture articles are trivial, but the impact of this particular film series is so significant that it is justified in this case. Some trimming would be helpful, though. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could explain how this information is not "interesting, but not important" then perhaps it would justify your Keep vote. The Filmaker 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can help you there, I think. While there's no denying that some entries really are in the nature of "some character on some TV series said 'sleep with the fishes'", many more of them are illustrations of the proposition that "The Godfather" has so entered the public consciousness (at least in the West) that now several generations of popular culture consumers are expected to know and understand references to the film -- that's pretty significant, in terms of cultural history, and difficult to characterize or document without such material at hand as data. What makes it all appear "trivial" to some is that it's in list form, and hasn't been tied together with a prose summary that explains what it all means. We've got the trees, we just need someone to describe the forest. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that The Beatles' Miscellanea got deleted, this has got to go. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize -- I didn't see it, but it sounds like it might have been an interesting page -- but if you are saying that the policy shouldn't have been applied in that case, then isn't the application of it here also in error? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AVTRIV is a good one, I haven't seen that used in a popular culture AFD before. I think it should be expanded to make these type of lists a specific policy violation. Croxley 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in question, ~~but I'm not sure I have a particularly good argument to make for keeping it in terms of violation of Wikipedia policy~~. (Please see below for arguments which clearly show that the nomination itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that the policy cited to justify the nomination is not in order.) The argument I have made for this material in the past (when it was part of the "Godfather" article from where I spun it off) is that the contents are valuable as data points in showing the length and breadth and quality of the impact of "The Godfather" on popular culture. My druthers would be for someone to take this material, take it out of list form, and spin it into a piece of prose which describes that impact, using some, but most certainly not all, of the listings as raw material. That's not something I have time to do at the moment, nor am I necessarily capable of doing it in any case. Should the page be deleted, I suppose that when I have some time I can make an attempt at it, but it would be a shame to lose the material in the meantime (I understand that it's always available by using the page history, but I mean lose access to it for the everyday user of Wikipedia). Unlike The Filmmaker, who, in our discussions about this material on "The Godfather," before he withdrew from editing the article, expressed the opinion that the material was completely lacking in value, to the extent that he wasn't interested in keeping any of it, I think the material has value, but that's a subjective judgement, I guess. I'm not totally certain what the intent of the stated policy is, but if it's to eliminate worthless information, it would be a shame to see it used to eliminate material of value. In any event, this is the first time I've participated in a discussion like this, so I'm not sure how I should label my vote. I would prefer to keep the article, but certainly understand that policy must be maintained, and if it's in violation, and the majority doesn't see any inherent value in the information, then deleting it would seem to be the thing to do. I would still find it a shame, though, as the subject is one well worth including, even if the execution is slipshod. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AVTRIV doesn't apply here as it's not a trivia list in an article, it's a separate list. I don't believe it's even entirely a list of trivia either (or even in the majority a list of trivia). Statements such as "not the entire collage of every "that time that show had that guy who said that quote from The Godfather" and "seeking to capture every mention of the films" are just inaccurate. It's obvious by reading the page that that's not what it is. The film HAS had a big impact on popular (western) culture and with some tidying up and more structure this article will be a good companion to the main articles on the Godfather saga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.217.17 (talk • contribs)
- The impact of the film on pop culture should be discussed within The Godfather article that's a given. However, this article presents nothing more than a collage of small bits of non-notable references. WP:AVTRIV does apply because, although the article is not explicitly labeled as a trivia, it is a list of trivial information in relation to the subject. A trivia section in disguise. The Filmaker 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's a judgment call, relying on one's definition of what is and isn't "trivial" -- an adjective expressing a definite point of view, and a value judgment. For instance, a previous editor of the Godfather article, who did a complete overhaul, eliminated all the so-called trivia, but chose to leave in one item about The Sopranos which was no more or less interesting, and no more or less informative, that any of the other listings that had been deleted. It didn't illuminate anything in particular about the cinematic influence of The Godfather, and yet that editor thought it was valuable enough to preserve. I am of the opinion that a sufficient amount of the current Godfather in popular culture page is of enough interest and has enough informative value to be kept, and should, ideally, be reconceived and revamped rather than chucked out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say one other thing, as a fairly new participant in the Wikipedia project -- if Wikipedia is going to continue to attract people to contribute to it, it has to provide certain affordances which allow new editors to get their feet wet and start getting the feel for how the whole thing works. In my case, I started out with simple copy-editing, correcting spelling, punctuation and grammar, until I felt confident enough to try something more challenging. For many people, adding an item to a "trivia" page is going to be the first thing they do as a Wikipedia contributor, and a policy of blanket elimination of these pages seems to me to be somewhat shortsighted and limited by a traditional definition of what an "encyclopedia" is. Rather than eliminating them altogether, it would seem that isolating them in separate articles would be a better idea. It keeps the main articles from growing like topsy, and yet still provides an easy entry for new Wikipedians to grow from. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should leave out whole articles that violate a number of Wikipedia policies for the benefit of new users. Look, I'm not against new users, I believe that we are in need of new concepts on how to keep our new users informed and allow them to grow. However, that cannot be one of them. We need to allow our new users to grow, but not at the expense of the project. At least not that much expense. I think what the matter of the issue is whether this information is trivial or not. As you just correctly stated, it's subjective and a judgment call. I believe that is why we have Afds. So that a number of users can come together and make their judgment calls as to whether this information is subjective. The Filmaker 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The reductio ad absurdum! — but in this case a rather weak application, I'd say. I believe if you look a little more closely, you'll note that my comment is addressed to the question of whether the policy is a wise one, given the circumstances that I posited -- my understanding was that Wikipedia was community-driven, so is it not allowed to express such a thought?. Certainly I'm concerned that perhaps the current proposal might not be in line with the intent of the policy -- I don't know, I haven't researched it, being somewhat more interested in editing and helping to make articles better than I am in administrative stuff (if I wanted to do that I'd've gone into politics or business) or in accumulating awards to post on my user page. And yes, certainly, discussions like this seek to arrive at a group consensus through the individual expressions of opinons, but it is also allowed, I assume, that people's opinions can be swayed, or at least in some manner influenced, but the use of various arguments -- and that, I think, is what I'm doing, trying my best to influence votes through discussion of ideas relevant to the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apology - I see that this is not a vote, per se, but a discussion in the nature of a recommendation. I'm sorry for having been mistaken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a much shorter and efficient version would have been "I am allowed to state my case for the article that I created and believe in." which of course you are. I'm sorry if I implied any thing different. The Filmaker 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you do agree that short compact paragraphs are preferable to longer ones! Great! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice etiquette. What with bringing a completely different discussion into the mix. Great! The Filmaker 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking of related subjects, I do think some consideration should be given to the motivation behind The Filmmaker's nomination for deletion, considering that the Filmmaker and I have been disputing the style and structure of the article for many months now. It appears to me that this nomination (which I recognize is totally consistent with the arguments The Filmmaker made in those discussions) and the nomination of the main "Godfather" article for Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week are, despite The Filmmaker's stated disinterest in working collabortively on the article, a continuation of that debate by other means, that having been unable to prevail via the discussion page, The Filmmaker has made moves which can, I think, be legitimately interpretated as both efforts to get back into the process by the backdoor (or at least dilute by influence on the article) and as a sort of harassement by official means. I know that doesn't speak to the legitimacy of the nomination here, but it really should be considered, I think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I have barely discussed anything with you up to this point. I pulled out of the discussion in the talk page because I simply have a lot of things going on at the moment and I don't have time to sit down ponder how I can articulate my thoughts to you on why you are wrong and I am right. However, I do have time to edit articles. That includes doing simple editing like nominating an article for Afd and Cinema Collaboration of the Week. I also realized that using these methods, are legitimate ways proving my theories to you. I've said before that this information should be deleted, entirely. You disagreed and fought me on it. Now I've brought you 7 editors who agree with me. I also nominated it for Cinema Collaboration because it will bring other users together. While they may not agree specifically with my beliefs. I believe, they will most likely disagree with yours. Finally, for the record, as of right now I do not plan on participating in the Cinema Collaboration if it selected. I merely support it. The Filmaker 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AS I've said, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and certainly entirely new to this process -- can someone give me an idea if 7 supporting opinions is significant, unusually large, insignificant or whatever? I'm a little confused about how and when "consensus" is reached, and who decides. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always useful to examine motivation. It is interesting that

you had an argument about The Godfather article with Filmaker
that argument started when you objected to him deleting a section from The Godfather article that eventually became this article
you offered to collaborate on the Godfather article rather than conflict with Filmaker and he declined the collaboration
he instead decided on 23rd March (about The Godfather article) that "I am going to remove the article from my watchlist and forget about it for now" and "At this point, I'd prefer to simply finish Return of the Jedi" and that "I may come back to this article one day. However, it won't be one day soon".
Filmaker then put this article up for deletion 3 days later.

In my opinion, essentially you're being bullied. I think this from Filmaker says it all - > "I also realized that using these methods, are legitimate ways proving my theories to you. I've said before that this information should be deleted, entirely. You disagreed and fought me on it. Now I've brought you 7 editors who agree with me". Basically I read that as -> he doesn't agree with you, there is no compromise, he will delete your articles to prove he is right and you are wrong (not only on specifics but on a theory and a point of view) and he will bring his friends along to the fight to over rule you. From what I can see this isn't all that abnormal on Wikipedia.

Being new(ish), I can't speak to whether it's normal or abnormal behavior on Wikipedia, but after 22 years of being online in one form or another, it doesn't strike me as unusual behavior for any online community I've been involved with, bar none. (Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe so.) There's something about this form of communication, devoid of personal contact and the many visual and audible cues that provide a surprising amount of the information we use in communicating with each other, and lacking the possibility of physical confrontation or danger if we "act out" beyond normal limits, that encourages extreme responses, fixed positions and avoidance of compromise. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have before and will again have mature, intelligent discussions with other editor on how to improve articles. I am not deleting these articles. I am suggesting that these articles should be deleted. And so far the majority of the editors have agreed with me. I haven't asked anyone to appear here and vote. They came unprompted. I declined your collaboration because I do not have time. I have time to edit, but not time to engage in such a deep discussion. I nominated this article for Afd and for Cinema Collaboration because I decided to let other users to decide. I am not editing the articles, I am not deleting the articles. I am merely asking people to help improve them. If they decide that this article should stay. Fine, maybe I was wrong. If they decide that your version of the article is better. Fine, maybe I was wrong. Everything on Wikipedia is derived through consensus. That is the goal of the project and this is how consensus is derived. The Filmaker 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what, exactly, you're responding to here. We had discussions about the Godfather article and failed to come to a compromise, and then when I offered my hand, you took your ball and went home -- or at least you said that was your intention. All of that is well within your rights, as is nominating an article for deletion -- but you do have to acknowledge that expressing disinterest in an article at one moment, and then turning around and going out of the way to upset the apple cart on the other is somewhat inconsistent. Not in your arguments -- I've already acknowledged that you're making the same argument here that you made at the time -- but in your stance towards being involved with how The Godfather article is shaped. I don't, for instance, see you nominating the myriad other film-related "popular culture" articles for deletion, just this particular one, which happens to be related to an article you threw up your hands about. I find that -- well, to be polite, curious. At best it might indicate a change of mind (but you've said here that you don't intend to get involved with editing the article if it's chosen as the collaboration of the week), and at worst it looks exactly as if you're using the nomination as a mechanism to strike back. Logically, it's possible that the article in question here can be wrong for Wikipedia and that your motivation for nominating it is somewhat less than pure, so I don't advance the question of motivations so much to counter your argument about the article, as to make the rest of the community (any of them interested) aware about the potential for abuse in this process. It may be that they might not wish to reward someone who uses the deletion process as a weapon of harrassment (if that's what it is) against another editor against whom they hold a grudge -- or they may not care. I suppose we'll see, at some point, although it's still vague to me who decides that a consensus has been reached. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely fruitless. One must learn to draw the line between informative and overkill; The Godfather and its numerous pages is already bordering on overkill. If this info cannot fit ala guidelines into the other bazillion articles, then it just needs to stay out. María: (habla conmigo) 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question I've raised is if this policy is really in the best interests of Wikipedia. Certainly the sort of information represented by the article is important in discussions about popular culture, and I'm not entirely certain that banning them outright (at least in relation to popular culture) doesn't in fact weaken the value of Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. You cannot argue that every smallest mention of "leave the gun, take the cannoli" or what-have-you is somehow strengthening Wikipedia, because it isn't. Not only is it highly repetitive, it's also unimportant in the scale of things since it's a given that the movies are influential works of art. As I said above, if it cannot be worked into other articles, then it should go. The main Godfather articles certainly need more time and attention than this waste of space. María: (habla conmigo) 12:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've mistated my argument. As I clearly mentioned above, it's certainly true that some of the entries in the current article are not particularly of value, and wouldn't survive the kind of restructuring and reconcptualizing I've been advocating. I don't believe every single mention of a catchphrase from The Godfather is significant in itself. What I do continue to believe is that the material is valuable as an indication of the ongoing impact of the film on popular culture, and that it can be used as fodder for an interesting and informative article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. No one is arguing that "every smallest mention of "leave the gun, take the cannoli" or what-have-you is somehow strengthening Wikipedia". If you claim that someone is arguing that then it's clear (to me at least) that you are putting words in the mouth of someone that has a different point of view than you in order to ridicule their argument. That's bad form. Also referring to something someone has spent some time and effort on as a "waste of space" is again bad form. A final point. I don't believe it's a given that movios are influential works of art. Some have hardly any influence at all and hardly anyone would consider them art. Only some movies are influential. I think most people would agree that this is one of the influential ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps it was in bad form to refer to it as a waste of space (waste of time, perhaps?), but as for putting words in other people's mouth, I do not believe I did. The user said that deleting such material "weaken[s] the value of Wikipedia," and so I was inferring that the opposite of weak is strong, insert example just as how someone above did re: the cannoli, etc, etc. My comment wasn't meant to be taken literally, word for word. Also, did I say that all movies are influential? No, obviously. The movies refers to The Godfather series. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Now, if you're quite done, perhaps you can offer up an opinion on the article's status. María: (habla conmigo) 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that user has already offered a "Keep" opinion above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

María, it's heartening to see that you believe it (may be!) bad form to refer to someone's work as a waste of space, but worrying to see that you think it may be better to refer to their work as a waste of time instead. Isn't that nearly the same bad form but with a (crude) twist? I was done (thank you for your interestingly phrased concern that I may not be though). As mentioned above, I've already offered a clear opinion (172.206.217.17). I have, however had a couple of additional thoughts after re-reading the Godfather articles, the discussion that caused the creation of this article and also this article. It occurs to me that this article is actually not "The Godfather films in popular culture", it's really more along the lines of "The Godfather in some forms of media - for example in films, in music, on TV". Popular culture is a lot broader than just those particular media. I wonder if the article could be a) reduced to something along the lines of "the impact of the Godfather on film", b) cleaned up to include attributable sources c) left as a separate article or (if that's not acceptable) reincluded into the original article as a section (on something along the lines of "the impact of the Godfather on film"). Just a few thoughts to kick about. Feel free to pick one of them, misrepresent it by radicalising it and then call it absurd when knocking them down.

