Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZaydHammoudeh (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 3 April 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al_Hidayah). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 2 April 4 >

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 per CSD:A7 and WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hunter

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

Basically, I'm not sure that Ms. Hunter is quite notable enough to merit her own Wikipedia article. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:33, 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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperative Reaction

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

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No independent references cited. Nv8200p talk 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the extent of the tour. Was it a national tour? Even then, the band should stand on its own notability snd not ride the coat tails of another goup. -Nv8200p talk 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 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 stub to remove how-to manual material and self-promotion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji transfer and Watergraph

Fuji transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Watergraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable photographic technique. Fuji transfer is more an how-to guide than an article. Both are really just spam for Balazsy who is also up for AfD. -- RHaworth 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it should be deleted because it is simply a definition and description of the Fuji transfer process and is in keeping with the similar entry "Polaroid Transfer"Pbpix 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:41, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:46Z

Florida Trail Riders

Florida Trail Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had tagged this for speedy deletion as advertising, but I think it's possible that it's notable enough to have an article, so I'm opening discussion instead. Leebo T/C 14:09, 28 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, WjBscribe 00:42, 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. --Coredesat 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungrykids

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

Non-notable non-profit organization, probably created by Brad Hines (see also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Utzchips, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_66.131.7.78 . OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:21, 28 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, WjBscribe 00:42, 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. --Coredesat 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegarth

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

Nonnotable per WP:ORG, no reliable sources about information Eyrian 18:00, 28 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, WjBscribe 00:42, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reah valente

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

Lacks sources that show notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionHow do I improve this site? Deniseyu 15:40, 28 March 2007 (EST)

Carefully read WP:BIO, and then add the sources that will show how this person meets that guidelien. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionReah Valente has accumulated a large International fan base in Brazil and Japan. Her lyrics are published in karoake books in Japan. Furthermore, she has her own community in Orkut, one of the largest social networking portals in Japan. I am new and would appreciate any further help you could give me. Therefore, do you have any suggestions to help me?Deniseyu 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EST)

  • Keep, but wikify this feels like a personal site for the artist. As written, this might be better served on a different website. I'm adding it to my watchlist; I may try & help with the tone if I have time. Ventifax 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well written??? "Then in June of 2002, she figured it all out and couldn’t deny her destiny any longer. Music was her life and she was determined to pursue it." Hardly. Most of it is completely unsourced and unverifiable. AfD is extremely hard given that it was pasted on it within 1/2 an hour! Weak Delete unless sources establish notibility.--Dacium 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it is straight off her website: http://www.reahvalente.us/v2/bio.shtm I want to save this, but it's gonna be tough to get sources in a formal sense. I haven't found any "secondary sources" that say much at all. I've confirmed that she was in a NY band called Tied for Last, but I'm not sure my sources will survive the Talmudic wall some editors want to throw around "Original Research" on the one hand & "self-promotion" on the other. Ventifax 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The 2nd CD is on sale on Amazon, so there's something.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:21, 8 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. Also, none of the foreign language interwikis actually exist. --Coredesat 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realtravel

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

Pure advertising. -- RHaworth 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Spammy, probably best if just deleted, or translated from one of foreign language versions it lists. BlackBear 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be or at least appear to be an advertising attempt, but it isn't any different from SideStep or the like. It needs to be revised a bit but I don't think it deserves deletion. --64.142.82.240 07:37, 29 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, WjBscribe 00:42, 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 Merge to Conscription in the United States. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:47Z

Poverty Draft

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

Completing malformed nomination. No reason given. — ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 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.--Wizardman 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand tennis

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

Article seems to be a textbook case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not notable, no references. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:55, 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. Hu12 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldro Ball

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

Article seems to be a textbook case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Not notable, no references. -- RHaworth 01:23, 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. Hu12 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station Road, Dunstable

Station Road, Dunstable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable road. -- RHaworth 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:50k is not a guideline, but I can see what you mean. Poeloq 09:00, 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 delete per CSD:G7 (author blanked the page). Stifle (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles winston

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

Hoax. No ghits. -- RHaworth 00:56, 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. --Coredesat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Crying

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

Original research? I can't find any evidence this term exists other than some sources that comment that laughing and crying use similar muscle groups Steve (Stephen) talk 01:21, 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 Merge to East Dunbartonshire. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:48Z

Tom Johnston House

Tom Johnston House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's not much worth saying about Tom Johnston House Mike 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was in two minds whether to revert the vandalism before nominating for delete. As it was quite humerous I left as is! To avoid other unnecessary looking back at history the article as originally written said
Mike 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is the local council offices. Apart from being named after Tom Johnson (a politician I hadn't heard of before I arrived in this area), I know of nothing notable about the building. It's not historic, I don't know of any particular architecture feature - even the council don't say much about it Mike 17:30, 30 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 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. --Coredesat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article previously nominated in December of 2006 (previous AfD discussion. The vote went to Keep, but the unanimous opinion of the Keepers was to give the creator the chance he asked for to expand and complete the article. The creator has not appeared on Wikipedia in the months since, nor has this article been touched since December. It remains a non-notable housing development, in the press at all solely because of its use of a name from Tolkien, and is still in violation of WP:SPAM. RGTraynor 16:11, 27 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 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. --Coredesat 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows

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

Nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows (2nd nomination). Really doesn't assert importance, meeting WP:N or WP:A. Needs to. It was kept at the second AfD basically because it gets "a lot" of Google hits.. no actual argument was made that this meets any inclusion guideline. Needs actual reliable sources. --W.marsh 17:53, 27 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means document that it is popular and innovative by the use of reliable secondary sources to that effect. Adobe Flash is "allowed" because the authors have adequately attributed the article with reliable sources to back up their statements - Bindows, on the other hand, has no such attribution. Neither "technical" nor "educational" are sufficient grounds for inclusion, as Wikipedia requires attribution. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Bindows have an animal book? --Dennisthe2 15:09, 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. --Coredesat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paza Rahm

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

Contested prod, non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. 106 unique Google hits, and not a reliable source among them One Night In Hackney303 18:02, 27 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:31, 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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McFarland Fish

Howard McFarland Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason; was added to AfD by Majorclanger but this subpage was not created and the article itself was not tagged. 1,640 Google hits, including a CNN article [1]. Mithent 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... didn't think I actually submitted to AfD, but obviously I did. My main issue with this is that it's not an encyclopedic article at all, just a copy and paste or slight rewrite of a news article - it has next to no information about this guy apart from the single event. Majorclanger 15:05, 28 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 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. --Coredesat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White noise magazine

White noise magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be about these guys. Appears to fail notability for web content Pekaje 18:44, 27 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 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 No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contorts

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

This is original research and an apparent neologism. — Elembis (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, merge to Grant Gilmore, the originator of the term (1974 book). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not original research, and I was wrong. The article does need sources, but at least it's not a neologism. Thanks for looking it up. — Elembis (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ourei Harada

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, this is my first edit. Ninja337 16:15, 31 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The person in question, Ourei Harada, is indeed notable and has some media attention in Japan and some overseas countries. However, the article needs to source the notability claim! Poeloq 09:06, 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 keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tractor (band) and Chris Hewitt

Contested prod. Sixties band, but lacking in sources. Not sure if this is truly notable, or if it's all self-published. >Radiant< 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tractor is definitely real and almost certainly notable, but the bulk of the article is a copyvio from Allmusic Guide (one of the more common sources for music-related copyvios). There's been a bunch of editing since the original copyvio was posted, so I'm not sure if the result is salvageable or not. As for Hewitt, he seems to be real, and was associated with the band, but even so, the notability seems marginal. Dunno. Xtifr tälk 08:47, 22 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, A Traintake the 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the rash step of including "things I saw at Deeply Vale in 1979" in the category of "things that exist in the real world" then this band exists.I am sure it is recalled with affection by the 20,000 or so ageing hippies who were there and even if it's fame has spread no further than this I think it is enough to count as notable.

  • Comment. I agree, it needs a lot of work. But, per WP:MUSIC (criteria #4), all the band has to do is release two albums on a major or notable indie, and Tractor's fulfills that aspect (see here). So I agree citations are needed for the improvement of the article -- and they will be added -- but are not for its keeping. As it stands, per WP:MUSIC, the article should be kept and then improved sans a time frame. Rockstar915 00:40, 8 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. --Coredesat 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Author effectively admits to it here. -- RHaworth 01:45, 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. --Coredesat 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Goetz

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

Non-notable actor. I can't find any information that asserts notability, or even if this article is true (see the original creator's warnings). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 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. Sources were cited. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¡Tchkung!

Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 13:48, 27 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, WjBscribe 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Search on google doesn't turn up much more than blogs and a few reviews, along with a "future" home page as the first result. Must be a new act - and performing in Bumbershoot doesn't make you notable, it means you performed in Bumbershoot. Fun festival, but that's it. --Dennisthe2 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found this, but I doubt that counts for anything, as the publisher is too trivial. This is quite interesting, but too short. This may count for something, as may this. There is a nice big review here, and a nice article here. I reckon they are notable. J Milburn 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on J Milburn and in spite of the current state of the article. Make sure the article is tagged and remains so until it is cited with some of this stuff. Take it down in 6 months if it remains uncited thought. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random band that had a couple of releases and a couple of gigs and then broke down. Name isn't even typable on an English-language keyboard. Does not appear to meet WP:NMG or WP:A. To Tony: there are too many articles on Wikipedia to give that amount of time to find sources; better to delete without prejudice to it being recreated if someone brings along some solid references. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think that attitude is based on any policy. As I see it, you just said 'Yes, they are notable, but because this article isn't going to be featured any time soon, it should be deleted.' There are lots of articles on super-notable topics that are very badly cited. For instance, just before I came here, I was reading the Prague article. That is tagged as needing more sources. Using your attitude, we should delete it, and let it be recreated if someone will 'bring along some solid sources'. I am a massive believer in sources, and probably a deletionist, but what you are saying is pure madness. J Milburn 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This band fulfills WP:MUSIC completely, per articles and #5 (referenced in those articles). I'm not even going to go into specifics, but I'll just stick to the general criteria: The Seattle Times articles: here and here. Those are just two of more than ten. The Oregonian has written numerous articles about the band too; I have access to them on LexisNexis. This band needs to be cleaned up, yes, but fulfills WP:MUSIC and should, therefore, be kept. Rockstar915 17:40, 7 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. From what I can tell, this is a divisive fork. Arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping (the ones that discuss deleting the article and not just Uncle G's motivation for creating it, whatever that might be), despite the lengthy heated arguing between Uncle G, Skookum1, and others, who are all admonished to be civil in the future. The articles proposed for merging into this one are not affected by this AFD since they were not nominated. --Coredesat 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language names for Chinese people

English language names for Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • (not a vote)Original research, to classify ethnic slurs for Chinese. `'mikka 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a bad-faith attempt at an article after the author's proposed merger bewtween 'chink' and 'chinaman' failed. This information is replicated elsewhere and is not needed in a new article.Zeus1234 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there are duplicate articles, which I suggested be merged into one single article, this one, which I wrote to show that they can be merged, is precisely the point. You make my argument for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not duplicate articles, despite your ongoing pretense/bias that they are. The only duplicate article around here is THIS ONE which you've created and which duplicates material in various other articles; only filterecd through YOUR OWN particular agenda. When will you stop with your dissembling about duplicate articles and any other wheedle or misdirection or misrepresentation of reintrepation of other peoples' positions (like you just did with Hong's). As I've said before, it's people like you who give admins a bad name.....Skookum1 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If, as you have stated, this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink then the fact that this is a single article about a single subject demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. The fact that the articles can be merged doesn't automatically mean that they should be merged (let alone that they document "a single subject"). There was near-unanimous opposition to such a merger.
            It would be very easy to merge the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush articles into a single article entitled Presidents of the United States named George Bush, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that the two men are "a single subject." —David Levy 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a false analogy and a bogus argument. That two other completely different articles are not a single subject does not say anything at all about the articles actually at hand. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not claiming that it does. I'm refuting your argument that the ability to combine two articles into one automatically establishes the appropriateness of such a merger. —David Levy 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since I didn't actually make that argument, your refutation is yet again the tearing down of a straw man. Once again: Those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged. We merge duplicate articles. The actual subject isn't a single word, as can be seen when one stops looking solely at dictionaries and starts looking at sources that aren't dictionaries to see what they cover. Uncle G 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The only straw man is yours (because I didn't make the argument to which you responded above). You claimed that the fact that "this article duplicates the content of Chinaman and Chink" "demonstrates that those two articles are duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject, that should be merged — into this one." That's a 100% false statement. It certainly is possible that such a merger is appropriate (setting aside my opinion to the contrary), but the mere fact that you were able to duplicate much of the articles' content on a single page doesn't prove what you claim it does.
                    Once again, I disagree with your assertion that Chink and Chinaman are "duplicate articles, both discussing the same single subject." You're entitled to your opinion, but simply repeating it over and over (as though I didn't understand you the first dozen times) doesn't bolster your argument. —David Levy 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merger is not necessary, since the artices are quite big and detailed, buit a general article makes sense as well, IMHO. Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classifying racial slurs as "English language names" is disingenuous; attempting to legitimize these words. — ERcheck (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Uncle G's attempt to circumvent overwhelming consensus to keep the chink and Chinaman articles separate. —David Levy 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's an attempt to boldly demonstrate to you by example that there is, as I said, one single subject here, not multiple ones. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which just goes to show how wrong you really are, as there are more than one subject here; you just don't want to admit to that, and yo're determined to censor anybody else who disputes your presumption/delusions about it.Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am judging the article by its merits. It serves no significant purpose other than to duplicate information already contained in other articles (thereby defying a clear consensus against combining them). The usual solution to the existence of a duplicate article is to merge its text somewhere, but there's nothing to merge. Therefore, the article should be deleted (IMHO). If I believed that it had actual value, I would set aside the creator's motive. —David Levy 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You argue that the article duplicates other articles. That is the point. As I've said all along, there's a single subject here, and Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged. That you are arguing that there's duplication simply makes my argument for me. That you think and assert that my motive is something other than what I've actually said it was all along, linking to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles numerous times and pointing out that these duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses all of these names (rather than having 22 individual articles all addressing the same topic but simply under different titles), is an error on your part — one that doesn't imply anything about me at all, incidentally. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Some ethnic/racial terms are definitely very much abused in English. These include Jews, Chinese, and African Americans, and these definitely require separate articles. I would only suggest to rename it into Terms for Chinese people in English (shorter & more neutral, to address one objection). Mukadderat 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Powerful Delete with extra force authority. I am most offend, this list of disrespect curse word is poor. Dissemination and encouragement to use racist slur may be resulting. It not appropriate for encyclopedia, not positive for glory of Wikipedia Project. Allowance of this page existence potential to damage international cultural relation. Perhaps more appropriate in dictionary of rough talk or similar publication, not in Wikipedia Project.Wen Hsing 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't discourage or encourage anything. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bullshit. It was created ONLY to discourage the separate existence of the Chinaman[ article. Stop pretending otherwise, and go to Wikipedia and look up "disingenuous" and "coy".Skookum1 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please maintain respectful talking. Please never discourage existence of Chinese persons, violent downstream resulting actions are prefer to be avoided.Wen Hsing 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, since you're so polite, I take back the "bullshit" but it's still a load of nonsense (to use polite terminology when other wording is far more appropriate....). The rest of my comment stands because this article DOES encourage, openly and overtly and intentionally, an attempt to derail the Chinaman page's direction. As for the rest of your comment, while I appreciate that English is a second language for you, you have just suggested that there will be violence resulting from this. Really? I'm sure you're not meaning it as a threat, but quite honestly I am brave enough to defend the truth in the face of violence, and if the "downstream effects" here are anyone's fault, it's Uncle G's for being disruptive and contrary and endlessly lecturing others on what he asserts are their faults while never admitting to his own. Consensus is not built by obfuscation, obstructionism, misdirection, and deceit.Skookum1 07:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I am involve confusion, I intend no threatening! I support your viewpoint generally, the conducts of disruptive user Uncle G is unlike the kind family member. I have objection to comment that Chinamen should not exist, some people who are easily bring to action may produce violent act against Chinese people to achieve reduction in Chinese existence, I strongly oppose such phenomenon.Wen Hsing 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is important that you understand that the word "Chinaman" does exist and is in extensive use by Asian North Americans and others of Asian origin as a self-identifier (see Bo Yang, Frank Chin, and I can provide various webrefs to artists/performers who use "Chinaman" as their nickname/public persona. It is also important that you understand that Chinaman is not as severe a derisive - when it's a derisive - than other much more inflammatory words, and also to understand that it was the standard English usage until the mid-20th Century (see the opening paragraph of Chinaman re Fowler's Dictionary of english Usage, 1954; the section just before it is the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology, 1966 and contains a listing of completely archaic English names for Chinese people (e.g. Chinnish, Chinensian, Chinesian, etc.) none of which were derisive but, apparently given time and resentment, any one of them could have become so in the way the originally-innocuous word "Chinaman" did. There are also other uses of the word which have nothing to do with Chinese people, but rather to do with trade/imports from China (the original usage was for a ship in the China trade, and following on that for a dealer in Chinese porcelain wards, aka "china"); the ship usage ended with the end of the Age of Sail and is mostly a 17th C. usage (when other words such as those in the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology were used instead of Chinese or Chinaman). And of those uses which devolve from the Chinese people context, three have nothing at all to do with people - (1) a type of porcelain figurine in imitation of Chinese art, featuring Chinese men, (2) a type of throw in cricket and (3) a term to refer to a mentor/backer of Indiana politicians, which is an honorific, denoting power and influence, a borrowing similar to the use of Mandarin for (especially high-ranking) bureaucrats in the UK and Britain. The existence of the Chinaman article is not going to provoke violence (other than verbal violence, or "procedural violence" like Uncle G's creation of this page and his deceptive and misdirecting comments on this AFD. It is a "mild" word, and most white people that use it do not so derisively, but because they do not consider it a derisive (these are mostly rural, but include people like Jerry Seinfeld); if so, it is used in a more or less jocular sense and not with vicious intent; "chink" on the other hand, is explicitly derisive and associateed with aggressive behavior - and document as such as you can see on the Chink article; this is also the case with the other forms in THIS article like "china boy" which Uncle G seems strangely eager to document. Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.Skookum1 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I apologize for any misunderstand due to me, I find you also may be confuse, as I am fully in support of Chinamen existence- I am one! I was disturb to read people saying Chinamen should not be existing. I fear existing Chinamen (I being example) will be victimize. I do not advocate censorship, only refinement content to improve the qualities. This current article is defame to Chinese people. I support article such as 'Chink', or article about word 'Chinaman' with objectivity and analyse offensivenessWen Hsing 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them." i.e. their associated history/variations, as is also done with various other derisives as Dago and Wog and not least Gweilo (which I consider a violent derisive; it was used by Chinese mobs killing whites in the Boxer Rebellions in the same way that "chink" was used by modern-era mobs in the United States.....there is a pretense that Gweilo is no longer offensive, even though it was created to be an insult/derogation; while ironically Chinaman was not created to be an insult/derogation, but now is widely denounced as being derisive, some going to claim that it's always been derisive, which is just not the case. And some of those same people, in my experience, are also people who claim that (because they say so) Gweilo is not derisive, or is "misunderstood". I submit that a lot of the hostile/fearful attitudes towards "Chinaman" are also rooted in misunderstanding, and also in "branding" people with guilt when they had no intention of being offensive. I take offense at Gweilo, especially here in Vancouver where we know what it means, and get to hear it in its offensive usage/context. I know comparing the intensity of "Chinaman" to any other word is not that relevant to this AFD, but the irony is there nonetheless. I invite you to visit Talk:Chinaman and also read through some of the compiled historical references so that you can see the ways in which the word was not used derisively. Often, in fact complimentarily, and in notable cases such as the Letter of the Chinamen, an important historical declaration by the Chinese in San Francisco in 1852.Skookum1 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This article was created by User:Uncle G because of his failed attempt to merge Chink and Chinaman, with the intention of creating this article so as to absorb thet Chinaman page and,theoretically, wipe its archived talk pages and accompany stacks of citations/resources which are unfriendly to his point of view. I added the "merge to ethnic slurs" as a rejoinder to that; if I'd known I could have started an AFD with a merge dicussion ongoing I would have done so. Again, delete delete delete, and I do agree with Wen Hsing that obsessing over these words only promotes knowledge and use of them in derogatory ways; but Chinaman has many non-derogatory contexts and also non-ethnic meanings and an article on it has no place being merged with an article about what is overtly a slur, or as re this page merged into an article (as Uncle G wanted) that is really only a list of slurs and ethnonyms with no other context than Uncle G's original writing trying to tie them all together/comparing them (which considering he chastised "us" for original research re: Chinaman seems hypocritical in the extreme....but that's nothing new, either).Skookum1 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It didn't fail. This is a part of the same discussion. It's an existence proof that there's a single subject here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It DID fail, as anyone reading the Talk:Chinaman page can see; it was when it failed that Uncle G started THIS article and foisted a merge template in place of the merge|Chink he'd originally invaded the page with (in the middle of the edit war, as most inopportunely noted by User:Xiner who had placed a block on the Chinaman page. It got shot down; now, like so much else, he's pretending that that's not reality, that the extensive arguments against the Chink merger weren't shot down in flames as they really were.Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article made me laugh so hard i almost soiled my lederhosen. Which should not happen while reading Wikipedia. At least I have some new words to try out on my chink employees!Jörg Vogt 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This kind of divisive drivel has no place on Wikipedia. Some of the terms already have/are developing quite thorough articles on their various usages. This is duplication in addition to divisive drivel-- A one-stop list of derision here, when more thoughtful articles are already out there, serves no purpose.--Keefer4 | Talk 04:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is those articles that are the duplication. They should be merged. Once again, my argument is made for me. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, by you and you alone. But why is it your argument doesn't make any sense to anyone else?Skookum1 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will try to decipher your argument, UncleG, since it hasn't been made clear anywhere that I can see. You apparently believe that the terms Chink and Chinaman are synonymous and should be housed within the same article, and this has now extended to what is deemed "English words for Chinese people". Please, nobody accuse me of misrepresenting, I am just trying to sort things out. So, by making this point, UncleG seems to imply that the histories and usages of these words mean, and have always meant, precisely the same thing. The problem is that there is marked disagreement at the Talk:Chinaman page and article itself on this point. Additionally, there are already ethnic slur pages, which represent modern and historical slurs towards various ethnicities. Why duplicate it? One could counter that there is room here at this article for additional notes on the terms, however, some of these already have articles which will allow for this. A sort of halfway between a list and specific word article isn't needed on this topic. Why should it be? Finally, I'm not going to argue anyone's opinion on whether a precedent should be set for articles of what certain language speakers call certain ethnicities, if one believes it's a sound precedent than I guess one approves of this article. I just don't think it is, that's all.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made it clear right from the start. No deciphering is needed. Once again, just as clearly stated right at the start: The articles are duplicate articles that address what is actually one single subject — a subject that has a wider scope than just one individual word. We merge duplicate articles. We don't have separate articles on the same subject under different titles. I pointed to the sources right at the start to show that the sources treat this subject as one single subject, too. Not a single editor has actually discussed what is written in the sources that I've cited, so far.