That's an interesting suggestion. Of course as an audio-visual work of art, it's not unusual that the primary impact of The Godfather would be on 'other audio-visual forms, which is why there's a natural emphasis in the article on film and television. I do think there's more to be said about the film's impact on the popular conception of the Mafia and mobsters and how it's changed that, that could certainly be part of a broader article -- but the primary purpose of the page is to avoid larding down the main article with excessive examples of the film's impact, and provide a place where it can be dealt with in detail.

What other aspects of popular culture did you have in mind? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are bordering on personal attack, so I ask you to tone it down. You make a valid point, however, one of which I had made above, by the way: reintegration of material. As for the rest of it, I have nothing more to say on this subject. María: (habla conmigo) 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly serious accusation and one that I certainly refute. I would defend myself but I'm unable to as unfortunately you've not substantiated it (which I definitely would if I were to accuse any one of the same thing). Instead I'll take it on good faith and try to tone it down, whilst at the same time requesting that you try and accurately represent points other people have made when disagreeing with them. Ed, it was just an observation that was aimed at a compromise really. I hear what you're saying in terms of not wanting to weigh down the Godfather article but you need to be practical. It looks to me like you've annoyed the wrong person and been ambushed. As a result you're going lose this article.

Delete - per Krimpet and Filmaker. It's one thing to touch in culture impact in a prose section, it's a complete other to created an entire article that does nothing but list every instance of notation in popular culture, especially when you have no sources to back any of it up; for instance the "this scene from this film looks like this scene from The Godfather" is pure original research. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination violates Wikpedia deletion policy - I was looking over Wikipedia:Deletion policy, where it says "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." That is the case here. The article in question was spun off from The Godfather specifically because The Filmmaker objected to it being there as a section and wanted to delete it entirely. (See his admission above in the nominating paragraph that "I deleted this information from The Godfather article for these exact reasons.") I wanted to keep it and have it restructured as I've described above -- however I was also aware that another objection was that the Godfather article was too long, hence my decision to spin off the material into the present article. (The relevant discussion between myself and The Filmmaker about the material in question took place in January and is at Talk:The_Godfather#Removal_and_restoration_of_the_.22references.22_section) That means that this nomination for deletion is precisely what the deletion policy forbids, a request for deletion resulting from an editorial dispute. That being the case, the article should be retained. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had a chance to look over the policy that The Filmmaker cites as a reason for deleting the article in question, WP:AVTRIV, and I find there in the "Rationale" section:

Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. Furthermore, some items may add an unwanted distraction from the article, and the existence of a section for miscellaneous information may encourage the addition or re-addition of unwanted items.

It appears to me that these are exactly the arguments I've made: that trivia sections can provide entree for new users and that the current article needs to be reconceptualized, restructured and rendered into prose rather than deleted. The clear rationale behind the policy is not to eliminate so-called "trivia" sections, but to insure that they are adequately controlled. I can't argue with that, and I haven't attempted to do so. On the other hand, the use of this policy by The Filmmaker as a reason for deleting the article doesn't really seem to hold water: the policy most emphatically does not say "Thou shall not have trivia sections", it says that editors should AVOID them -- which is not the same thing at all. As has been pointed out by several editors, the importance of The Godfather, probably one of the most significant films of the second half of the 20th century, makes it something of an exception, a reason to do what should otherwise be avoided. In effect, I'm arguing that not only is The Filmmaker's nomination of this article for deletion a specific violation of Wikipedia policy, but the policy he cites to justify deletion is not relevant, since it recognizes both the existence and usefulness of this kind of material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 11:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to leave soon, so I will only be able to reply to one issue until I get back. This nomination DOES NOT violate Wikpedia deletion policy. You cited this quote "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." This quote is in reference to the situation in where I am not getting my way. There's a huge trivia section in the middle of the article, the synopsis is too long, and the article is completely formatted incorrectly in my eyes. You won't let me change. We dispute. I can't get my way, so I nominate the article for Afd on the grounds that I just stated. This is inappropriate because we do not resolve editorial disputes by simply deleting the whole page. You are to instead use dispute resolution. You (Edfitz) created a separate article all together that contained the same information. The dispute has changed. I still dispute that the information should be deleted. However, now the information centralized in one article. This is no longer a simple editorial dispute, is a dispute of the entire article. That is why I nominated it for Afd. The Filmaker 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have confidence that people can understand that a dispute about specific material when it is in article A is exactly the same dispute when precisely the same material is moved to article B, especially when it was in large part your comments about the length of the article A that provoked the material being spun off. The policy does not say "It is inappropriate to request deletion of an article because of an editorial dispute about that article," it is more general than that. It say It is ... inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. There is absolutely no denying that we have been having an editorial dispute about this material that you want to be deleted. Clearly both the spirit and the letter of the deletion policy has been violated by you in making this nomination. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of this article for deletion is obviously part of a previous editorial dispute but also I don't think WP:AVTRIV supports deleting this article. This article for deletion is integrally tied into the conflict over The Godfather article. Have a read of the editorial dispute on The Godfather page and read Filmaker's comments (far) above where he says he realized that it was legitimate to use this method (which I take to mean the method of deletion) to prove his theory to Ed (i.e. to prove he is wrong). In any case I don't believe that WP:AVTRIV is actually grounds for deleting this article, I've read through the discussion that framed WP:AVTRIV and the spirit of that discussion was that entire lists should not be deleted but should instead be incorporated. Even though WP:AVTRIV itself was only carried by a small majority, the overall majority of people who actually participated in the vote (i.e. both the yes and no's) agreed that entire lists should not be deleted. In addition, WP:AVTRIV simply doesn't say you can delete entire articles. Ed - I would personally recommend that you request a dispute resolution process as soon as possible, or at least do some reading on what your options are RE dispute resolution. Very shortly after you enquired about dispute resolution in the disagreement over the Godfather article, Filmaker stated he was no longer interested in that article, withdrew and a few days later came over here to request this article be deleted. If that's not a clear example of someone not getting their own way and instead using a deletion policy I don't know what is. Also, if you need someone to help improve this article I will happily collaborate with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, that would be great. One reason I haven't started on it yet (I only created the page less than a week ago) is that I've been daunted by the size of the project, since I think a necessary first step would be to firm up as many of the worthwhile entries as possible with citations (using IMDB, episode guides and so on) so that they can't be attacked as being "original research" (although clearly if they are "original research" by Wikipedia's definition, they must be a degenerate form of it, since they're all primarily simple observational reports: I see X and I report X; why that should be considered "original research" whereas listening to, say, a director's commentary on a DVD and writing down what's been said (or even reading a book and characterizing the author's opinions) isn't goes beyond my ability to comprehend).

And thanks for the suggestion regarding dispute resolution, I will indeed look into that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrectly interpreting the policy in saying that this AfD is invalide due to it being a content dispute. That you and The Filmaker may have had a dispute over a section in The Godfather may be true, but that part of the policy would only apply if he had nominated The Godfather for deletion as part of a dispute over the content of that article. Insinuating that he only nominated this article to "get his way" is not assuming good faith and we shoudln't make those kinds of assumptions. Either way the discussion here should be about the merit of this article, and not trying to end the debate on a technicality like that - even if this was a bad faith nomination, the concerns expressed are valid as evidenced by the numerous !votes above, and the debate should continue to its natural termination. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'm personally not insinuating anything. In my opinion insinuation is a fairly disingenuous method of argument. I'm literally, blatantly and flat out saying that that Filmaker nominated this article to get his way and the reason I'm saying that is because he's flat out stated what his motives are already above (unless I'm misreading his statements). Note that by "getting his own way" I mean deleting a list that he doesn't believe should be present in an article and then requesting the removal of that list when it is moved to it's own article. It's totally commendable that he is honest about his motives and is prepared to stand behind his actions and opinions. I understand why the motivations behind the deletion can be regarded as irrelevant, but in this case it's completely relevant in my opinion. If one of the problems with this article is that it has unattributed claims then why not put a sticker on it like Dune in popular culture, so it can be improved? If it doesn't adequately cite it's references then why not put a sticker on it like Superman in popular culture or Pulp Fiction in Popular Culture? If it doesn't have enough information in it why not put a sticker on it like The Lion King in popular culture? There are valid routes to improve an article you don't like. In this case they haven't been used and it's obvious (maybe just to me) that the reason they haven't been used is related to the original editorial conflict. I think that the article can be improved and I'll happily help with improving it. I really think it can be brought up to the quality of other "in popular culture articles" that aren't being deleted such as The Big Lebowski in popular culture, Of Mice and Men in popular culture, To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture, Dracula in popular culture, The Raven in popular culture, The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in popular culture, It's a Wonderful Life in popular culture, Ferris Bueller in popular culture and Lord of the Flies in popular culture —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.217.17 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arkyan: I don't think your argument makes an awful lot of sense. The Filmmaker has said that he wants this material deleted -- that's our dispute -- and when I moved it to this new article, instead of engaging in a normal editing process, or working with me collaboratively as I suggested, he took the step of making this nomination as an alternate means of getting rid of it, as he admits in the nomination itself. Suppose, for instance, that I was to merge the material back to where it was, in the Godfather article, the nomination for deletion would effectively be moot (since there would be no content in the article) but the dispute would still exist, and that's because the dispute is not about the article per se, but about the material wherever is should happen to reside. Your interpretation of the policy is unduly legalistic, it seems to me, and totally ignores the spirit of the rule. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the "rule" is that if X is a section of article Y, disagreements over whether X should be kept or deleted are not suitable to AfD discussions. However, if X is moved in to its own article, and there is a disagreement over whether X should be kept or deleted, then AfD is the place to do it. I fail to see how the policy can be interpreted any other way, or what the "spirit" of the rule you refer to is. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, the spirit is, I believe, quite clear and self-evident: Thou Shalt Not Use the Wikipedia Deletion Process As An Alternative Means of Winning an Editorial Dispute. It's really the only reasonable interpretation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyze that real quick. This began as an editorial dispute between the two of you over this content as it existed in The Godfather. It looks like you both participated in lengthy debate on the article's talk section, which is the appropriate first step in an editorial dispute. It is evident that a resolution was not found and the debate ended in a "stalemate". Some time passed between the termination of that debate and the creation of The Godfather films in popular culture. Seems that you disengaged from the dispute, which is the proper second step in the resolution process. Good. The fact that it was nominated for deletion is clear evidence that, unfortunately, cooling down was not sufficient to end the dispute. The final step in the resolution process then becomes seeking a consensus from the Wikipedia community.

Here is the fundamental problem with your assertion that taking this to AfD is in violation of the spirit of the process. What is the fundamental nature of your dispute? Correct me if I am wrong but it appears to be "Either this material belongs or it does not". Since you have been unable to come to an answer between the two of you, consensus from the community must be reached. So the consensus will either be "Yes, this material belongs" or "No, this material does not belong". Since in this case "material" is equivalent to "the article" (the entire article is the material in question) you're asking for a consensus on whether "This article belongs" or "This article does not belong", and that is the fundamental purpose of AfD debates. So I pose a question - if AfD is not the correct place to find a consensus, then where is? Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a possible alternative way of interpreting the policy. The statement "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." from Wikipedia:Deletion policy could be taken to be meant literally, or even in spirit. To get a broad understanding of the spirit Ed is referring to I had a read of the article on Spirit of the law, which seems to convey what (I think) he's referring to.

Arkyan, I don't think that analysis is an entirely accurate portrayal of events. I don't want to just say that without backing it up so I've detailed why I don't think it isn't below

It's not evident that the debate at The Godfather article ended in a stalemate. It ended with Filmaker withdrawing from the debate. This is the last entry from Filmaker

Alright, I given it some thought and I've decided to decline. I am going to remove the article from my watchlist and forget about it for now. It is not because I believe you are right and it is not because I am giving up. However, because of recent developments (especially in the last few days) in real life, I don't have the time nor the energy to argue or patiently and maturely discuss how the article should be formatted. At this point, I'd prefer to simply finish Return of the Jedi. I may come back to this article one day. However, it won't be one day soon. In other words, do what you want. I understand that your edits are in good faith, however misconceived they may be. The Filmaker 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, some time didn't pass between the termination of that debate and the creation of this article The creation of this article is 02:14, 23 March 2007 (The Godfather films in popular culture). Filmakers withdrawal from The Godfather debate was an hour later, (03:12, 23 March). It takes a while to create a new article, especially for someone fairly new to the experience so Ed must have been working on this article prior to creating it so that hour may be longer. In any case it's a fact that the article was created before Filmaker withdrew from the discussion

It doesn't seem that Ed disengaged from the dispute. It's clear from the logs that Filmaker did.

The fact that it was nominated for deletion doesn't only indicate that cooling down wasn't sufficient to end the debate, it indicates that deleting an article is being used in an editorial dispute.

I would disagree with the assertion that "Either this material belongs or it does not" is the fundemental nature of the dispute. After reading the original discussion I think it's more complex.

In answer to your question "if AfD is not the correct place to find a consensus, then where is?" you really only have to read Wikipedia:Concensus which definitely doesn't say that consensus is reached by AfD. I would literally have to quote the entire article to point out the other places that concensus is reached so I'll just (respectfully) recommend that you (re)read the entire article 172.206.217.17 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — I won't waste space quoting the obvious policies. These articles are nominated for deletion all the time; they are almost always deleted, and at least one user has a serious issue with it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. The best bet is to:

Find a fansite with popular culture databases
Provide a sentence stating "and the film/movies have appeared numerous times in popular culture.[1]"
Provide a ref or an external link to that site.

— Deckill er 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This advices confuses me just a little, because when The Filmmaker and I were having our dispute over this material on the Godfather talk page, and he went to you and asked you to intervene, you advised that we stop the debate, and told Filmmaker to work on the article in the sandbox and then post it. When I protested that in regard to this particular material, I didn't know what he could possible work on, since his intention was clearly to delete it entirely as being totally worthless, you responded:

I'm fairly certain that The Filmaker plans to revamp that section be converting it to prose and including the most notable with citations. Plus, it's necessary to have some sort of "influence/reception/references" section for an article to reach featured status, because of the comprehensiveness criterion. My guess is that, since it somehow has to be included, it'll be in the form of an expanded Star Wars Episode IV: A_New_Hope#Cinematic_influence, but with a general "influence" heading. However, most of the cultural impact information may belong on a general article about the trilogy, like with Star Wars. — Deckiller 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To which The Filmmaker responded:

Actually, in all honesty, no I don't plan on revamping the section. All of the notable information on the "references/reception/influence" side of the film is already present in the "Impact" section (which is already akin to the "Cinematic influence" section from A New Hope article). Which is why I deleted the "References" section outright. Because it does not benefit the article at all. Ed has repeatedly claimed that my editing is butcher-like. Yet he does not seem to have a better method for me to go about it. The "References" section needed to go. So I got rid of it. That may be POV, but he has also yet to provide a suitable reasoning as too why I am incorrect. The Filmaker 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And sure enough when The Filmmaker had finished his rewrite of the article, which got posted during a couple of days when I was inactive on Wikipedia (by you incidentally, and not by The Filmmaker -- I asked you about that and you assured me that for some reason it was standard procedure for a third party to post a rewritten article like that, which I didn't quite understand) he had indeed deleted the entirety of the material in question, except for one solitary mention of The Sopranos. That turned out to be not very relevant by itself, and hardly illuminating about the influence and impact of The Godfather, rather, it was kept in, apparently, because you had advised that something should be said on the subject.

Anyway, so back then you were telling me a version of what I've been saying here, that the article should be converted to prose, weeded out, etc., while now you're telling me that it's all garbage and I should abandon ship. That's a pretty drastic turn around. Why the inconsistency?

By the way, I'm not such a huge fan of The Godfather that I'm jonesing for a place to dive deep deep down into fan-stuff. I think it's a great movie, and an important one, and that it has had a significant impact on our culture, and that influence should be a part of the coverage of the movie on Wikipedia. I've outlined my ideas for how the current article might be converted (they're the same as when I explained them to you and The Filmmaker back then), which would provide the coverage you (at least back at the time) seem to think was necessary. Who knows, it's possible that when the work is all down, the article will be compact enough that it can be merged back into the main article, but in the meantime it seems a but like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to delete the article, especially considering that A) The nomination itself is a violation of Wikpedia deletion policy as an attempt to settle an editing dispute using the deletion process, and B) The policy that being put forth as the rationale for deletion doesn't say what it has been purported to say. It doesn't say that "trivia" sections are verboten and must be deleted on sight, it suggests that they have value and should be handled with care. I hardly call slashing with an axe a careful way to go about dealing with the question of what to do with this material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on popular culture changed significantly when I returned to article writing about a month and a half ago. It was also capped off by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. — Deckill er 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your feeling now that 'all "X in popular culture" articles are deserving of being deleted, without consideration of their content? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, becuase they are not articles as much as trivia lists. If a new precedent can be formed that turns trivia lists into a paragraph or two of sourced, general information, that might be different. For example, the article Bushism could be considered "Bush in popular culture", but it is not made up entirely of lists (although that list of other examples is probably unnecessary). — Deckill er 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what is the Wikipedia policy that justifies the wholesale deletion of any and every "popular culture" article? Because it's sure as heck not WP:AVTRIV, which says in part (emphasis added):

Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. [...]

Rationale

Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. [...]

Guidance

Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts. [...] Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.

So, clearly, the policy does not say that "trivia" should be deleted, it says almost exactly what I've been saying here: clean it up, prosify it, get citations, weed out the truly uninteresting and uninformative -- that's what I've said a number of times here, and back on the Talk:The Godfather page that I hoped and intended for this material.

There's really absolutely nothing in here that justifies deleting trivia sections. The policy expects "trivia" sections to exist, it see value in them, and recognizes that they have to be managed. It's definite not "Go thou and delete trivia" it's more "Trivia needs to be managed, so when it gets out of hand, manage it, and in the meantime it's good to avoid them when possible." That's hardly the same thing.

So, where is the justification? What policy are you citing as your operational guideline, that tells you that trivia must go, no matter its value. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deckiller, do you think it would be better to try to improve the article (or label it as needing improvement so other people, for example the editor, were clear it needed improving) to give it a chance to form that precedent or do you think it would be better to recommend it for deletion because (in part) you were having a disagreement with the editor that created it? 172.206.217.17 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am not going to argue the point of this nomination violation deletion policy. The simple fact is this: This material does not belong and it should be deleted. This has been explained to you by multiple editors, including myself. Second, WP:AVTRIV does state that trivia sections should not be deleted without regard to content. They are speaking of valuable content. This content is not (neither is any other "in pop culture" article). The best form to state the film's culture impact is the method stated by Deckiller above. This is completely off course. Third, you have accused me of harassment. What can I say? I deny it. All of my edits are in good faith. I care about The Godfather article. I would not have come to it if I didn't. As such I would like to bring up the article's quality. However, I can not bring up the quality, because of your disputing me. The only way to resolve is to derive the article from consensus. Hence, the Afd and the Cinema Collaboration. What I just stated for you is not harassment. The Filmaker 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears to me that this has become another version of our previous discussions: I try my darndest to explain my position, I provide opportunities for compromise, I allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, I open the door for various possible contingencies -- and you never budge, you never admit to error, you never acknowledge in the smallest way the merest potential for you to be wrong, you never take a single step towards compromise, you never do any single thing at any time to promote a dialogue or offer the tiniest bit of movement in your position.

It seems to me that "consensus" isn't about stating a position, digging in your heels, and counting votes, it's about openness, the ability and desire to give and take and learn and change and grow, and I don't see that in any respect in this conversation, nor did I in our two previous ones.

Here's my idea of consensus. In Imperial Germany in 1896, Admiral Tirpitz has to draft a bill which will provide for Germany for the first time to have a fleet of battleships:

[Tirpitz] brought to [his home in] the Black Forest a team of comrades and specialists from all parts of the navy, modelling it on Nelson's "Band of Brothers". Discussions were open and freewheeling; Tirpitz threw out ideas and then sat back, primus inter pares [first among equals], to listen. No idea was sacred: "Every word of the draft Bill was altered probaby a dozen times in our discussions [...]," he said. Utlimately, "we almost always came to a mutual decision."

That can't happen between us, I'm afraid, because it takes two to tango, and we're one short. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the policy of attribution, which obviously holds more weight than an MoS guideline.

It is unsourced. Per WP:ATT: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Together with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the two determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view.", "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources". Again, there are no sources in this list.

Issues with original research. Material counts as original research if it:

introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

(Usually, this is less strict with plot summaries, but this is not a plot summary we're dealing with)

Examples:

"In Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green at Nugget Bridge, a Team Rocket member "makes an offer" that the player "can't refuse." How do we know it's a reference to the Godfather, especially with the English-Japanese translation issues?
"The assault on Corleone's life is imitated in a nightmare Hugh Grant has in the movie Mickey Blue Eyes." How do we know? Again, have movie critics or people cited this as a direct imitation? Are there quotes in the movie saying the nightmare reminded the characters of the Godfather?
"In the film Natural Born Killers, the insane warden (played by Tommy Lee Jones) is named McCluskey." again, have outside sources named this an obvious comparison?

We have to be very careful with the way we present information like this. Saying things are homages and whatnot is not our job unless another source says so (a few cases hare and there are fine, as long as they are obvious. if the entire article is like this, then there's a problem.) For example, a site analyzing Godfather in popular culture will be good for Wikipedia to source in a sentence stating that the films have an obvious reference to popular culture. If we just cut and paste references from that site, it's redundant and excessive. On the other hand, if we just list all the times we can remember seeing a godfather reference, it's borderline original research, a policy violation (not a mere guideline violation). There are the reasons why practically every single trivia list has been deleted before. Plot summaries are usually the only thing that doesn't need to be attributed to a source outside the original work.

And now, for Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

"Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" (a lot of this information is not-so-obvious comparisons, which are not referenced by critics and reliable sources as being homages or allusions)

From WP:AVTRIV:

"Keep in mind, however, that "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references."

Again, a paragraph of popular influence can probably be kept and integrated into the influence section of the main article; however, it will be so far removed from this that it won't be a merge; thus, edit history does not need to be preserved. I'm sure you can find reliable secondary sources that give a few key (not minor) examples of the Godfather in popular culture. Key as in a major influence, not mere one-liner throwbacks (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). However, the most concrete of those will probably only lead to a single paragraph of information (as aforementioned), or to a single source that should just be referenced or linked to from the main page to avoid redundancy and copyright violation (again, as aforementioned). — Deckill er 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good of you to decide in advance that a paragraph is all that's needed. Here's what I think is a better idea, rather than starting from what we want to write and going out to look for something to support that, why don't we instead take all these great data we have, work through it, eliminate the truly trivial or uninteresting, look for citations for as much of it as we can, and then examine what's left and see what it has to say about the impact of The Godfather on popular culture? Maybe it's my limited background in science, but that seems a better strategy than deciding in advance what's going to be the final result.

As for the "reliable source" thing, I have to admit that this is something that seriously confounds me about the Wikipedia culture. Let's say I've just read an authoritative book on widget making in France, and I think the subject should be covered in Wikipedia. So what do I do? Well, I can't simply take gross chunks of the book out and post them, that would be a copyright violation. And yet here is this authoritative source. So I find the relevant parts of the book, I synopsis the author's (the authority's) conclusions, and I basically rephrase them without, hopefully, distorting them. Now, I find another book on the same subject, with a slightly different take on the subject, so I do the same thing with that book, I select, synopsize, I rewrite the ideas and then I put them together with ideas of the other authority. I put in all the citations, and there we are. As far as I can figure, this complex series of actions: reading, considering, selecting, prioritizing, synopsizing and rewriting -- not considered original research. In fact, it's the essence of what a good article wants to have.

On the other hand, if I look at a TV program, and write down what just happened, a straightforward and simple action, that's original research, and not allowed.

You'll excuse me, but that simply makes no sense. TV shows, films, CDs and so on are artificats that exist, they're self-authenticating, and self-authoritative. If anyone wants to follow up on what somebody posted about the Infamous Cannolli Incident in Brian de Palma's "Dead Dog on my Trousers", you don't need a critic to tell you that it happened the source is the film itself. Just as if I want to check up on those authorities on French widget making, I go to the source, the book that's been cited, if I want to check theInfamous Cannolli Incident, I go to the source, I check the DVD or VHS of the film. The critic or analyst as a middle man is totally and complete unnecessary, because what the editor is contributing is not in any rational world "research", it's simply observation and reporting.

Well, clearly anyone steeped in WikiDogma isn't going to buy this argument, so I'm really making it to sorto of amuse myself at the absurdity of some of the precepts that hold sway in this place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deckiller, from what I understand, step 1 when you come across an article that is not attributed is not to request it be deleted. Instead, step 1 is to request that it be attributed. For me there is no getting away from that. In this case step 1 has been to request it be deleted and it's clear (in my mind) that the request to have it deleted is due to the previous conflict. The (good) examples you have given make it absolutely clear that the article needs to be improved (including having parts deleted). Step 1 when you come across an article that needs improving is not to request it be deleted. Instead, step 1 is to request it be improved (or start a dialogue to get it improved). I suggest a compromise. Give the article some time (choose your own timescale) to be attributed and improved, both of which are actions that should have been allowed and encouraged in the first place. Ed, I also (with the best intentions) suggest some deep, calming breaths.172.206.217.17 06:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion -- but then, in my defense, you should have seen the response I wrote and then deleted!! That was really a dilly! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not necessarily the original research aspect (which I may have overemphasized to prove a point) or the fact that it lacks attribution as a whole, it's the fact that all that's being attributed to (or can be attributed to) is the work itself, and articles that merely cite the work itself can not stand on their own (this is basically an extrapolation of WP:NOT plot summaries). By attributing secondary sources as well, one is showing that the topic is notable for inclusion because experts and fans cite these comparisons. Wikipedia should be a tertiary source. Again, the point is not that all material attributed to the work itself is original research, it's that if it relies exclusively on the works, then it might not be notable for inclusion. From Wikipedia:Notability: "...to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources." Also, "topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject [in relation to the subject at hand; what is reliable in one topic, like a video game, may not be in another]. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes." Again, certain subtopics within an article, like plot summaries, obviously don't apply here. However, if at least a portion of this article does not adhere to these notability criteria, then the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is often questioned. And that is the case with "in popular culture" articles.