            That there are other things denoted by the word "Chinaman" is entirely a red herring. No-one has suggested merging all of those other articles listed at Chinaman (disambiguation), only the article that has the "X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it." form, of which we have several, all addressing the same single subject in exactly the same way, with the only difference being the article titles.

            You ask "Why duplicate it?". Given that I'm the one saying that the duplicate articles should be merged into a single article that addresses this one single subject, that question should be posed to others, not me. So I pose that question right back at you: Why are you arguing for having a whole raft of duplicate articles (which at last count would end up with 22 articles addressing exactly the same single subject, in exactly the same "X is a name for a Chinese person" form) instead of one single article for one single subject? You also state that "We have ethnic slur pages.". I suggest that you read the article and the sources, because they both tell you that these are not solely ethnic slurs. Treating them solely as ethnic slurs is wrong.

            Treating them as lists of words is wrong, too. The sources address this as one single subject, don't treat it from the single viewpoint that these are ethnic slurs, and don't treat the individual words seperately from one another. Please do as encyclopaedists are supposed to do and base your arguments upon what the sources say.

            And please, as I've asked repeatedly, start looking at sources other than dictionaries. Building articles solely from long lists of dictionaries, as those individual duplicate articles are being built, can logically (unless one performs the sort of original research that editors are performing) yield nothing except a whole set of dictionary articles. You have at least three history books cited as references in this article. That should be a big clue as to the sort of source that editors should be looking for. Such non-dictionary sources, you will find, don't divide this single subject up. That is, in part, because they are not dictionaries that give individual articles to individual words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, too. We merge duplicate articles that are about the same single subject, that differ solely in the titles used. This article is a demonstration of what the single subject is, of what sources there are, and of how many individual words it covers, in part to show those editors, who claimed that there wasn't a single subject here solely on the erroneous basis that "the words are different", that there was, and that if they actually went and looked at some actual sources, instead of performing lexicography in the wrong project, they would see what it was. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            • What is becoming clear is that UncleG's POV is simply the deletion of the Chinaman article, which is not to due to any duplication concerns. This assertion is backed up by what he has said here and at Talk:Chinaman and the several merge proposals that he has made. What is also clear is that he is convincing some of the legitimacy of selectively citing sources while summarily dismissing dictionary definitions and contemporary usages. The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings, as well as, in some cases, contradict them. He uses words like lexicographic to dismiss citing any usage of dictionaries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but nor should it explicitly derogate usages of words as documented in dictionaries or in contemporary culture to assist in the building of an encyclopedic article. By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position. The funny thing is that, in saying this, I have not and will never attempt to bestow that burden upon him in a reverse manner. His sources are fine, I have never attacked them on their merits, despite his defensiveness on the subject, and I have no personal qualms or vendettas with the way that anyone interprets the term from their particular POV. But his selectively picking apart and narrowing these terms to his own liking and POV, through the above means should be seen for what it is. I am really not trying to misrepresent anyone's arguments or to push/incorporate any particular POV into the articles themselves. This is just my take on what is transpiring here, there is very little you have demonstrated in words or actions to convince otherwise. Fortunately it seems most can see this, so I don't see a point in making further response to your inevitable next retort. --Keefer4 | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That paragraph is almost wholly erroneous. Taking just two examples: Merger is not deletion; it is the former that has been proposed, not the latter. And both "The goal is apparently to create an encyclopedia entry that would be clean of any reference to historical and current meanings." and "By undermining any of the dictionary and contemporary citations, what UncleG has done is arbitrarily bestowed the burden of proof for any non-derogatory usage of the term (in any time period) to an untenable position." are quite clearly directly contradicted by the very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages of the various names, citing sources for such analysis. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not like anyone would have expected your agreement with my analysis, but it's good to hear some of it met with your approval, just as some of the article met with mine. You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms: "very content of the article at hand, which documents both historical usages and non-derogatory usages", which I think is a step forward. The bottom line here: I think the article sets a poor and un-needed classification precedent (How XXX Language speakers refer to XXX ethnicity), "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.", and selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references in constructing an encyclopedic article in words here and actions elsewhere, just isn't very tasteful. I don't want to belabour the differences we have. We see things differently with respect to the article's merits and that's all. It's been a good discussion.--Keefer4 | Talk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You have admitted above that there is a difference between terms — That's not what the text that you quoted said at all. If you have read it that way, then you have mis-read it. Please read it again, in the context of the original erroneous argument that you made above, which it refutes. As for "Pls remember that an encyclopedia is NOT about censoring history and censoring words, but about explaining them.": The argument that people that one disagrees with are censors is a propaganda technique that the Institute for Propaganda Analysis classifies as name-calling. And, finally, if you think that "selectively derogating dictionary and contemporary references" is what people have been arguing in favour of, then you haven't actually read their arguments at all, or at least have mis-read them as badly as you mis-read what I wrote above. The problem here is original research, with editors constructing their own theses based upon firsthand analysis of raw quotations. Uncle G 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I apologize if you interpret anything I disagree with you on, as a name-calling or a personal attack. It is never and will never be intended as such. Raising censorship concerns (which I am actually quoting from another editor on this page) is not name calling, although I suppose anything could be considered name-calling if one hunts for a source that says it is. Again, the fact that you now differentiate between the terms by virtue of their historical/derogatory usages, as you allude to above with your referencees in the article (I appreciate you pointing me to those passages in the article which I overlooked-- my opinions are not static and stubborn), clearly means that they are not synonymous. And certainly I think it prudent to substantiate allegations of original research with examples of how they have been incorporated into the articles at hand. On the merits/precedent of this we disagree, but hey that's why this discussion page exists. Have a good one.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhile the article does seem to be very negatively focused, perhaps some NPOV cleanup as well as making it a more historically based article could make it more acceptable, although I am not personally sure of how this may be done. Maybe more of a history of slurs, but that still seems very negatively focused. I think there is a lot of good information here, just portrayed under a very negative light. Flipping sides again, we can not hide from the negative things, and the only way to stop them from occurring is to educate others upon the issue. I'm not sure where I stand exactly, but I really feel there is a use for this information somewhere. Redian (Talk) 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are already detailed articles for Chink and Chinaman (well, with chinaman we've been too busy fighting obstructionists like Uncle G to expand it properly, so for now it's even more negative than this one, partly because of a block caused by his and other hostile-editors warring against the page) and there doesn't seem to be a call for the others, unless Chinee perhaps in the same vein as Spic and Dago. Uncle G created this article because he didn't like the direction the Chinaman article is going, and that's all there is to why this article exists; it has no reason to exist except as a way to screw with a debate on an existing (and valid) article and derail its pending content because he doesn't like what that content is going to be.Skookum1 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete this article serves no purpose, therefore it is unencyclopedic. How many people will be looking for this on Wikipedia? +Hexagon1 (t) 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, cats are evidence that there are some things in nature that serve no purpose. You do raise a good arg though on the search factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cats kill small birds and other animals, therefore keeping their numbers in balance. Every animal is an integral part of Earth's ecosystem. Also, nature is free to have things that serve no purpose (even if it doesn't, it's free to), as it's not an encyclopaedia. We on the other hand are. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article offers some interesting information, however is written most likely in bad faith and the information is already contained in other articles. Apart from this, the title is very misleading in my opinion. Poeloq 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but keep Chink etc etc with "see also" links between the various slurs, as long as they're watched carefully for NPOV. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not bad faith. Nor is it original research. This is a good faith demonstration, by example, of the merger that I suggested at Talk:Chinaman. This is what Chink and Chinaman should all be merged into, because they are all duplicate articles that are addressing the same subject under different titles. (Note that all of the individual articles are of the exact same form: "X is a word for a Chinese person. Sometimes it is pejorative. Sometimes it isn't. People disagree. Here's a laundry list of incidents where people have got into hot water for using this word.")

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but unfortunately several editors are doing lexicography here, as can be seen at Talk:Chinaman/Skookum1's sources where editors are collecting a corpus of quotations that contain certain words, and then performing their own firsthand analyses of these words and what people may have meant when they wrote them. That's lexicography, and is exactly the sort of work that belongs in Wiktionary, where it is welcome.

    A proper encyclopaedia article, in contrast, should have sourced analyses, not analyses done by Wikipedia editors directly, and this one does. Hence the reason that it isn't original research. You'll find, for example, the analysis given in the article that "chink" has been used as an "innocent slang term", on the very page of the source that is cited for it. This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected. It's a summary of the analyses by Mencken, Lewis, Isaccs, Tchen and the others whose writings discussing this subject are cited in the article.

    (Notice also from the talk page discussions, and the discussions above, that the main aim of this mis-placed lexicography is to contradict what the secondary sources actually say, because editors disagree with what the sources say and want their own analyses to be reflected in Wikipedia. Zeus1234, for example, asserts that these words are all slurs, even though we have a cited source, Lewis, documenting the fact that they have been used without intent to slur by some people. Ironically, it is that promulgation of a single view, and not this article, which states right from the start that there's more than one opinion to be had, and presents several of them, that would be non-neutral.)

    It's not even original research in terms of being a novel synthesis or presentation. Ironically, the novel synthesis and presentation is exactly what those who want to do lexicography in the encyclopaedia are creating. If one looks at the actual sources that discuss this subject, rather than trying to do one's own primary research from quotations, one finds that they don't discuss these words individually. They discuss them en bloc. Lewis discusses "Chinaman", "Chinee", and "chink" in the same breath, for example. Tchen discusses "John Chinaman", "chink", "heathen Chinee", "mandarin", and "celestial" all together, for another example.