Let's put it in another perspective. An article just describing a character's plot role in a video game violates WP:NOT and will most likely lead to deletion or merge unless or until work is done. However, if that article is enhanced to include sections on how the character was designed (using, say, interviews and editorial columns on gaming sites), merchandise the character has spawned (action figures, etc), and how the character was received by gaming critics, then it can stand on its own as an encyclopedia article. Again, that can not be said about this list of times a line from the Godfather has been mentioned. Pillar one of the five pillars and WP:ENC help stress the purpose of Wikipedia as not involving collections like this. The reason many people are voting delete here is becuase we've been here many times in the past, and those situations have almost always resulted in deletion because nobody mentioned ways to turn it into a full article. Also, dogma is not formed by consensus; Wikipedia policy is. And because Wikipedia policy is built by consensus, that consensus can be changed. Just look at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll for an example. — Deckill er 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you really characterize 9 "delete" opinions (including the nominator) as "many", versus 2 to keep (including the page's originator, and the other one anonymous)? That's an real question, not a rhetorical one -- I have no idea how these debates go and whether this amount of turnout is a lot or a little.

In any event, I've made my arguments, I rather doubt I'm going to have anything new or interesting to say on this subject, but we'll see. The compromise suggested by my anonymous supporter would certainly work for me. It happens that in the real world I'm between projects for a few weeks, which means I might well have time to run through the article and start culling the herd a bit, maybe even organizing it a little tighter. (I still find the prospect of starting the research to find citations daunting.) I wouldn't object to some of the tags that have been suggested as well (although I'm not a big fan of tags in general -- I think they tend to litter up the place). I'm not an absolutist (anymore), I'm a pragmatist, and I'd rather half a loaf than no gravy for the mashed potatoes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, it is undeniable that The Godfather series of films have had a profound impact in popular culture, and many films reference to it. There is no other film that has influenced other films, or tv shows than this one, so listing some would create an incomplete list and listing them all in The Godfather article would make the page to big in kBytes. The topic is of great importance for film students. --FateClub 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of popularity, I can't deny that the film had a profound impact. However, in the way of cinematic influence I would think that the Star Wars films have had much more impact than The Godfather (that's not a judgment of quality, that's in terms of impact). You have yet to explain exactly why we need a list of every little reference made to The Godfather. Exactly how this information is useful (for film students or others). The Filmaker 04:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is essentially a trivia article, and it possesses little encyclopedic content. Instead, this subject should be noted in useful prose on the film's main article how and why the Godfather films have made such an impact on popular culture. This list is extraneous detail that does not provide any actual understanding of the impact. It just shares disconnected examples of where the impact is seen; not at all in line with structured, cohesive information that Wikipedia is supposed to present to readers and editors alike. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A listy hive of poor writing known as trivia. It must be wiped out. It would be far better to discuss the impact The Godfathers made on the industry and filmmakers. Alientraveller 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know how many of the contributors here who have advised a deletion do so for broadly philosophical reasons - i.e. a belief that all "trivia" should be excised - and how many do so based on the specific content of the article in question. Clearly, the content can be restructured and reconceived (along the lines that I've indicated several times above), to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's ideals. This new framework will, inherently, also provide more substantiveness and reduce the perception of the material as "trivial", but I wonder if that would make any difference to those ideologically opposed to the material? Ed Fitzgerald 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, poorly organized, and full of original research. If the page were significantly improved and sourced before the nomination has run its course, I could see changing my vote. Croctotheface 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish anand

Does not assert notability of subject. Contributions from one editor only who has no other edits so may be autobio Lou.weird 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no claim of notability, qualifies under CSD/A7 and so tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Bay Waldorf School

Questionable notability school Guroadrunner 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N as there is little significant coverage of this school. There are some small pieces on a straw bale classroom but there are a few schools with them (see here) and it would appear to be a common building method in the area. Xarr 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xarr, and why is "GYM" in caps with quotes? --Butseriouslyfolks 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xarr MetsFan76 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and make a category if someone wants to. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Waldorf Schools

An AFD was considered in its talk page before, and the fact the school system is worldwide can be represented fine with the main article. List is full of "red" Wikipedia links which may encourage people to make non-notable school articles. Guroadrunner 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't bring it up, but if anyone doubts notability, the Waldorf system itself is shown to be notable in the main article Waldorf education (see the second paragraph and the quotes in Footnotes 9 and 11). Since it's notable, expanding and seems to be at least somewhat influential, it seems to me it would be good to keep a list that can help people find out more about it, especially in their own corner of the world. Knowing even the name of a particular school would help in Internet searches or off-line research. We should be helping people with a serious interest in a serious subject, which is another way of saying that if ever a list was encyclopedic, it's this one. The question over whether to delete the list is separate from whether or not the schools on it are themselves notable. If some consensus of editors thinks creating Waldorf school articles should be discouraged, they can decide to remove the redlinks. Noroton 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not nominating it because I see the notability of Waldorf Schools to be an issue, I am nominating it because the list is unnecessary and a link to the full list can be provided within the Waldorf Schools article for others to see where all of the schools are. Guroadrunner 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The Waldorf education article is 48 kilobytes long, and this list is also long and not even complete. I think you'll wind up with an article that's much too long. Or do you have some other article in mind to merge it with? Noroton 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the proposer of the previous AfD discussion has since been banned by ArbCom from editing Waldorf related articles. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Waldorf educations contain an encyclopaedic subset of schools, and I don't see why there shouldn't be a list of them in an encyclopaedia. The list is poorly structured and undeveloped at the moment, but if you browse through it you will see there is the basis for a valid list of articles. That red links encourage blue links is true, but it is wrong to think that the creation of articles is inherently bad - each article linked from the list should be considered on its merits. It doesn't affect the value of this list. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT As is stated in the heading there is a list of these schools online (a more complete one at that), so if people want the information then it is there. This list would be far better changed to a category with the schools that have an article being included and the red links deleted until someone creates an article for them. Xarr 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what possible way is this list indiscriminate? Or is there something else in WP:NOT that you're referring to? Since when does the information that other Web sites present govern whether or not we should have a list of encyclopedic information? Noroton 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry wrong guideline, it was late... Xarr 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Make Category as a nonnotable list of probably nonnotable schools, and per WP:NOT. If anything, make it a category (with subcats for countries if desired). There's no reason for this to be a list. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a vote I did not expect I would make before examining the article. It's full of link-outs (WP:NOT a directory) and red-links for almost certainly non-notable schools. Take those away and it's a list with very few blue links. For this, I think a category works better. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary purposes of a list are to allow organization and additional details and to allow for red links, all of which can not be done in a category. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for a rather clear explanation of the synergistic interaction of lists and categories; they are not mutually exclusive. As usual, WP:NOT is being used as an excuse to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided does not belong on Wikipedia, but won't offer a valid reason". The concern that red links "may encourage people to make non-notable school articles" is just as ludicrous as the fear that they might lead to mixed dancing. Alansohn 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe the concern about the red links being changed into individual, non-notable school articles is worthwhile. Calling it ludicrous without giving arguments why you think it's ludicrous doesn't help any. Guroadrunner 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Sorry for not elaborating in further detail why the existence of red links as a reason for deletion of an article is "ludicrous". Lists are a perfectly valid option to use to describe a group of items in Wikipedia. As described in detail at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, one of the specific advantages of using lists is that "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." While you have a dreadful fear of non-notable articles being created, I see no valid reason to use your concern as an excuse for deletion, nor have you provided any examples of a genuine problem to demonstrate that your fears are justified. The red links might just as well be the impetus to create well-crafted articles about the many notable Waldorf Schools, to join the more than two dozen such articles already in existence. Alansohn 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least until these articles are made and this list is actually useful. MetsFan76 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to say Merge into Waldorf education but that article is too large for a merge. The category will serve to group the articles that currently exist. Another option would be to keep the list and not use as many heading and only have a heading where the school is listed. Vegaswikian 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but create category such as Category:Waldorf and Steiner Schools- Waldorf and Steiner schools do exist; I do not supprt them or the philospohy behind them, but that is irrelevant. The article on Elmfield Rudolf Steiner School states that there are 780 schools worldwide. This is much too much for a list. Anyway lists of this kind are not a useful part of WP: an external link to an organisation's own website (which will be maintained by them) is much better. However, some such schools have articles, and should be linked by means of a category. I think that creating a category is reserved to Admins. Peterkingiron 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete has been transwikied. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurture Networks

Page is not being used for anything but project management. Wikipedia is not a forum, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It appears that this article might potentially end up violating Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising as well. Slavlin 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some kind of advertisement or white paper, with all the coherence and communication skills of Dilbert's pointy-haired boss, by the looks of things. Definitely not an encyclopedia article or anything that could be easily turned into one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Slavlin, and Andrew: With "nurture networks" we (10 professionals in the field of development cooperation) intended to assemble our well based knowledge and experience on building, maintaining and e-facilitating online networks - with close connections to the fields of e-moderation (referring to leading international experts), to communties of practice, online communication tools (and to other already described key issues by wikipedia). It was definitely not our intention to maintain a workspace, to advertise something or to nurture group activities. Online collaboration has a powerful future - and it was our intention to assemble, to link and compile the already existing experiences and facts in a better way. Wikipedia - an encyclopedia - seemed us above all to be one of the best instruments to "construct new knowledge". But you are right, we do not have enough experience in "wikifying" - and all the requested procedures to pass your quality control system. I apologise too that one of us was removing your note about deletion. For us deleting everything would be the logical consequence, we've understood already. Is there any possibility to get guidance by one of you to make it - and to overcome the most important obstacles so that the content can remain here? Otherwise we would only like to ask you to give some days more that we can save all the linked content properly - before you delete it. Thanks a lot in advance and kind regards from the Alps, Julie nadja 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would suggest that, from what I can tell about what you have now, that this could definately be a good item for Wikibooks or Wikiversity. These 2 sites are good resources for building guides or training programs which you intend to be freely avalible and retain no copyright over. Rather than delete this and start over, you could follow the process to have it Transwikied which would allow you to move the content over to the other spaces in full. There might even be a project going on in one of those which could use this. I would change my vote to Delete and Transwiki if that is what you would like to do.

As another note, when you are adding a comment, you can place : in front of the paragraph with an extra one for each indent. That will give you the indentions which let you see follow a good train of discussion. Also, it is a good idea on a voting page to put '''Comment''' at the front of your message, as I did for you above, if you aren't voting. Slavlin 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the useful hints. We have shifted the content of "Nurture Networks" to Wikibooks http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nurture_Networks, hoping that this is correct. Julie nadja 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all that said, the proper course seems to be Delete and transwiki. Realkyhick 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Sfeir

NN Cisco exec: short resume, big picture. Also seems merely to be a promotional, CV-like page with no sources Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ab e g92contribs 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I see author has fought speedy, but the article doesn't even assert notability. It's just some guy's resume. Mwelch 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Should've been a speedy. Realkyhick 02:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lakers 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicole: The Movie

Press release. Prod contested. --Ezeu 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - copyvio. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actual film that has been covered by CNN. Article needs work and I'll see of I can at least make it a half-decent stub. Additional: I have removed the press release and self-promotional wording. What is left is a stub that can be expanded as more details are released. The coverage by CNN satisfies the notability requirements so I have removed the applicable tag. It has also been added to the FilmsWikiProject and may received further expansion from that source. 23skidoo 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per 23skidoo, seems to meet WP:N. Needs work of course but that's not reason enough to delete. It's too bad something like this has to exist - doesn't the world have something better to worry about than her? All personal rants aside, yeah, meets inclusion standards. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albeit there are few details as of yet, both references agree on details of an upcoming film... it's just a stub now, but further details will probably be upcoming shortly. SkierRMH 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a CNN story, appears to meet WP:ATT. Ab e g92contribs 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Arkyan. Just don't make me watch it. Realkyhick 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, meets relevant content policies. Burntsauce 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ajitasaurus

Zero references. Zero google hits for Ajitasaurus. Zero google hits for Tragironosaur. Possibly WP:HOAX. Prod was removed by anonymous without explanation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the appropriate action to take with obvious hoaxes. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax, no sources, ? Ab e g92contribs 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (I'm the nominator) db-self/CSD G7: the only author has just requested the deletion of this article: diff. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its almost certainly a hoax, and if not a hoax, its not notable. RogueNinja 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big, fat delete. It's a hoax, it's bollocks, it's b.s. Realkyhick 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Buffalo Wing Festival. WjBscribe 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Cerza

Entire basis for article already covered by the event he created, the National Buffalo Wing Festival. Almost would consider a speedy delete because of NN, etc. Guroadrunner 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to National Buffalo Wing Festival. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the festival page. Ab e g92contribs 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just copied all relevant information to the Festival page as per above. Perhaps we can close the AFD to change it into redirect soon? Guroadrunner 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was in order. Move to close, Your Honor. Realkyhick 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir husain

The page for "Shakir husain" seems to be a vanity entry on Wikipedia. There are no references or links, and no evidence to support any of the claims is offered. Whilst google produces a number of links to 'Shakir Husain', who may or may not be the person represented on the current entry for that name, this article is currently unencyclopaedic and as such I am suggesting that it be considered for deletion. The globetrotter 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up and sources found by the end of this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no secondary sources to confirm notability--Sefringle 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, spam, not notable. Realkyhick 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky D. Purl

This is a non-notable biography of a musician that fails WP:A and WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. See talk page for lengthy attempts to scare up proper reliable sources to verify the article's claims. Notability claims hinge on Purl's "unclear" involvement with a non-notable hip hop group and a YouTube video that, while it featured some notable performers, has attracted no outside attention. Google search results are low: Starstruck Ricky Purl receives 122 uniques Google hits and none appear to be reliable sources. "Ricky Purl" & "Ricky D. Purl" are busts. The "Starstruck video on YouTube has been up for almost a year and received less than 1700 views. Scientizzle 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scientizzle lays out a convincing case for deletion on the talk page. Mwelch 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scientizzle (love that use name!) tried his best to explain to the author(s) what was needed, and they couldn't come up with the goods. Realkyhick 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Splat

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline - Seraphim Whipp 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete because of lack of "notability". Delete because the only source is their MySpace page. Ab e g92contribs 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for having a lable of not-notabel. Eddie.willers 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Special multiple AFD) - Individual duplicate episode summaries for season 1 of TV show 8 Simple Rules

Someone has made individual articles for each episode of season 1 for the television show 8 Simple Rules. However, the information contained in each is a duplicate of information already found at List of 8 Simple Rules episodes. For example, the same information at Wall of Shame (8 Simple Rules episode) is also inside the aforementioned list (see the listing for the second episode). I am proposing that all of the individual articles are deleted because the information is already neatly found on the list of episodes. I will handle the individual AFDs (or prods ?) for all if a "delete" consensus is reached. -- Guroadrunner 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Your comment here on 8 Simple Rules)

Um, why not just redirect the duplicate articles back to the list? Otto4711 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have time to look at this properly, but a delete/redirect strategy seems okay. YechielMan 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects seem like a good idea. Realkyhick 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Project complete - I have gone ahead and redirected all of the season 1 articles to their main home. The season 2 and 3 articles need to stay for the time being because their plot summaries, etc. have not been put in the list, so that would lead to loss of information, whereas removing the season 1 articles is removing duplicate information. Guroadrunner 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - it appears that another editor has gone ahead and formatted the list for the season 2 and 3 episodes, and that those articles have been deleted as well. I say close this AFD as the project is complete. Guroadrunner 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Taylor Pacesetters

Unsourced stub regarding non-notable cheerleader team. Time given to provide sources for "award-winning" claim, but no sources forthcoming StuartDouglas 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no "there" there. Realkyhick 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Nisar Ahmed

I belive this page may be a hoax. I am unable to find any reference to either of the people named on it. Shimaspawn 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax. Ab e g92contribs 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple google search finds Pakistani newspaper sources on several people with this name. I picked one of them; not really sure if it was the one the page creator was thinking of, but the region fits. (There's another guy by the same name who was the Mirwaiz and was killed in 1994; he appears to be notable too). cab 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- cab 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete notability problems--Sefringle 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delte this article please. Abulfazl 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
keep article is updated since nomination, please see sources. BBC & Dawn are at least reliable. Please review your vote again. Thanks. --Webkami 10:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I can safely trust The Beeb and Dawn. Realkyhick 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. Nominator, thanks for nominating. --Matt57 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources recently implemented. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Fest

Fails WP:HOAX, WP:ATT, WP:MUSIC and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. An article created by a single-purpose account about a purported music festival held in New Jersey in 2004 and claiming the attendance of numerous prominent groups. However, a directed Google search turns up zero relevant hits, there are no sources, and it contains such encyclopedic entries as "Events Rumored To Have Happened" and "Members of Skynet claim to be stuck in traffic, while they are actually in the parking lot across the street getting drunk." Notability tagged since November 2006, hasn't been touched since. The things you run into while clicking Random article.' RGTraynor 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if there was any question ... Delete. RGTraynor 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this wasn't completely fabricated, it surely wouldn't meet up with WP:NOTE. CA387 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources. Ab e g92contribs 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not comply with WP:NOTE Sandy100YP
Delete for lack of verifiability and notability. Eddie.willers 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You've gotta be kidding. Realkyhick 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eject at the door, no re-entry without credentials. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and jupe: Fails to comply with all of the policies mentioned in the nomination and has a vulgar title not expected in an encyclopedia. ~Step trip 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Everyone Else

--Postcard Cathy 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator failed to submit a reason for deletion, but I will. This is apparently a proposed television series which has not yet been picked up by a television network. As such, it should be considered non-notable until either it receives significant public attention from independent sources, or gets selected for broadcast, in which case it will probably receive significant public attention from independent sources. The article is self-contradictory about whether the program is still in development or has been abandoned, but in any event we can wait until later to create this article, if indeed this series will ever merit an encyclopedia article of its own. Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the World (animation)

There is no assertation of notability, and little to be found. The article lacks verification and reliable sources to back up its claim of importance as an internet meme. Teke 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate It was notable enough that Nike hired the guy to make their own ads. They were previously on the nike website, but can now be found [[36]].
Delete The notability is not established by reliable, third party sources. It would also appear to include original research. Leebo ^T/C 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than another internet meme that lacks notability per WP:WEB, fails WP:ATT, could be called OR, yadda yadda. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yadda yadda yadda pretty well sums it up. Realkyhick 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't even look funny. Masaruemoto 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your opinion on its humor is irrelevant. -Dylan0513 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cough I think what Dylan0513 means is that when closing an AfD (or any other discussion), administrators are to judge the merits of the comments made in support/opposition !votes to determine consensus rather than a head count. As such, "it's not even funny" means little. "It's not even funny, and I cannot find any verification or sources that validate the article's claim to humor" carries more weight. Teke 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think The End of the World should have an article as it is internet phenomenon, the current state of the article just isn't good. If it was cleaned up, it could be turned into an appropriate article. -Dylan0513 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the problem is the notability. It has one mention from a flash animation site, of which the notability is unclear, and that's pretty much it. Are there articles about this animation in reliable publications? Leebo ^T/C 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. There are only like 2 articles on it. Support removed. Maybe if we find more articles it can be remade. -Dylan0513 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West 49

The article reads like an advertisement. I couldn't glean notability from Google because of "noise," so I'm inviting Canadians to chime in on this. YechielMan 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems like a notable company in Canada and sponsors skateboarding events. Article desperately needs more detail and context though. Eddie.willers 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I know we need more than just anecdotal evidence, but I am from Canada and West 49 does seem intuitively notable enough to have an article written about it. There are articles going back six years about it: [37]. There is also more information available than just a mere description of the chain (the link I posted is one example). I might work on this article later. Here's another: [38] Sancho (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but I'll reconsider if it gets more sources. Realkyhick 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. The author did as I asked. Realkyhick 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Extremely notable in canada, kinda like THE urban store. George Leung 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Never heard of it, but George Leung obviously had - reads like an advertisement, however, someone should of just tried to speedy it under db-spam, if they didn't. It definitely does, however, read like an advertisement. BlackBear 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because I just added a bunch of references and made it not read like spam. Sancho (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after improvements and added references. JavaTenor 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, author is putting some considerable work into improving the article, we should give him the chance to do so. The work so far has reduced the advertizing aspect well enough to avoid deletion, IMO. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - notability was not asserted, advertisement. WjBscribe 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic Death Company

Procedural nomination. Someone gave this an afd1 but didn't know how to finish. The apparent reason to delete is that the article reads like an advertisement for a nonnotable product. YechielMan 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. Realkyhick 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Possible self-promotion. See other articles by the author.--Ng.j 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybuilding competitions featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger

Delete - bodybuilding competitions are not notable based on who competed in them. Nor is Schwarzenegger's mere participation in an event automatically notable to him. Otto4711 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excessively trivial association. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. Realkyhick 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no useful content--Sefringle 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite sure I see the difference between this article and Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography. It's a trivial subject about which I couldn't care less but that does not make it any less of a decent subarticle of Arnold_Schwarzenegger. The thing could use some more context and/or be transformed into Arnold_Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding career but I don't really see how this can be considered indiscriminate information. Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nomination does not suggest that the information is indiscriminate. The nomination is posited on questions of notability. Otto4711 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But notability of what exactly? The competitions? Obviously, Mr Olympia and Mr Universe are certainly very very notable. Don't know about Mr Europe but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Schwarzie himself is of course notable and his bodybuilding was a significant part of his life. With all due respect, I don't think the nomination rationale makes any sense. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts that Schwarzenegger's mere participation in the events makes the events notable. The asserted notability is the intersection of the event and the person. Otto4711 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The events themselves are undoubtedly notable. The article lists those events in which Schwarzenegger, one of the most successful bodybuilders of his time, took part. What could be wrong with that? Pascal.Tesson 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained what could be wrong with that. It's a meaningless intersection. Otto4711 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Is Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography a similarly meaningless intersection? If not, what difference do you see? Pascal.Tesson 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course the existence of one article has no bearing on the existence of another, so the question is invalid on its face. Otto4711 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. In this case, the parallel is too obvious to ignore. Before invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to avoid answering the question, you should give it a moment's thought. The reason why we have a lot of filmographies is that these are usually interesting, verifiable, sourceable content which is too bulky to include in main articles. It seems like a decent solution then to create a separate subarticle and I still fail to see why this reasoning does not apply here. Pascal.Tesson 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you're the one who's suggesting that the filmography article is justification for the bodybuilding article. You're the one implicating WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not me. The filmography stands or falls on its own and the bodybuilding article stands or falls on its own. I've offered my reasons for why I believe this article should be deleted. The intersection of "bodybuilding competition" and "featuring A.S." is not notable. If you disagree, that's fine. But if your only response to that is to point at the filmography article then that shows a pretty weak case for keeping. Otto4711 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary unindent. Ok then, perhaps you can explain what "non-notable intersection" means. The fact is that the bodybuilding career of Schwarzenegger is something that has been written about extensively, in multiple reliable third-party sources. Would you be so adamant to delete this article if it was called "Bodybuilding career of Arnold Schwarzenegger" (which is really what this page is meant to be)? If so, then a simple move will do. Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pascal.Tesson. Epbr123 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most notable events, or the ones that he won, into the bodybuilding career section of the main Arnold Schwarzenegger article. Masaruemoto 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most notable as per Masaruemoto, delete the rest

Keep Have observed the seperate articles devoted to his films and politics. Bodybuilding is the third (well first actually) part of his career and whichever way you look at it Arnie is an A*-notable person. I think maybe the article could be expanded a little to justify not merging it but as Pascal.Tesson points out, there shouldn't be much trouble sourcing it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a bodybuildography per Pascal.Tesson. The analogy makes a lot of sense as Schwarzenegger is notable for both bodybuilding and film, so the intersection is notable. –Pomte 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Potemkin Collective

Delete - Non-notable. Notability template has been in place for a month with no changes to the article. A search on Google returns only Wikipedia and affiliate content. Kmsiever 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATT: completely unsourced, which we can't have, and probable original research. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Realkyhick 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Green Bay Packers season

This is a clear example of crystal balling. 2009 is 2 years away, this article (along with the rest of the 2009 articles/cat) has no need to exist currently. RobJ1981 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Speedy Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Ab e g92contribs 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as balls made of crystal, not encyclopedic as of yet. Can't be speedied, though: NOT violations don't fall under any of the CSD criteria. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take 2008 Green Bay Packers season with it. Punkmorten 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with 2008 Green Bay Packers season. Nothing can be said about the seasons and is against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page is entirely unneeded.++aviper2k7++ 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both 2008 and 2009. Just plain silly. Realkyhick 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the schedules are known. And besides, they're stubs, as more information can be known, they can be expanded. Keep them. Oh, and along with the 2008 page. Crazy Canadian 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both 2008 Green Bay Packers season and 2009 Green Bay Packers Season page. Uneeded, useless. The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I were to remove the coaches since that is crystal balling, does that help them. Or saying "likely"? I'm trying to preserve them. Thanks Crazy Canadian 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I stated in the other AFD: nope, it wouldn't help. You are trying to "preserve" them? What's the point of that? People can easily make the articles when the topic is relevant and not just a crystal ball article. Making them now, and saving them for later really isn't how Wikipedia works. RobJ1981 05:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is completely pointless, it should wait until 2009 is closer. Useight 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mismedia

Non-notable slang terminology OverlordQ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced neologism consisting of original research which appears to be a conflict of interest. It sounds like an intriguing topic, but it also opens the doors to non-neutral points of view in interpreting different media as "mis"-media or not. Leebo ^T/C 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely neologism. No evidence of common usage. i kan reed 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism: only 465 unrelated google hits. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have valid points, but this is a term that I created years ago and it is now being used more in industry circles and I myself am using it more. I work in production and this is a term that I use to describe the new phenomena which you will be seeing much more of as digital workloads expand and become more efficient as well as seeing the democrazation of media through direct delivery channel distribution.

If it is a Neologism it is Diffused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpazos (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2007

Comment The major problem is that core policies like Wikipedia:Attribution are non-negotiable. If there are no third-party written publications that you can attribute this word to, then it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. Leebo ^T/C 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author admitted he created it, 'nuff said. Non-notable neologism. Realkyhick 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has failed me :< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpazos (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 March 2007

Wikipedia fails if we don't have any standards for inclusion. An encyclopedia needs to be reliable. Sources are always needed. Leebo ^T/C 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

Although the article is clearly not crystalballing, it is well sourced and does not claim to state what will happen during the eighth gen, i believe that there has not been enough improvement since the last time it was deleted, which can be found here. J.L.Main 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE THIS ARTICLE OF CONTAINING PURE SPECULATION WITHOUT GIVING AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 March 2007

As the person who wrote the article i would like to make the request that should the page be deleted it is protected from recreation so that no one else will take me work and create the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 March 2007

Delete For all my reasons on the previous nomination. Also, every delete point on the 2nd nomination is still valid - the article hasn't changed at all. The name is still inappropriate (History is something which has passed, whereas we wont see this generation until some several years). Far too many things can change in what we currently have many years until we can at least expect concrete information as to whether these consoles are going to be developed, and who by. Maybe in a year or so time, we can review what information there is, and if decided there is enough solid concrete information, then under a name other than referring to it as it's history. Given this is the 3rd nomination, I would advise protection of the page until at least a year or until we have a suitable quantity of verifyable information that will mean it can't be classified as pure speculative. Bungle44 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for crystal balling. It hasn't happened yet, it may never happen. Eddie.willers 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i said we should keep the last one and so it would be wrong of me to change my mind simply because i wasn't the one who created the article. The information in this is well sourced and it isn't crystal balling as it makes no claims as to what will happen. the article only says what the current plans are for the eighth generation, not what will happen. it is a fact that Shigeru Miyamoto mentioned at E3 2006 that the successor to the Wii would include high-definition capabilities and almost every other piece of information in this article is like it. it only says what the companies or representatives of the companies have said they are doing with the eighth gen. the article is not claiming that the wii 2 will be HD capable, the article is saying that Miyamoto said that it will. This is obviously an important enough artical to be included, it is not crystal balling and it isn't too early by wikipedia standards all of these; 2018 Winter Olympics, 2024 Summer Olympics, 2066, Apocalypse, Year 10,000 problem, Year 2038 problem, will happen close to the end of the eighth generation are a long time after it is over. J.L.Main 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All those examples have solid confirmed info in them, this does not. TJ Spyke 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are future events. how can you have "solid confirmed info" for any future event. my article's info is just as solid as theirs.J.L.Main 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. The whole thing is pure speculation with plenty of guessing and dubious sources. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speculation? where? i don't see any. could you please be more specific as to what your referring to?J.L.Main 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also speculation that Apple may re-enter the console market with a successor to the Apple Pippin, however they have not yet made any statement concerning these speculations.