    These are not separate subjects, and should not be dealt with piecemeal, with editors doing original lexicographic research in the wrong project, in individual articles. The way to deal with them is to use sources, who have already done the analyses, and to deal with the single subject, that the sources themselves address as a single whole, in a single article — i.e. exactly as here. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment How typical of Uncle G to say something like "This isn't a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1 and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors of quotations that they've collected." complain (elsewhere) about my writing 5000 word essays in the course of refuting his various inanities. But more to the point, he's claiming that the materials compiled on the resources sandbox he would so dearly like to have deleted are "a collection of firsthand analyses by Skookum1" which is entirely a misrepresentation of the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling. There is no analysis on the compiled resources - a comment here or there, a speculation but always noted as such and not meant for article use (it's not as if we haven't been subjected to Uncle G's "analyses" - not the least of which on the article overleaf) - but rather just a huge index of tons and tons of weblinks to dictionary definitions, literary and government usages, and more examples of sages of Chinaman which Uncle G and certain others at Talk:Chinaman were in open denial about. No - not open denial at all; open accsation, open hysterics, and lots and lots of posturing like the grandstanding just above. THIS article is Uncle G's "collection of firsthand analyses" of materials he's carefully selected; the materials I and others compiled about Chinaman were come up with because we were accused of not having proof that non-offensive usage of Chinmaman ever existed. In actuality, the non-offensive uses are more commmon historically but because of the edit war and obstructionism (including this "red herring war") these realities have not yet been added to the article as we (meaning myself and other editors actually trying to work on the article, instead of war on it.....), and continue today in use by Asian-American/Canadian authors who use it not as a derisive but as a summation of the Chinese archetype (Bo Yang), or of the historical experience /identity of being a North American Chinese (Frank Chin) But all that Uncle G has wanted is a focus on the 1990s and afterwards denuncations by politically-correct ideologues, and held hard to the idea that Chink and Chinaman should be merged "because they're the same thing". Failing the Chink merger he wrote this article - a "collection of his analyses" - and presumes now to complain it's encyclopedic while undermining the encyclopedic content and the discussion surrounding it elsewhere - and as soon as writing it he nailed the merge template on Chinaman (I checked, there were only six edits at the time of "nailing"). The curious part, considering his pretention to being on the moral high ground, is that he didn't bother to place the template on THIS page (I did once I noticed he'd decided it was unnecessary). That's just sloppy on his part I suppose, but he's full of such sloppiness (there was no merge template on Chink either, not one for Chinaman, but rather for Chinky). I'm not going to bother (like he does) hunting down his various wild allegations and crazy "logic" - all just puff-n-stuff posturing like what's above - but maybe another admin than him around here might opine on how ethical it is to create an article only with the intent of forcing another article to merge with it because you'd failed in efforts to control the other article. It's obviously not ethical, it's obviouly an insult to the work of other editors (in so many ways; what I compiled were not "analyses" but RESOURCES which he wants to maintain don't exist, or are as he's said "irrelevant". They're not; he only wants them to be, and he wants to silence the debate by "leading" his own article into the fray. And then turn around and accuse US of being "incivil". As if he wasn't. At least we're logical and not trying to hide truth or undermine the collective work of other editors. And we're not even admins, and he is...."A single article, exactly as it is here" is his position, and it's a LIE and a MISREPRESENTATION and entirely deceptive as to his motive/purpose in creating this page, which was for one reason only - to try and force a merge when he couldn't get his way. For the SECOND TIME.Skookum1 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much that whole paragraph is erroneous. I'll pick just two of the many examples: You didn't create the list of quotations in response to anything by me, since in fact its creation pre-dates my addition of the merger suggestion. And the only mention of "irrelevant" by anyone in the talk page discussions is yours, here, where you made the same statement about HongQiGong there as you have done about me here. In fact, neither of your statements is true. As you've been asked to do before, at least twice, please stop inventing arguments and attributing them to other editors, and please adhere to our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assume good faith is what you did NOT do in your interventions on Talk:Chinaman and in your various edit-attacks on the article. And it's also what you were not operating on when you created this article. As for "inventing arguments" that's your bailiwick, boyo, not anybody else's, just like you invented this article because you failed to win the arguments you brought to Talk:Chinaman. And I did not specify it was YOU who was the reason why the resources were compiled, and don't misrepresent me further in claiming that I did (but you have a habit of misrepresnenting things said by nearly anybody else, it seems....). Your use of "our" before citing the Wikipedia essay on what you yourself don't have indicates your proprietary attitude towards Wikipedia that's throughout your pretension on this page, and in your creation of this article. Assume good faith is clearly missing in all your own arguments, inclding your many attacks on my arguments using TWISTED versions of what I said, or what you CLAIM I said. See below for me turning your own words back on you (as before so often).Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skookum, I can't believe you actually accused others of "open hysterics". Have you taken a step back and actually read the volumes of ranting you're written in various Talk pages? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your calling my writings "rants" is a demonstration of those very hysterics and the typical misrepresentations/accusations that went along with them and is in fact one of those covert personal attacks you seem to specialize in, but let's not make this arena for our own particular views of each other, OK? I do think your position is based in hysterics, although not as much as Uncle G, and I wasn't so much referring to you as him and 4.x and the other useless interlopers on Talk:Chinaman. But if the shoe fits, wear it (mine are 15Ds....).Skookum1 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are in serious need of your own blog, my friend. My "position" is only based on facts. You, on the other hand, have a tendency to declare how bored you are with an article and then proceed to write a two-thousand word comment on the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, give it a rest, Hong. Your position is not based on facts, rather on the denial of them and you have consistently evaded and misdirected questions as well as data/references that you just happen not to like and claim are "irrelevant". And attacks on my writing style, which happens to be very prolix, is just more stock-in-trade of your penchant for "covert personal attacks" which is one of your stock ways of avoiding questions and/or avoiding issues/evidence that disagree with your own prejudices, and you DO have prejudices. Claiming I'm bored with an article when I obviously feel strong enough to write at length about the issues facing it is just yet another patronizing dismissal like so many before, all written to avoid answering the questions and issues raised by your own comments.Skookum1 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Xanga accounts are free. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is only more passive-aggressive-cum-patronizing comments that I should go elsewhere. Why don't YOU, Hong?Skookum1 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Uncle G seems to have forgotten that Chink can be used to refer to anyone of East Asian descent, and not just Chinese people. This makes it an innapropriate inclusion in this article, and make it quite different than 'chinaman.' read the 'chink' article for sources on this.Zeus1234 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain here. It is interesting, and provides some background information on the names, and seems encyclopedic, but I'm not entirely sure if it fits here or at Wiktionary (Uncle G raises a good point above) - the latter owing to the lexiography factor. --Dennisthe2 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is what the article Chinese people is for, if we ever get around to expanding it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear duplication of List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent]. Xiner (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent Wiktionary material. Delete all three articles, as I presume Uncle G's already transwikied this and the salvageable bits of Chink and Chinaman. Keep this one only and merge the others into it as a distant second choice: encyclopedias don't describe specific words; the closest they come is describing concepts, and there's only one concept here to describe, ergo one article. —Cryptic 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? And how would the cricket throw usage, the figurine usage, and the Indiana politician usage of Chinaman it into any of this? How would chinaman's original meaning as a ship in the china trade, or (devolving from that) a dealer in porcelain/china (cf. http://www.thechinaman.co.uk) - how would this fit into your scheme of things? How could all the titles in modern writings (Bo Yang, Frank Chin) fit into Wiktionary, or profiles of the rapper who calls himself Chinaman, or the comedian who calls himself The Chinaman???? S All this belopngs in a Wiktionary definition, which no doubt will be subject to edit warring by Uncle G there as well????Skookum1 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They don't fit into a merged article. That's ok, though, because they don't fit into a separate article at Chinaman, either, and in fact aren't in it at present. We deal with the situation by including a link to Chinaman (disambiguation) via {{redirect|Chinaman}}. The only place where different concepts represented by the same word should be on the same page is on Wiktionary. —Cryptic 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really??. Seems to me I've seen a gross or more of disambiguation pages which "represent different concepts represented by the same word", and it's point of fact that the disambiguation page got created/designated as such because of the dispute (before Uncle G came along) about the original Chinaman article; there's a case to be made, because of the necessary content discussing the word's history that the disambig and main page should be one and the same, but that's a separate merge discussion and not quite relevant here (and I haven't field it yet, until now). Point is not so long ago there was only one Chinaman page; the variability in itsmeanings and contexts are why the disambig got split off (although it took a while for it to get the "(disambiguation)" part of its title, as the split-off Chinaman article from it had its own paranthetical qualifier ("racial term", which was not correct and got ditched also). That a word can evolve away from its original meaning/context into something as obscure as, oh cricket and Indiana politics, is in itself of encyclopedic (not dictionary) interest. And in point of fact while they look the same, "chinaman" and "chinaman" are two different words, no kidding, if you break down the syntax between the china trade/dealer meaning and the ethnic meaning (from which all other usages derive, e.g. the Politician and the cricket pitch) the one's syntactical frame is "China + man" (where "man" equals either a ship or a merchant) or "Chinese + man"; sure, they're "identical words" but their meanings and origins are so opposite/apposite that there's encyclopedic content right there that goes way outside the bounds of what can be represented in Wiktionary. And AFAIC moving all three to Wiktionary is just another way of censoring Wikipedia that mergists and ideologues are trying to do all over the place. Tell ya what - why don't we merge the whole damn thing (Wikipedia) into Wiktionary?Skookum1 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you truly think that disambiguation pages should be part of their primary articles, then you clearly have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored. —Cryptic 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I have no idea what an encyclopedia is and should be summarily ignored"???? You've just played your agenda, which is already clearly stated as mergist/deletionist, but saying I should be ignored because I dispute your definition of what disambig pages are for? Hmmmm - why not just have me shot instead?Skookum1 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as it's referenced and is a clearly appropriate merge target for chink and chinaman; whether it then proves suitable for onward merging won't really be clear until that's done. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment immediately above (made at the same time you were making yours) about the other non-ethnic usages of Chinaman, and also about performers and others who use it in the modern era as a self-identifier.Skookum1 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read many comments here, and am more than ever convinced that we should use this title to amalgamate all these closely-related articles. I see a lot of passionate argument, and a lot of calmness from Uncle G (which is normal for Uncle G, he is very good at this kind of thing) and others advocating retention. We need to collect all the information in one place, sort it, weight it, and then decide if that's the best title. Of the various articles, this is the most neutral and the most comprehensive. It's not a tough call, in my view. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • falsedef 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is no a POV fork. You don't have another article on thye same topic, "Ethnic slurs for Chinese people". You have only separate article for each slur. An overview of the multitude of terms is an independent topic, and is not new in published research. `'mikka 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about?? There's already, as noted above, List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. There are lots of separate-slur articles for all ethnicities, don't pretend there aren't.Skookum1 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And would you like the date stamps for (a) Uncle G's last edit prior to the merge at Talk:Chinaman or its article, (b) the inception of this article and (c) the posting of the merge template on Chinaman??? I shouldn't have to dig them out for you, as they're clear as day and you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Falsedef is TOTALLY RIGHT concerning the passage he's just quoted about "POV forks" - I didn't know that term before but that's EXACTLY what this article is, and EXACTLY what Uncle G did. Give your head a shake if you can't see that.Skookum1 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, what a dynamite afterparty. I'm gonna hand out chill pills and vote Keep on this one; I don't see what's invalid or POV about it at all. JuJube 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please open your eyes, and your mind, and have a read (esp. Uncle G's posts/edits) on Talk:Chinaman and the related disambig's talkpage (not sure ifh he's there as there was bait-and-switch between the two pages, as the disambig page had originally been the plain-name Chinaman page).Skookum1 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skookum1, please stop at once this quite long and boring personal attack, for which you may be blocked. The louder you shout, the less people are listening to you. If you have something agains user UncleG, please there are the corresponding administrative pages for personsl dispute resolution. A wikipedia article must be judged by its resulting merits, not by discussions in talk pages. Mukadderat 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request' I would like to ask an admin who happen to see this page to start deleting all texts that are irrelevant to the merits of the current article: history of creation, editors intentions, etc. are irrelevant to the basic principles of wikipedia: verifiability, notability, citing sources and no original research. Mukadderat 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Skookum is saying is totally relevant so that people can establish that this article is indeed a POV fork. This may not be obvious until, as Skookum suggested, you look at the corresponding talk pages and edit histories.Zeus1234 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that only about 10% to 20% of each of Skookum's comments are relevant. He usually has a point, but it's all hidden in between comments about how people who disagree with him are prone to hysterics and are generally hiding some evil ulterior motives which he always sees through, or comments about how he's missing the sunshine outside and how he's bored with editing an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking of soft-pedal attacks - Hong is always claiming (like Uncle G) that my posts are irrelevant, but that's only because they don't want to see the relevance (other editors do). As for the weather remark, that was to a friendly editor who'd asked me to do something, but I'd been dealing with the inanities of this page for hours and needed a break - and if you lived in the rainiest major city in the world that just came through the rainiest, gloomiest March in history, you'd want to have gone out in the sunshine too.Skookum1 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the above is a perfect example of what I mean. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And your response here is a typical example of your sniping; say something about someone, then when they defend themselves or explain to others why the snipe is just a snipe, attack them for defending themselves...Skookum1 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And as another editor here reminded me via email, those who dwell on attacks on your writing style are people who have nothing valid to say, so resort to writing style-attacks because it's all they can come up with to throw mud in the water further.....Skookum1 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Deletion of posts on an AFD? Now that's unprecedented. And that I have to point at Uncle G's motives and behaviour in order to explain why this page is a piece of redundant twaddle is entirely because this page is entirely a creation of Uncle G and no one else. But why is it that YOU, Mukadderat, are attacking what you claim is a "long and boring personal attack" when Uncle G's (and HQG's) ongoing attacks on my writing style, my personality, and more, go unchallenged. It seems to me you've taken one side while ignoring the other. But I'm learning pretty rapidly in Wikipedia that people who don't want to see what they don't want to see will claim it's not there, and what they want to see they wilol, if necessary, invent - or grossly distort. I have been subjected to repeated attacks on this page, many of them "soft-pedalled" but still attacks, and you haven't had a problem with that. One-sided persecuttion combined with active censorship is what yo'ure asking an admin to do. All very ironic because the whole issue with the article this one was created to eradicate is focussed around censorship and manipulation and ethnoparanoiac hype.Skookum1 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, my critiques of Uncle G on this page have to do with his conduct here as much as anywhere else, such as his circular and tautological arguments about duplicate articles as rejoindered by David Levy (apples, oranges, and fruits referenced together), and the many, many times he's misled the community on this page with assertions either about articles or about the contexts of arguments, or in a glaring case of misdirection above, labelling a link with something that's not what the link indicates. Smug, sniping comments abound from Uncle G on this page; but I'm not asking an admin to censor them because they're "boring" (and they are). But you want Wikipedia to censor debate, just as Uncle G wanted to censor an article and, failing that, created another to suit his tastes. It's that article that should be deleted, not any of my posts discussing why, or defending myself against Uncle G's puerile sniping and ongoing deceptions and misrepresentations on THIS page; that reference is necessarily made to the Chinaman article and its talkpage is because it was in THAT arena that Uncle G didn't get his way and so "came over here" and made his own sandbox. "It's my shovel and bucket and you can't play!". And from his little sandbox, he throws sand at anyone trying to come in and fix it (or, because it's in the wrong location and doesn't have proper zoning, tear it down).Skookum1 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fairly well written and well referenced. And the endless personal attacks on User:Uncle G are not very complelling reasons for deletion. Edison 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with Keep here, despite my abstention above. In review of the...well, I can't call it a debate any longer. But at any rate, in review of the above, the only reasons that would compel deletion are, as near as I can tell, personal attacks against Uncle G. To echo Edison, above, that isn't very compelling, and in fact flies in the face of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - and then slaps both in the face hard and repeatedly with about four reams of paper. But, that statement aside, while we still have a dicdef problem, we have a more compelling reason to keep: the fact that it provides a fairly comprehensive etymology against these terms that can be fleshed out. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion, but I hope that you aren't implying that I've engaged in personal attacks. —David Levy 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, you guys are being quite civil. =^_^= I guess I just dissent from the other consensus, if not indirectly. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And your are being misled if you think the etymologies here are comprehensive. They are anything BUT and have been chosen and written out by Uncle G with a decidedly POV tone (such as his interpretation of the reason/effect of song titles, which I just deleted as being obviosly POV and OR as well. The comprehensive ethmology for Chinaman can be on that page, for Chink on that page, just like Gweilo has its etymology and isn't submerged into the ethnic slurs page (but perhaps it should be, as it's not even an English word....). The selective picking of evidence here, with stuff that Uncle G doesn't like being branded "irrelevant" or just ignored (as with all the evidence he ignores/castigates at Talk:Chinaman....and actually he rarely attacks the evidence, as he rarely answers to evidence but instead starts complaining about the way other people write; which is the tactic of somebody who has nothing valid to say, enit? And don't pretend that only Uncle G has been criticized (not attacked); how can you not see the various defamtory attempts of his on this page, and also his misrepresentation of what others are saying (whether it's me, David Levy, Keefer4, or anyone else). This article continues to be his own tub-thump about what he sees as linguistic prejudice; but he's unwilling to examine his own. And THAT is inherently POV.Skookum1 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. very negative tone. Seems to inspire bizzarely fanatical debate.Aleksi Peltola 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if necessary merge into a ethnic slurs page.: What a mess. Big POV problem. Inspires hateful discussions. Unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. No legitimate reason for deletion. Not OR.Biophys 02:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is OR, and is also a POV fork, which is worse. How OR it is can be seen by the material placed by Uncle I which I deleted as being obvious editorializing/interpretation, albeit using carefully selected cites.Skookum1 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why Chink, Chinaman and this article can't coexist. The latter seems to be a reasonable overview summary with potential to bring a big-picture perspective. However, I see value to the two other articles giving detail not appropriate in the summary article. In a paperless environment why worry about some minor redundancy. The beauty of WP is the ability to cross reference. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that there is a lot of heat and little light being generated by personal attacks on writers. Uncle G is persistent in supporting his position, but he is a well respected and prolific contributor to WP, who should receive at minimum the common courtesy due to us all. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G supports his position by misrepresenting it, misrepresenting the contents of other articles, misrepresenting the contexts of the other articles, misrepresenting the comments even of the oth3er participants of this page (and I don't mean myself; and David Levy is not alone in rejoindering him for presuming to mirepresent his posts), and misrepresenting the nature of the resources; and misrepresenting even a link, so as to make a personal attack rather than to actually feed that linhk to what it was titled as. He invokes Wiki principles while outreageously violating them. Such behaviour is not "common courtesy" and he's not the only one here with copious contributions to Wikipedia. Just because he's obtinate in his deceptions and misdirection and posturing doesn't mean he's being persistent in any kind of admirable way; he's persistently misrepresenting people, misrepresenting the words that are the focus of the debate, and even citing Wiki guidelines while actively editing them to suit his position. I can't believe you other people who've been sucked in by him. No, actally I can, unfortunately.Skookum1 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • it's quite "cute" that in his just-recent edit, he calls David Levy's response "bogus" and then elsewhere talks about how "our Wiki guidelines and principles", as if he were the spokesman for Wikipedia, and he consistently uses "we" and "our" around here in a way no one else does; and in this case it's again really UGLY for him to say "our Wiki guidelines" when, in the course of citing one recently, he went over to WP:NOTE and changed it so it would fit his cite (and postscript, as I just looked at WP:NOTE how curious that another POV-flavoured edit was just made by Kevin Murray, similar to Uncle G's, and is another case in point of people obsessing over guidelines and principles while actively editing them. That's called moving the goalposts in mid-game, baby. That's meddling, it's dishonest, and it's typical; he's made edits on pages/talkpages in question that have nothing to do with the deceptive edit comments that accompany them with him. He's a wheedler and dissembler and also a slanderer of other people's positions here, over and over and over. If that's a personal attack and I get blocked for pointing out what is SO OBVIOUSLY THE TRUTH about his conduct, then I cry SHAME!! and will in future regard the campaign here to "sell" this page (Uncle G's pet project, and full of misrepresentations as a result and by default) as a prime example of passive-aggressive/hyperbureaucrat mentality passive-aggressives who throw rule after guidline after rule after guideline at other editors, hiding their own agenda behind technicalities and the a pretense of procedural propriety, with no thought of principle but of using the "system" to get their way and to soft-attack others whose input they want to silence, and if the person stands up for themselves to the calm-faced aggresion of those talking principles loudly and repeatedly while not actually applying them to their own behaviour/posts.....why, then accuse them of personal attacks, even better if you can provoke them with your obstinacy into saying something angry; it's classic passive-aggressive behaviour and also of "nattering nabobs of negativity"; as always with passive-aggressives, they control their language so as to not seem aggressive, but revel in accusing others of aggression. Skookum1 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, your reference to my work at WP:N is unwarranted slander, and as a matter of fact I oppose Uncle G there; however, I respect his dedication, while not always his opinion. Your attempt to link us in cabal of sorts demonstrates your mendacity, ignorance, or both. You brought this battle to the WP:N talk page and have only attracted more attention to your erroneous position. You are the best argument for your oppositions' position. --Kevin Murray 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two key passages of Bo Yang's speech, linked on that article page, as they're very a propos of the conduct and attitudes of Uncle G here:
        • Chinese people simply don't understand the importance of coopera- tion. But if you tell a Chinaman he doesn't understand, he will sit down and write a book just for you entitled The Importance of Co-operation.
        • Chinese people can be extremely convincing when they talk, thanks to their remarkably nimble tongues. If you believe what they say, there is nothing they cannot do, including extinguishing the sun with a single breath of air, and ruling the world with a single flick of the hand. In the laboratory or examination hall, where no personal relationships are involved, Chinese can produce impressive results. But when three fiery Chinese dragons get together, they can only produce about as much as a single pig, or a single insect, if that much. This is because of their addiction to infighting.
        • Those of you who live in the United States know that the people who harass Chinese people the most are other Chinese, not Yankees. It takes a Chinaman to betray a Chinaman; only a Chinaman would have a good reason to frame or slander another Chinaman.
        • And I stress that the use of "Chinaman" there is Bo Yang's own, his choice of translation for zhuong guo ren. Source page is http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mszonyi/280/280doc/Bo_Yang.htmlSkookum1 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for pointing at a very interesting article by a prominent person. Being a former citizen of the Soviet Union, I very much understand what he is writing and why. I would recommend to read this essay to everyone. But what this has to do with this vote? Man, your passion will break your heart. Cool down. `'mikka 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It has to do with the conduct of this page's proponent, and also with the use of the word chinaman by chinese themselves; in this case Bo Yang himself has chosen it even though the original Chinese is "ugly Chinese person". The pretense of the page overleaf is that somehow all these words were coined by english speakers to defame/degrade Chinese with, but in actuality "Chinaman" has been used all along by chinese people themselves, both in North american and without; just by those with less ideological/political pretensions; that this page (the article) lumps non-derisive terms with derisive terms, but dwells on the derisive ones and on the derisive aspects of those that can be both is a demonstration of its POV-ness, and it's not-so-hidden agenda. I'm sure Bo Yang himself would find this discussion very revealing.....in fact maybe I'll email him about it.....Skookum1 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And I'm "outta here" for the day as I've got real-world things to do. So have a field day, boys; let the insults and put-downs and misdirections and misrepresentations fly, couched in nice soft-spoken language as usual.Skookum1 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge elsewhere, then Delete. Merge any useful material into other articles, then delete. The references to this being a 'fork' agrees with my reading that there is something not quite 'right' - it is a somewhat stilted 'background' on some dicdefs. That a combined article on multiple terms would be a good overview/orientation is kind of obvious. That doesn't seem to have been the result here. I read Gweilo and Chinaman and wonder why it the quality isn't as good here. Could a combined overview be part of a China-related project, Chinese outside of China, though even that might end up having to be several articles, e.g. Chinese in Malaysia, Chinese in Indonesia. Shenme 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The pretense held by Uncle G and his claque is that this page is NPOV and cited; but I've gone through and marked LOTS of POV comments and phraseology that are