That entire sentence in itself ADMITS that speculation is very much present

The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly called "Wii 2" and "Super Wii."

Sounds as if we are simply speculating what the name will be - pure guesswork

The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly called "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."

Same as above - sounds as if we are simply speculating what the name will be - pure guesswork again

Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4

Therefore, any information posted is either speculation by gamers or SONY themselves speculating what they will do with the console? It is too early for anyone (including console developers) to even consider publishing official concrete information.

Bungle44 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one speculating on the pippin 2, i have sources who are doing that and there is evidence to support the claim. in concern to the names i give, your just looking for excuses to accuse the article of containing "pure speculation" anyone who was unbiased would admit that the article is saying they are commonly referred to by those names and that i'm not claiming any of them will actually have one of those names. However, i will stick something in so that people like you won't get confused. as for the PS4, the fact that it will exist has nothing to do with what it will be able to do. There is no information in the PS4 section about the PS4's abilities, the section is only about when it will be released using what Sony execs have said. none of your examples hold any water. J.L.Main 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't once claimed it is pure speculation; I merely pointed out some things which are to an extent speculating what will/will not happen. With this kind of article, no matter how many "sources" or "references" you have, chances are they wont be correct when the time comes. Just because a website thinks something, you are saying that is good enough to include it to backup points in an encyclopedia? If this was being professionally written, do you really think an article like this would base heavily and reliantly upon sources which likely wont even be correct when the time draws closer? Sources mean practically "nothing" with this article. As I said in the previous nomination, not even console makers know what will happen, so how can anyone/anywhere else?

Also, why are you voting to keep, yet YOU were the nominator this 3rd time around? It seems you obviously think it doesn't deserve wikipedia space as well, does it not? You either think it should be here, or you think it shouldn't; clearly, you don't seem to know which side of your bread your butter is on. Bungle44 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you see, the article isn't trying to say what will happen if five years. The article is about what the companies have said will happen and what other people think will happen. Its not about what the eighth gen will be, its about what the current, present tense, plans are for the generation and what is happening right now that concerns the eighth generation. if i filled the article with speculation as to what the systems of the eighth gen would be like than it would be crystal balling and even i wouldn't want the article to remain. I would like to apologize if you were offended by anything i said. I was tired but i'm a little better now. the reason i nominated the article wasn't because i thought it should be deleted but because i thought it needed to be put before my fellow wikipedians. It had already been deleted twice before and i didn't think that any one person had the right to recreate it with the consent of those who had it deleted before. J.L.Main 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the companies are saying now, not even themselves can guarantee it will be correct. Sure, they release info of their own plans, which can quite easily change as time goes by, and hence any information entered into Wikipedia could then need to be changed closer towards the time (which I guess will still be a few years yet). Information which isn't correct now will be no use to anyone when we're at this generation, and no use to anyone reading who wants to find out about it (as there is no real concrete information available, by anyone). I also stated in the previous nomination in December about the name (History of..); again, confusing readers who aren't very well knowledged in this field. The fact is, an encyclopedia is meant to inform and provide meaningful information to it's readers, particularly wikipedia, which wont be the case with this article until at least another few years. Given it's prior 2 deletions and current support for deletion pretty much supports any claim that it is very much too early. It was too early 3 months ago, and that still stands today. Bungle44 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to get impatient with you. THE ARTICLE ISN'T ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE EIGHTH GENERATION!!!!! it is about what is happening with the eighth generation. happening, as in right now. the article should be named "History of" because thats what it is, it is the history of what has been suggested or announced or speculated about the eighth generation. the fact that we don't "know" what will happen is irrelevant because thats not what the article is about, it is about what has happened and what is happening in concern to the eighth gen. J.L.Main 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down! I was simply saying I don't think it is suitable for Wikipedia.. "yet". This is a debate, not an arguement, and I am merely debating my opinions (alas I am also not the only one to share these opionions). I understand what you're saying with regards to my comments on the History naming, but for something that hasn't even begun yet, it really can only be regarded as its history when it does. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose, and the content it provides need to ensure that is complies with this purpose. This information may be very useful on your average fan site, but you're forgetting we're talking about an encyclopedia. Information in an encyclopedia isn't published knowing that it could easily change many several amount of times before it is even likely a solid piece of information will standup. Yes, there are many articles related to documenting "current events", but this is not even yet close to becoming classified as such. I understand your fustration to an extent, and my apologies if I have been a factor of that, but try and keep it peaceful! Bungle44 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you know that many WWII books actually start with WWI and sometimes before? The authors of the books want there readers to not only understand what happened during the war but why it started, what lead up to what was Europe like right before it began. the story of your life doesn't start with your birth, it starts when your conceived, if not before. the same holds true with the eighth generation. i would say that its history actually started about six months ago if not a year ago since that is probably when people who will be working on these systems started to think about them.

i'm not forgetting that we are talking about an encyclopedia. but i think your forgetting about one of the things that makes wikipedia so special, that it can be changed. if someday something in the article ceases to be note worthy it can be removed.

and i'm not frustrated, i'm a little annoyed that i can't seem to make any headway with you, but i'm not frustrated. i was the one who instigated this, remember? :)J.L.Main 02:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Bungle's comments. RobJ1981 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The entire article is full of rumors and speculation. The only confirmed info is that Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are working on 8th generation systems, no actual info will be known for several years. Maybe the article should be protected from recreation as well since it has been deleted 10 times in the last 10 months. TJ Spyke 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure speculation in spite of the large number of references. None of them reflect even semi-official statements or information and this article is just a collection of guesswork. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Take the crystal ball elsewhere, please. Realkyhick 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and protect from creation, until eighth was announced in five years down the road. We already deleted Xbox720 article; everything else is pure crystal ball. Also, any extremely powerful machines announced or marketing now, even if it's "eight gen" is tech, is still seven gen (eg: PS3) George Leung 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Nothing but a collection of passing mentions to possible future devices.--155.144.251.120 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I <3 sources! Ab e g92contribs 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt. It's a known fact that, barring bankruptcy, each of the current players will plan or are already planning successors to their current consoles. Saying "this representative says it will exist" simply isn't enough. Garrett^Talk 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's still the first quarter of 2007 and people are making articles for consoles that might not be made by 2010~2014. As ridiculous as having an article on the fictional Playstation 9. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep The article is well sourced and there is no doubt that there will be an eight generation. So long as sourced articles keep referring to the next generation, the article is valid. The same applies to to the Olympic and Superbowl articles, even if these events were canceled there would still be an article on why the events were canceled. Remember notability isn't subjective, if articles in the popular press are speculating, it is now sourced information. The same goes for the next presidential election. Crystalballing by Wikipedia editors is not acceptable, but the same by Business Week and other publications is. If I guess who the next Superbowl halftime act will be it is crystalballing, but if Rolling Stone does it, its sourced and acceptable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing about any of these consoles mentioned anywhere. Speculation doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This article is being called "History" but the 7th Generation of gaming has just started. Consider salting until 2010 or so. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normaly i am opposed to articles like this, but this one seems to be well sourced, with only a few speculative claims (which i plan on removing in a minute). I have had a breif read of WP:CRYSTAL and in my eyes, this article doesnt appear to break it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattyatty (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment i just thought you all might find this interesting. When the article for the seventh gen was created all it contained was, "the 256-bit era is said to be including the playstation 3, xbox 2 and the next nintendo system dubbed nintendo 5 by gamers." if that got to remain why shouldn't mine?J.L.Main 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it isn't "your" article; any article in Wikipedia is under the GPL and isn't owned by any particular individual. Secondly, with regards to the 7th generation article, I don't think Wikipedia was a big then as it is now, and I doubt many people were around like now to hold debates like this on a topic of this nature. I think comparing to articles made quite some time ago and questioning the way Wikipedia operated then isn't the best method of supporting what is happening now. Bungle44 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article needs some serious cleanup if it is to remain. While I'm not automatically opposed to an article on such a topic this early, the factual information is not attributable to the sources well enough (despite the fact that the sources are plentifully cited); original research suffuses the entire article, padding and stitching these largely disparate and isolated factoids together.
For instance: the article itself states, "At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation." This seems to be unattributable speculation, couched in weasel words. Has there been any directly attributable statement that this Apple console will continue in the Pippin line? (I would think that Apple would try and distance itself from the Pippin brand, and any negative associations with the original Pippin.) Has there been any directly attributable statement that it could be part of the same new generation as the presumed 720, PS4, and Wii successor? If not, it doesn't belong at all, and its mere mention in the "eighth generation" article is in itself original research, implying something that is not explicitly supported by the sources.
While statements have been made about potential new consoles, almost nothing notable has been referenced about an "eighth generation" directly (which relates somewhat my disagreement with the naming conventions for the game console history articles in general, which isn't appropriate for discussion here), nor about how or if these new consoles relate to one another in any generation. A Wikipedia article need to be an encyclopedic resource, and not merely a collection of forward-looking statements on individual devices accompanied with original inferences of a supposed next round in the great "console wars". This is why this situation should be considered distinct from that of articles on upcoming Olympic and Superbowl events. I am leaning toward a recommendation to delete, but am open to be convinced otherwise. Dancter 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i won't say there is no OR, but i doubt there are any articles with none and i would like to mention that i didn't think the article was ready so i didn't create the page, someone copied it from my user page without my permission. since it was just an article on my userpage i wasn't being too careful to avoid original research. also, i've never considered statements of omission to be OR. i guess i can see how admitting that there is no proof the pippin 2 will be an eighth gen console is OR, but i think your pushing it a little. i don't see what you mean by "weasel words" but feel free to rewrite it if you think you can do better. in reference to my calling the console the "pippin 2," when there is no way to tell what a consoles successor will be called the simplest thing to do is stick a 2 on the predecessor's name. when the article for the wii was first created it was called the gamecube2. same idea, the article isn't say it will be called the pippin 2, its just something to refer to it as until Apple gives us something better to call it. i stuck it in with the eighth gen because there is nowhere better to put it. if you don't think it belongs in the article we can transfer it to the talk page and debate it there. if you think there is anything good in this article than please vote to keep it and them simply improve it. isn't that why your on wikipedia. J.L.Main 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystallballing. Clearly one can't have a "history" of something that hasn't happened yet; nor can one create an article based solely on speculation of future products not even announced. A discussion of "eighth generation" consoles will someday be encyclopaedic -- when reliable sources about actual products are available. Right now, all the linked articles are based on guesses, rumours and a smidge of FUD.--Leflyman^Talk 09:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:NOT#CRYSTAL does not apply in this case. This has the necessary sources, this isn't rampant speculation. MrMacMan 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How are the following statements not rampant speculation?

"The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly and unofficially referred to as "Wii 2" or "Super Wii."[citation needed] The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly and unofficially referred to as the "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."[citation needed] At this point they are the only company to announce that they will be involved in the eighth generation. Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4; however, they have stated that it will be released after 2010. Sony says they are planning for the PS3 to have a life span of about ten years, meaning they will discontinue support for that system in or around 2016. However, as Sony believes there is room for "significant overlap" it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site.[10] At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation."

- "Commonly and unofficially", "even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation.", "it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site", and it just goes on and on. Conclusions are being drawn based on interviews and fragments, and a lot of what isn't explicitly stated as speculation instead becomes conclusions drawn from rumors and press releases. There's hardly a confirmed fact to be found here. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

("The successor to Nintendo's Wii is commonly and unofficially referred to as "Wii 2" or "Super Wii."[citation needed] The successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 is commonly and unofficially referred to as the "Xbox 3" or "Xbox 720."[citation needed]) here it's just saying that what nerds like me are currently referring to them as since the companies haven't announced official names yet. nothing is being speculated about so it isn't "rampant speculation," however you could make a case for it being OR since it needs sitation.

(At this point they are the only company to announce that they will be involved in the eighth generation.) this is a statement of fact, so far only Sony has officially stated that they will make an eighth gen console. where is the speculation in that?

(Nevertheless, no information or theories have yet surfaced concerning what Sony will do with the PS4;) this is a statement of omission. it is just saying that we have no idea what the PS4 will be capable of. again, you could classify it as OR but i think that would be rather legalistic.

(however, they have stated that it will be released after 2010. Sony says they are planning for the PS3 to have a life span of about ten years, meaning they will discontinue support for that system in or around 2016. However, as Sony believes there is room for "significant overlap" it is probable that the PlayStation 4 will be released well before that, possibly 2011 according to one site.[10]) all of this information is sourced. it is either official word from sony or speculation by a source outside of wikipedia which is allowed by wiki rules.

(At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations and even if Apple does create a Pippin 2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation.") the section on the apple pippin2 being in the eighth gen article would seem to imply that it will be an eighth gen system. this is just saying that we don't know that for certain. its a statement of omission, not speculation.