uncited, and taken out DUMB material like "Chinawoman" (google that, if anything it's a neologism used as a name by a woman in Nelson BC, but in all my readings of North american history I've seen it maybe THREE times; usually women were also "chinamen"); editors who want to understand why I think this page has a POV agenda, and has been structured to hide or ignore material that disputes the principle author's very blatant agenda are invited to review my recent edits of this morning, and of lst night, and Uncle G's reversal of last night's. Important non-offensive uses have been buried within passages about offensive terms, e.g. what's "chinaboy" doing right next to the ship/porcelain usages anyway???? No doubt Uncle G is going to remove my additions, and tell me that Mark Britten doesn't exist, and won't read Bo Yang's article (that's now cited in situ) in which Bo explains why he chose to use "Chinaman" in his English translation. All kinds of lists of pejorative claims/words have been idnividually cited, as they're clearly interpretations of Uncle G and not in any source provided; fine to provide a source, even better if it actually states what the person citing it is claiming it's a cite for. Picking and choosing cites/authors who agree with him, while deliberately leavingt out so much else that doesn't, or masking it under cover of mentions of other things, or demanding fact templates for things he KNOWS exist (like the comedian "The Chinaman" and yeah, I had his name remembered wrong but Mark Britten exists and is very real, despite someone's attempt to delete the original stub within two minutes of its creation. Anyway, the bandwagon and tub-thumping from Uncle G will no doubt continue today; I've added important bits and challenged and zero'd in on blatantly POV material and structure in this page; the Chinee section was moved to its own, as again (as with Chink before) Uncle G was trying to postiion "Chinaman" alongside more overtly discrminatopry words so as to obscure its ongoing non-offensive nature to many people. Oh - "many" is a weasel word, like "some" - funny that he gets away with using those, but whenever I do Hong Qi Gong jumps all over me and deletes them. Everybody here knows what a double standard is, and what hypocrites are, so there's no need for further comment in that department.Skookum1 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colleague, what you said just above is a normal process of editing wikipedia articles. Of course, we don't claim that UncleG wrote absolute truth. You pointed out or fixed prtoblems with his article, very good. This is how wikipedia works: no one is perfect. At the same time it is a fact of note that in English language certain nationalities have a disproportional number of ethnic slurs. (How many English ethnic slurs you know for, say, Kurdish people or Albanians? and how many for African Americans?) Therefore this topic is of curiosity, and if there are books that cover this topic (I assume the books quoted in the article are such ones), all the more the article deserves to be in wikipedia. Mukadderat 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chink is currently used as a general term against all Asians, not just Chinese. The article title is very restrictive and misleading. Right now, the article says it's about English names for Chinese people, but it's really just covering ethnic slurs. If this article were to be NPOV, then it'd have WAY more information about "Chinese" (the word), since Chinese is the accepted English name for Chinese people. Its very disproportionate and is trying to mash all these terms into Original Research categories (Chink and related names has and had words of no relation to Chink in etymology). It's a POV fork, since Ungle G is really just trying to associate terms through his own POV, by creating a new article and hoping all the other ethnic slurs will get merged into it. Some of the information was just verbatim copy and paste from other ethnic slur articles. You'd pretty much have to rewrite all the titles in this article to maintain NOR. These words have their own context. A big part of understanding slurs is understanding their different contexts and histories, which this article fails to do so appropriately and probably couldn't do since some of the words have no association and OR context (e.g. ricer does not belong in this article, since it's a general term for Asians, not a term for Chinese).falsedef 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I'm bored with this silly game where rational intelligent people like Falsedef and Keefer4 and David Levy are insulted and told that they said something different than what they said, and then the "if you make a lie big enough and tell it often enough people will eventually believe it" crowd repeats its mantras of "duplicate article" and "Wiki guidelines" and "citability" and false claims of NPOVness. Hopefully the deciding admin here is fully capable of seeing the paucity of the arguments of the promoter of this page and his defenders (who, funny, all say the same things, and never really talk issues, or when they do simply obfuscate them). In any case, last night's reversal of my attempts to introduce balance to this article were all labelled "damage" by Uncle G, and places where I placed fact templates on his qualifications of material from various sources - choices of wording, things left out, things not admitted to, things distorted - ALL was obliterated by the self-appointed author of this nuisance of a pag, all while wrapping himself in the Wiki flag, while enforcing a clearly POV edit agenda on this page. Claims from him that it is NPOV are now ridiculous in the wake of this edit. Many of the things he claims are cited are NOT in the citations not in the way he has presented them, and corrections of unsubtantiated editorializations of his that present a different perspective than "the English language is very racist against Chinese people" were all taken out (that's the real title/subtext of this article, as is painfully clear by now). Furthermore, here he is over on the WP:NOTE page insisting on mutiple, substantial references; yet few of his POV citations here, i.e. citations supporting POV wordings and choice of content, few of them have more than one cite. And if Pearl Buck says something about the 19th Century - if she said it in the way that Uncle G is presenting it,that is (which I find doubtful) - where are her citations?? A lot of these interpretive comments from modern historians/politicos, also, are NOT borne out by actual evidence. The basic point is that he's only citing one for a lot of these, not the "multiple" cites he's rewriting the guidelines for, apparently so he can take out one-point cites of things he doesn't like. But in this case he's taken a lawnmower, as he has before, to any attempt to substantially change the content/structure of the page to a more NPOV level. I've been wary of legitimizing the page by trying to contribute to it; now that my latest round of attempts to instill balance into it, and to correct his LIES and challenge his FALSE interpretatinos and editorializations of what evidence he chooses to cite (and the deletions of evidence he wants to have ignored), I think it serves as ample evidence that this page properly belongs on User talk:Uncle G/Sandbox and nowhere else. He's behaving with "ownership", and isn't that a very big important wiki guideline? How come he's not wrapping himself in THAT one? Anyone here who's had Uncle G tell them that they said something other than what they said, or watched him "answer" a question which you hadn't actually asked, or listen to him expound "duplicate article, duplicate article" without being able to prove it, must inherently realize that it's the same as his false citations and misrepresentations of citations; it doesn't matter what someone else says, even a cited work - it only matters what Uncle G says it says. There's also the highly POV juxtapositioning if items - like the mention of Frank Chin being tucked in between the kid's taunts and other derisive material, and branding Chin "in the amelioration camp" (an inherently POV statement, as it suggests that amelioration of the term was needed); as is also the case with hiding the original ship and porcelain dealer meanings of the word in amidst a bunch of other derisives, immediately followed up by "china boy", which of course directly connects to the relevance of the ship and porcelain dealer meanings, doesn't it? Other similar obfuscations and downplayings abound, and biased langauge is everywhere, even the structure of the article is biased as he lumps unrelated terms together; Chinaman and Chink should be separate sections - but then they're already separate, and much more thorough and much more NPOV than this article; and don't presume to equate terms that shouldn't be discussed in teh same section, except in terms of painting them all with the same garish and ugly POV brush. His lumping Chinee and Chinaman in the same section is the same thing as trying to merge Chink and Chinaman articles; lumping chink and ching chong together was ridiculous, and there's more such garbage now all over this page. I tried to straighen this out, but he branded it "garbage",which far more aptly as just used by me fits his material overall, and reversed it all so as to keep to the ethnic-slurs basis of his view of all these words, and his obvious hatred for anyone who disputes his version of things, despite the pretense of calm and citations and wiki guidelines and rule-pulling/waving. But oh well, it's clear that any attempt to legitimize this page with real content, whether now or after the AFD is closed and (god help us) this article survies, it's Uncle G's personal property and he's NOT going to allow anyone else to reshape or contribute to its contents, unless through his POV lens. I surrender to his supporters, who have helped me see the one true light: Uncle G is godlike in his wisdom, Uncle G is calm, Uncle G is a superior being, Uncle G is right and anyone else who's against him is mean and stupid. yeah, uh-huh, ok. see ya later.Skookum1 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skookum, I support the deletion, but you have to realise that these long drawn-out comments and replies have the potential to move an AfD toward a "no-consensus" decision. Maybe this article will be deleted, maybe it won't. But basically, what I'm saying is this - if you want to see the article deleted, make your point clear and then refrain from making these long comments. I can almost guarantee you that most people have stopped reading your comments in their entirety. I know I have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, Hong, but you never read my comments in full, and always disregard them; other people do read them, even if you can't/won't. But in the case of the "above" it was such a cleaer violation of NPOV in this latest policing of the page it had to be spelled out. I have my own writing style, and debating style; it's time for you to stop attacking that, and stick with the issues. And the issue here is, thank you, "delete delete delete".Skookum1 19:30, 7 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. --Coredesat 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freckles (game)