Lankybugger says, "There's hardly a confirmed fact to be found here." thats because there are almost no confirmed facts to be found on the net. information by the rules of wikipedia doesn't need to be confirmed, it just needs to be relevant and sited.J.L.Main 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what people are referring to the next consoles as. Until we get a development name or a released name, we can't call them anything. It'd be Microsoft's next console, Sony's next console, and Nintendo's next console. It's pretty much assumed that all the companies are going to be involved in the next generation, so that statement is pretty much filler, as is the statement that no information has been released about the PS4.

Wild speculation from one source does NOT count as a verified, reliable source. In fact, if you check the the rules on attribution, speculation by media must be clearly be labeled as such. Likewise the PS4 information is just speculation from Sony. It's not confirmed until Sony begins work on the PS4.

All in all, if you were to remove all the information which isn't confirmed or an official source, you'd have two sentences about the "upcoming" PS4. Everything else is patent speculation or a statement of omission (which is essentially worthless). Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if thats how you feel than vote for keep and help me improve it. i mean, isn't that the point of wikipedia? i would like to point out that the information in the article was copied from my homepage and used to create an article without my permission. i didn't think it was ready to be an official article then and i don't think it is now, but i know that it can be improved and made into a legitimate article. rather than deleting it, how about we keep it and make it into an article that we can be proud of. i know it has problems, so help me fix them. what is the use of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we delete articles simply because some people feel that they have problems? please change your vote to keep. if you don't, pointing out all of these problems will have been a waist of time. J.L.Main 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid point "if" there was/is any legit and non-speculative valid information available to amend the article with, which could be denied as being purely something which is either writer speculation or fan site/console developer speculation. The main arguement in the last AfD was that there wasn't enough information yet available to hold this kind of article "at that moment in time", and I personally feel that still stands, otherwise you may have amended it with said sources to backup your points about its retainment. Those that vote delete isn't because they don't believe this kind of article should exist, but that it should not exist yet whilst it is too early. Sorry for intruding on your little debate here, but if you amend the article JLMain, with official, verifyable and non-speculative sources that will stand indefinately (e.g: this is console X confirmed by developer X and is in production now, here is the official press release..", then you should act quickly. If you can't provide a similar source or one that people cannot argue against, then how can this article be improved in the near future? Bungle44 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i just went through and re-read the article and i see almost no speculation. i admit that some of the information will cease to be relevant eventually, but that is true with anything that is still happening. i don't see how anything under the wii2, xbox720 or PS4 sections isn't relevant or isn't something that people reading the article would want to know. i flat out disagree that there isn't any legit and non-speculative information in the peace. i just don't understand what in the article you are seeing as being non-legit or speculative.J.L.Main 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this AfD might go a bit better if the nom, and principal author of the article refrained from engaging in back-and-forth debate about whether there is or isn't speculation. I'm further confused, however, as the nom now appears to be arguing for keep. Finally, I'd suggest that the nom review WP:OWN; Wikipedia articles should not be referred to as "mine" or "my work".--Leflyman^Talk 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP

Yes, there might be little speculation in this page, but name any huge-sized page that doesn't have any speculation! It's true though, Apple would be a major competitor if they reentered. Why delete a page, and then have to re-make it? If you don't keep it, I recomend at least preserving a copy of it. Besides, up until a few months prior to release, the Xbox 360 was still the Xbox 2! AlexanderTG 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sody Singh Kahlon

Strong Delete This is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is non-enyclopaedic. The subject is non-notable and it appears to be simply an advert for a little known actor. None of the sources are verified and no sources are given. Links to third party websites are also used.Sandy100YP 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject appears to meet WP:BIO by quite a lot. Leebo ^T/C 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm revising my decision - my initial impression was premature. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the awards be verified? If so, the subject passes our notability guidelines. If not, the acting credits alone are not enough. Leebo ^T/C 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for non-notable person. Realkyhick 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Borg

He's fathered a semi-notable person (currently up for deletion). That doesn't make him notable in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly fails even to approach beginning to start commencing a WP:NN qualification.--Anthony.bradbury 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability doesn't necessarily extend across generations. Realkyhick 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original version of the article asserts his notability has being himself a controversial figure in Norway. However, those assertions have been removed per WP:BLP since they were not sourced. Having not the slightest idea who is or is not controversial in Norway, I'll withhold a vote, but just in case anyone is interested, I thought I'd offer that Norwegian media might be a good place to look if searching for evidence of notability. Mwelch 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. ArchStanton 12:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Max

In my opinion, this is a vanity page as the article creator admits to being Harry Max. A google search didn't turn up much on this person either. RobJ1981 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with RobJ1981. Referring to himself as a 'pioneer' lends particular credence to the notion of this being a vanity piece. The globetrotter 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that publishing one book and being interviewed on a podcast are sufficent for WP:BIO notability. Mwelch 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas above. Springnuts 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano possieri

No evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). No references. The external links consist of the subject's own site, two art sites which appear to display images submitted by anyone, and one link which seems not to work. The author has removed importance and notability templates from the article without providing evidence of notability, despite being notified of the need for notability on his/her User talk:Dvie. EALacey 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources provided aren't independent, the only two (two!) ghits are both of the sources provided. I suspect this may be self-promotion. In any event, non-notable. Realkyhick 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, as above. Why is it that pretty much every article with an uncapitalised surname is vanity? The globetrotter 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of plays

This is an overly broad topic. Also, there is a "Category:Plays by year" that does the same thing and better. Clarityfiend 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes- it's too broad. Whilst the current decade holds only nine plays, it sort of works- but in the long term is obviously untenable. The globetrotter 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Holy cow! This list could go on forever! Way, way too broad. Realkyhick 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far, far, far too broad. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but the ancient plays are interesting, possibly create a list just for plays from BC. Masaruemoto 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaquake Silliness

A hoax episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. The only source that could be found is a forum and that is just a copy of a revision on List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. This was previously prodded, but an IP address removed it. Squirepants101 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a hoax.

Delete both. I'm not a big fan of episode articles in the first place, but dubious ones are even worse. Realkyhick 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fuzzymatic (talk · contribs) has also created Breath of Fresh Squidward, Bucket Sweet Bucket, Roller Cowards, Krabs a la Mode & New Digs, all Spngebob episodes...I've no clue as to whether these are real or not. — Scientizzle 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually those are confirmed episodes. See Bikini Bottom Adventures DVD's entry at Nickelodeon's shopping website and they will list those exact episodes. Those particular episodes are already cited to that source on List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Squirepants101 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good to know. I only ran into this when said user removed an AfD tag. Since I know jack about Spongebob canon, I'll just move along now... — Scientizzle 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mainly, the deletion reasons have been addressed. If anyone still wants this deleted, a new AfD should be started, so the article can be judged from the beginning in its improved state. Mango juice^talk 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konan Big

Non-notable wrestler. No assertion of notability. If this is deleted, Konan big (which redirects to it) should be deleted as well. TJ Spyke 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, throw it over the top rope or something like that. Realkyhick 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and might I add how nicely written the article is.PepsiPlunge 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, I agree with PepsiPlunge, it's a shame to delete such great work. Plasticbottle 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete I guess we can only hope that the author creates many more masterpieces to replace this one. I will always be grateful for the expansion of my Mexican Spanish vocabulary with the term "el mariconcito". Suriel1981 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've since edited the article, specifically establishing his notability as a top Mexican lucchadore in Federación Internacional de Lucha Libre and Asistencia Asesoría y Administración as well as his "gimmick" celebrity matches during 2004 and 2006. I assume this article may have been initially translated from Spanish as there are obvious errors, however, it might be worth mentioning that Secta Muerte Cibernetica by the same editor was extensivly rewritten by User:Dark Dragon Flame. MadMax 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is lack of any independent sources proving notability. I did check last week for Konan Big references in English (my Spanish is v poor) to no real avail. Suriel1981 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided references for his more notable matches from WrestlingObserver and BrusierMania.com MadMax 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia are, I think, going to be primarily based on his gimmick matches with Mexican celebrities and competition in AAA. I am not familiar with the celebrities he's faced and I've rarely seen AAA but that is not grounds for me to vote delete, hence my withdrawing my vote. Suriel1981 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better, but I am still not sure if he is notable. TJ Spyke 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. I'm choosing Christianity and Islam because there is actually content there, as opposed to Islamic comparative religion. If you don't like it, be bold and improve upon my choice. Mango juice^talk 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic studies of Christianity

this article does not have any content that is attributed to reliable sources after two years. It is not a notable topic, and it is a clear POV fork. It should also be noted that the previous Afd does not discuss notability or whether this is a POV fork. Sefringle 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Christianity and Islam. Anything worth saying on the topic can be said there. --Born2x 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Islamic comparative religion. This is "about" the academic discipline, not the intersections per se of the two religions. But it's sort of pointless when most of what you see is a template. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure such an academic discipline even exists.--Sefringle 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dhartung.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung RaveenS 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? - all that the article says is "Islamic studies of Christianity is the profession of Muslim Christianity scholars and one of the fields of study in Islamic comparative religion." That's not a lot to merge. It doesn't say much more than "Islamic studies of Christianity refers to Islamic people studying Christianity". --Born2x 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean from Merge what?. You should write (Speedy) Keep, (Speedy) Delete, (Speedy)Merge or (Speedy)redirect--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is required to say "delete," "keep," etc., since this is a discussion not a vote. Just the same, if it helps, delete this article since it has no substantive content whatsoever. Djcastel 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm asking, "what is it that you want to merge"? There is nothing in the article to merge. It contains a bunch of templates and one self-evident sentence. --Born2x 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REvert to much earlier version This article needs to a revert to a version of 12 February or earlier. It then contained some genuine statements about the Islamic view of Christianity. This is a significant subject, but it was a stub and unsourced. Then some one deleted all unsourced content leaving effectively nothing. I note that one of those who has done a lot of work on it describes himself as an atheist, ans as taking a stong interst in Islam and anti-semitism. This almost looks like vandalism; a poor article has been harmed, rather than improved. This may be the result of competitive editing Islamic comparative religion may have suffered a similar fate: I have not investigated. I write this as a Christian. It is important that we should be able to see what Muslims think of us. Peterkingiron 19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The "earlier version" is nothing but POV garbage with no reliable or scholarly sources. Zakir Naik is not a scholar on Islam or Christianity, and nothing from that version is encyclopediac. I removed it because it is unscholraly, unsourced, what is sourced wasn't a reliable source, and is very POV material that borders on propaganda.--Sefringle 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no content to keep. It was a good start but failed to grow. --Matt57 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Cleanup. Ryanjunk 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paruthiyur Krishna Sastri

This article is clearly not NPOV on grounds of religious bias - see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias. IMHO it is so heavily influenced throughout by a particular point of view that it is unsalvageable andy 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep when reduced to the essentials. What sort of additional information from another POV can you envision ought to be there?DGG 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should have biog plus (ideally) a neutral discussion of the religious, historical and social significance of the subject. Plenty of examples in WP. But I can't see any of that info being safely extracted from the current text, so we'd be preserving a biased article in the hope that an appropriate expert would come along and totally rewrite it. andy 08:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep and stubify, no reason to delete that I see. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prhizzm

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm, relisted, no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination).

This is an artist whose work (such as it is, there is not much) is mainly self-published. There are no significant external sources in the article. According to the subject (who has edited the article) he has yet to release a single full-length album. Keep arguments at last AfD look suspiciously like WP:IHEARDOFHIM, I see no evidence that this artist meets the primary notability criterion. Even Alkivar, who has seen him perform, advocated deletion. --Guy (Help!) 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications: I am the subject of the article, and will thus try to stay out of this debate. Four points need clarification, in case they are not immediately obvious: (1) the Minerals release is an album by wikipedia standards. See the Talk:Prhizzm page. (2) Alkivar may not be neutral in this particular debate because he and I recently fought extensively over his ill-conceived attempt to delete the Zanta article. (3) Seeing or not seeing someone perform is not relevant to assertions of notability on wikipedia. (4) I did not create the article and thus implied assertions of WP:Vanity are weak at best. There, now I will try to stay out of the debate. :) Thanks. BFD1 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) One final clarification: I am not sure what JzG meant about my work being mainly self-published, because of the releases listed on the wikipedia page (which is more or less complete), only one release is self-published. I find JzG's remark in this context rather curious. BFD1 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my arguments at DRV and the second nomination, including the fact that he has been featured in several high-profile media outlets, including Eye Weekly (showing regional notability), the CBC (showing Canadian notability) and the BBC (showing worldwide notability). Also, as Brendan above has noted, he does in fact have a full-length release on a substantial electronic label, and only one of the listed works is actually self-released. Lexicon (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What??? I am disturbed that this article is up for deletion. By the standards proferred above, if wikipedia was around in 1886, a page on [Vincent Van Gogh] would have to be deleted, since he was an unknown painter and had only sold a handful of paintings when he wasn't bouncing in and out of mental institutions. I don't think wikipedia is in the business of determining who is and isn't a significant artist. The point is that it is an open process that permits far greater access to and range of information. I was listening to somfm today, when they played a song by prhizzm. I liked it enough to google the name and found this page. I am sure that as time goes on, prhizzm will release more work, and the wiki page for prhizzm will grow, and that is as it should be, since wikipedia is here TO GROW. Any inaccuracies in the page can be adjusted: that's why this is a communal effort - so the accuracy of a page can be sharpened by group activity. If this page is deleted, I will file a formal complaint. Hwarwick 30 Mar 2007
- Your argument does not stand per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. We can't simply keep pages because an artist might grow to become the next Van Gogh. If he does become the next Van Gogh, then he gets a wikipedia page. The Filmaker 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for 3 reasons: 1) the artist appears to meet the music criteria, 2) the artist has been covered by multiple independent sources (per Lexicon) and 3) when in doubt, don't delete. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen Christi College

Lumen Christi College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is an autobiography about some childrens. Martial BACQUET 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable & successful Northern Irish grammar school. Added sources. For neatness, should probably be moved to Lumen Christi College. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per EliminatorJR, assuming we can verify that it was the top school in N.I. that year. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly, for such a high-performing school, it is difficult to find sources for this. However if you go to the Irish News and do a search for the school, you'll find an article called 'Derry school on top' about it topping the Sunday Times NI league tables. Unfortunately, it's a pay subscription news service. EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved the article to Lumen Christi College. Right now, given that this was created by a vandal, I am a little suspicious of the claims, but I haven't decided how I feel about keeping the article. --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source from Times online which confirms that it topped the NI schools table.
Keep. I haven't checked, but I can only assume that the article was very different when it was nominated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now this article seems to be more explicit and well writed. Martial BACQUET 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Flandern

Here we have a scientist who dissents from the mainstream view of gravitaiton and dark matter - a relativity dissident. There is precisely one external source, which discusses him along with other dissidents. There are no cited independent sources of which he is primary subject. He seems to be mildly popular with certain pseudoscience proponents and fringe bloggers, but that is about it. The subject seems to be one of the few who is well-informed on the subject, and has resorted to editing himself as user:Supergenius66. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep . This guy appears to be a minor celebrity among the pseuodoscience crowd, weighing in especially on relativity, GPS, and the face on Mars. He seems to be enough of a celebrity to get a couple of paragraphs of coverage in several articles at salon.com [39], American Spectator (no link), Wired [40], Omni [41], and a few trade publications [42]. When he's not pursuing this sort of fringe stuff, he seems to be actively publishing work on meteor activity, such as this moderately well-cited article in Earth, Moon, and Planets (33 cites) [43], which has received brief coverage in Independent (UK) [44] and the Economist (no link). Irene Ringworm 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a well known controversial figure. There may be problems with the article, but that doesn't mean that it must be deleted just because his ideas are not widely supported in the scientific community. E.g. almost all of the few Global Warming skeptics who have almost no support for their points of view in the scientific community have their own wiki article here. Count Iblis 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just found this article after finding his theory on the instantaneous propogation of gravity on the Internet. It adds information by giving me more information on the credibility of his article (which is not great). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.28.124.214 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Managing to get a book published is an objective standard of notability. Whosasking 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have always considered TVF to be a very minor figure in astrophysics with questionable notability. This article as-is is little more than a stub of a biography, and relfects his relative lack of impact on science. I for one would love to see this article deleted, but doing seems to require raising the bar on notability somewhat. So I will not vote to delete at this time, but I would love to see articles on people of this calliber go. --EMS | Talk 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query Could we possibly merge them all into a junk bin entitled Relativity dissidents or, better yet, Physics crackpots? Anville 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that you're kidding about the POV junk bin pages, but the above discussion is irrelevant to notability. The discussion is not about whether this guy impacts science nor is it a judgment on the correctness of his research. The discussion is whether the man is notable. For his bizarre brand of science he gets a fair amount of press in verifiable sources, as demonstrated above. There is certainly room for discussion about whether these sources are relevant or whether the sources reflect sufficient depth of coverage for notability but you can't toss the guy out just because he's a nutjob. He might be a notable nutjob. Irene Ringworm 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Of course. I put enough work into WP:FRINGE to know that. ;-) However, silly POV article names aside, I think merging articles on "marginal" topics can be a viable option, depending upon circumstances. Maybe not here (it's a case-by-case thing), but it's probably something we should keep in mind. Anville 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TVF's most notable "achievements" have been in taking of the establishement over the issues of the Face on Mars and the speed of gravity. However, do note that TVF is not mentioned in the articles on those topics. --EMS | Talk 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets standards for notability. Personal taste is (thankfully) no grounds for deletion. --KharBevNor 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided, but most likely with EMS here. At least vanFlandern is a notable crackpot. Unfortunately WP:BLP restricts us in being explicit about his degree of crankishness and his score at Baez' test. Whether it is a good idea to bundle junk phyics in a summary article is also unclear -- at least the attempt at Alternative physics lloks more like a enter your own homepage web directory. --Pjacobi 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep. This person's activities are notable, but the current version of the article doesn't make it clear that his views are not endoresed by the scientific community. Even with WP:BLP, it should be possible to make this clear. Not doing so gives a misleading impression. --Christopher Thomas 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Green Bay Packers season

This article is a good example of crystal balling. Purely just a schedule as of now, and can't be expanded much more. How about we wait until a lot later for this? I don't see why people are in such a rush to make 2008 (and even 2009) articles. RobJ1981 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no time to type details) The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete both 2008 and 2009 pages. Uneeded, useless. The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I were to remove the coaches since that is crystal balling, does that help them. Or saying "likely"? I'm trying to preserve them. Thanks Crazy Canadian 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nope, it's still crystal balling. It's only 2007, and we certainly don't need any of these 2008 and 2009 season articles just yet. RobJ1981 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal balling and unneeded. Should be made when 2007 ends and there is something to say. Pointless to have it now.++aviper2k7++ 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now) :) Jakerforever 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per WP:WINACB. BlackBear 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, I would grab an encyclopedia to find out about an upcoming sports season. Slavlin 02:20, 29

Then you propose we delete 2007 Green Bay Packers season, 2006 Green Bay Packers season, 2005 Green Bay Packers season... 1967 Green Bay Packers season? Your reason makes no sense and suggests that every page should be deleted.++aviper2k7++ 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding? Packers stink! KjtheDj 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Seriously what kind of reason is that? It's not funny and it's not helping Wikipedia. Please give a valid argument, not "Packers stink!".++aviper2k7++ 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Ofori

Fails WP:BIO - not yet played league football and U-17 is a boys, not a notable, level - Delete. Bridgeplayer 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bridgeplayer 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article explicitly states that he is not a professional, an academy player who makes "occasional" appearances for the reserves does not satisfy WP:BIO, even at a top club, as per dozens of recenr similar AfDs.... ChrisTheDude 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the article is unverifiable or weasel-worded POV. What little can be said about this person does not make them notable under WP:BIO. Qwghlm 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youth player. BanRay 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Youth player and virtually everything is unverified. Tangerines 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Matthew_hk t c 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Elementary School

Not notable Epbr123 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is an NN school article. Delete unless sources & notability given. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't even have a school website. Ab e g92contribs 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... W... T... H... Someone should forbid five years to create an Wikipedia article. George Leung 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. I would have said 'merge to the district article', but there's nothing to merge. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Butseriouslyfolks rational. Xarr 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually the second AfD nomination for this school. The first came last summer as part of a mass deletion of about a dozen articles, and the result was "keep" It was stated then that some project was underway to create articles for schools in the same area. Obviously that didn't work out and it's been a stub for the past nine months or so. I did run across an interesting essay in that deletion debate. The essay goes into arguments both for and against deleting school articles, and its very articulate. I wish I'd seen it earlier. It's here: Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments Noroton 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a very good essay, and I hasn't seen it before either. Now all we need is a decent guideline for WP:SCHOOL :) EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Butseriouslyfolks MetsFan76 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7; no assertion of notability. – Riana ^talk 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Collins Wiki

I only saw the {{AFD}} template on the page with no link to discussion, so I'll nominate it. This page is possible web vanity that fails WP:WEB, and is not notable. I can't even find it on google. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's because it dosen't exist (Personal attack removed). Iewzow 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tagged it with {{db-bio}}. Someone close this nomination. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Already tagged by the nom. --Dennisthe2 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per nom; no sources. Ab e g92contribs 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Elementary School

Not notable. Epbr123 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. Delete. Ab e g92contribs 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have every school deciding that a wikipedia entry is par for the course. The globetrotter 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese folklore

Reluctant nomination - this page has been a one-line content free stub for ~~two~~ three years. I don't see how it could be expanded, other than by turning it into a long indiscriminate list, since each story would presumably have its own entry. However, there's not a single folktale actually listed that I can find, and given the time elapsed, it seems unlikely that anyone's planning on adding any. Besides, even if it were kept it would probably be better as Chinese folktales, since that's the phrase actually used in the text. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article that needs expanding, not deleting. The subject could be developed into a useful article, such as Japanese folklore or French folklore. Gorgeous Ferns 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, I do see some problems:

One I would have to ask what is the difference between folklore and folktale?
Secondly, how can people that know about the Chinese folklores are behind the Great firewall of China?.
What consitute as Chinese: for example, some folklore books include Taiwanese folklores, while some are published in Taiwan (but talks about everything before communism china) and some books even talked about mongolian story (such as the origin of horsehead violin)w hich can be problematic under current political climate.
When it explains the origin of some chinese custom, which should it be go to? For example, the chinese lunar festival, about the lady in the moon: should it be as its own folklore, or should it be under chinese lunar festival? There are many folklores in china that is used to explain origins, such as the "lamp riddle", and some are "unverifable history", such as the adventure of the Emperor of Chou... or even the creation of Chou.

In anycase, there are many chinese folklores, but it can be made into a category instead. For example, the folklore that explain the origin of chinese new year; How the world is born, and how the goddess repair the sky is an example; the origin of chinese zodiac is also good ones. One example is the "Myth and Legends of China" published by Reader's Digest Asia (ISBN 962-258-069-6). This will have to rework greatly. George Leung 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is a highly notable subject, with many sources available for satisfying of WP:ATT, and I have no idea how a category could do the same job. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I abstain from vote, but urge you to show careful respect as delete Chinese folklore may cause great offense. Wen Hsing 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salatyn Asgarova

Delete It seems she is just a journalist who died during a war, theres nothing notable about this person, alot of POV search engines lack info. Artaxiad 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have enough background to assess this individual's notability, but I fear that this may be a POV or WP:POINT nomination. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all people awarded the National Heroes of Azerbaijan title (that is the highest decoration of Azerbaijan, similar to the Hero of the Soviet Union, National Hero of Armenia, Hero of Russia or Hero of Ukraine) are inherently notable Alex Bakharev 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per some of the other non-notable people kept.--Sefringle 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This lady is a National Hero of Azerbaijan, and I share the opinion of Newyorkbrad about possible motives of nomination. Grandmaster 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not only is she a National Hero of Azerbaijan, but she is one of very few female war correspondents from Azerbaijan as well. And search engines do have articles about her - in English, Russian and Azerbaijani (under alternative spellings of her name as well).--Zondi 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep she is National Hero (I think the only woman) and has streets named after her, a statue, etc. She is very notable in the context of Azerbaijan, and specifically NK war. When she was killed it was greatly mourned. --adil 07:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no third party sources, google search engines barely come up with anything, so this is appropriate for deletion or no reliable sources, if this is really a hero. Artaxiad 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there are third-party sources about her -- for example, here are three from Russian sources: [45], [46], [47] Sometimes Azerbaijani names get different spellings, making it harder to pin point references. --adil 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Russian sources are associated with Azeri, if it talks about Azeri-related topics obviously, the references added to the article are POV and inappropriate, you should help expand the article instead of going around in other articles and reverting, just a tip since alot of Azeri related articles need expansion especially off Armenian related articles. Are those Russian sources reliable? if you state them provide a explanation since its a requirement if your seeking to expand the article, which most users would do when a "important" article is on Afd. Artaxiad 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on your side, Artaxiad, it is up to you to prove that those 100% Russian sources, which generally favor the Armenian side, are somehow biased, POV, pro-Azerbaijani. And what can be pro-Azeri in mentioning some basic facts about Salatyn Askerova? By doing this you seem to subconsciously admit that you try to delete pages, articles, references that have anything good or positive about Azerbaijan and its people, even if they are about a killed young woman journalist, who left a son to grow without a mother. --adil 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and here's in English language from International Federation of Journalists [48],[49] and International News Safety Institute [50]. --adil 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rogue Contingent

Unsourced nonsense page for a supposed secret society of media personalities. Fails WP:NFT, WP:ATT, at least. Speedy deletion tag removed by an anon. Resolute 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant hits on google either. searching for "The Rogue Contingent" finds a short series of fiction and opinion that use the term to refer to different groups that are opposed to the writer's opinion - none of these are related to what the article discusses. Witty lama 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A whole bunch of rumors and speculation. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Little

Searching for this name yields only a football player, even when specifically searching in relation to the EA game in question. For lack of sources, I have to treat it as a hoax, and furthermore the article is marginally POV.

example search I used:[51] i kan reed 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a hoax or an unnotable person. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if more info is found, I may change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, likely WP:NFT, probable hoax. Reads like a very poorly written autobiography. Resolute 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be an unnotable person. (or a hoax) --Stormbay 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or not, notability is not established properly. Leebo ^T/C 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1593 in music

Does not contain any valuable information. BlackBear 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that this is a project that hopes to cover all years in the last 500 or so (see:List of years in music). Unless there is some precedent here that you are trying to initiate, I believe it should remain. If this article is deleted, all "years in music" needing expansion would need to be deleted too. Leebo ^T/C 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should be expanded, not deleted. It's a perfectly good and acceptable article, just not well written yet. Witty lama 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned by Leebo, this page is one of several hundred in a project, and any discussion about the deletion of this page should encompass them as well. It would not be right to delete one page and leave a hole in the project of which it is a part. - Geoffg 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone looked at the "articles" for the other years? They are lists of every album, artist birth and death date for each year. Of course, it's a very selective sample, since a comprehensive list would be astronomically large. It's pretty much an IMDB of music. While I appreciate that they put a lot of work into this, perhaps the editors of this project ought to be encouraged to transfer it out of Wikipedia. It should suffice for an encyclopedia to have a timeline of music history without having a page for every year. Djcastel 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that that's a possibility in the long run, but I think it's outside the scope of this article's discussion. Perhaps we could initiate a larger discussion with the project. Leebo ^T/C 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There's no reason to delete this. Lack of content does not mean lack of notability. Allow it to expand over time. --Czj 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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