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

verifiablity problems. Not a single admissible source Mukadderat 02:47, 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 NO CONSENSUS, for now, but clearly if sources are not found, the article will find itself in hot water. -Splash - tk 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not certain this would fall under WP:CSD A7, but I can't find any assertion of notabillity of this band.→AzaToth 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, difficult one this. They are rather well know, but only within the UK Symphony Orchestra scene. They do occasionally win awards, and they do play at a level which is considerably more noted than what I believe to be the standard for an entry. I'm gonna vote keep. Cloveoil 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous contributer Cloveoil, West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra is well known in the UK Symphony Orchestra scene. To delete them would cause a slanted pucture of the musical world as it is in the UK. I vote for keep. Paulw99 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:22, 9 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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

55 Squadron ATC

55 Squadron ATC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The cadet squadron does not appear notable. Previosuly deleted, but deletion appears to have been speedy. Bringing it here for a fuller hearing, but believe it should be deleted. TeaDrinker 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the original admin who speedied this (along with a bunch of other cadet squadron pages) I'll give my rationale: There is nothing inherent about being a cadet squadron that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N. There is already a list of them at List of ATC squadrons and that, in my opinion, should be enough. Sasquatch t|c 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless externally verifiable information can be presented demonstrating the impiortance of this particular cadet group outside its members and its direct geographic area. In my book, groups like cadet groups and scout troops have to do some pretty significant things before they 'deserve' a wikipedia article. -- saberwyn 06:16, 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 delete, no claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santo caserio

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

very poorly written article about nn band, fails WP:MUSIC, also WP:VAIN Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:17, 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 Speedy Delete A7. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday slaves

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

Poorly written vanity Page SpookyPig 03:39, 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.--Wizardman 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent School, Inc.

The Independent School, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, not referenced. The creator removed prod but didn't expand or improve the article in a week since then.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:50, 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. --Coredesat 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eikaiwa managers

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

This is POV/OR unencyclopedic content. Current article is pseudo-slander. No real article can be formed on this articles topic. Page on Eikaiwa exists and can contain any encyclopedic information on Eikaiwa management. ZayZayEM 03:59, 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 close, procedural keep; if you're going to nominate the lists within these categories, nominate them separately. --Coredesat 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of topics by country and Category:Lists of topics by region

OK, there is no easy way to do this, because our deletion templates are being to smart and preventing me from doing it right (namespace confusion). So I am filling this AfD 'by hand', and yes, it should be at AfD, not at CfD and not and MfD. I filled it at MfD first but consensus was to move it here (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by country, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by region). I am proposing to delete all lists articles in those categories (and than categories themselves), but lists (articles) are the primary target. The reason for deletions is: few of those lists are maintained and they are a relic of the past: each country (and region) has way to many related topics to fit on one page; this is what country (region) specific categories are for. Later we may want to consider getting rid of all lists here, but for now, just think: an average country has thousands of related articles. A list with thousand entries is cumbersome and useless, as the categories were designed to automate the process. Most of those lists are not maintained. If you really like them, we can archive them or tag as historical... but basically they are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten junk pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I can understand that you may want something done, the fact that there are so many lists tends to point to me that this isn't something that can be handled well in AfD. Some of these lists may be unmaintained as you claim, some may be redundant to categories. Some, however, may not? Reviewing them all to find out which is which? Not something I think could be handled in a single AfD even for the country. I suggest coming up with a different plan to handle this problem, perhaps soliciting some feedback through the Village pump. And since you haven't added the AfD template to all the subpages, I don't think this discussion can proceed anyway. I suggest you withdraw this and look for another solution. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of the AfD template on the subpages is really just a sign that they ought to be placed there, not a reason to abort any discussion here - otherwise we're getting a little overly fixated on letter by letter process - as a general rule of thumb. That said, I agree that this situation is a little complicated and I too doubt that an AfD nomination like this is the appropriate way to handle the issue. By posting up a category and saying "This is supposed to be a blanket nomination for all the articles contained therein" is putting a bit of a burden on participating editors by expecting them to go through the categories and checking out the articles. I know it seems like a lot of work on your part, but as the nominator you really should be nominating the individual lists themselves, not as a category. You can bundle them into a mass nomination if you'd like but FrozenPurpleCube is right, your best bet is to withdraw this nomination and figure out the best way to approach the situation, perhaps by seeking input from other users. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I don't think the main reason for closing this discussion is the lack of the template, if that were the only issue, I'd just say to start adding them. The real problem is indeed, the complicated nature of this proposal. It's just asking for trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all and speedy close - the two categories contain close to 200 articles. There is no rational way to come to consensus on 200 different articles in a single AFD. If the nominator has specific concerns about specific lists, it can be discussed on the talk pages of those particular lists or in a more tightly focused AFD. Otto4711 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close-Mass nominations like this are a bad idea. AfD isn't really the place to get community consensus on the existence of a given type of article. Maybe take it to the village pump?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close It is impossible to make a rational decision on this mass nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a matter involving an actual policy change in what sort of categories should be made, and is not suitable for AfD. The obvious way to start is to delete the unmaintained ones and see what's left. DGG 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all and speedy close. Absolutely agree with the above comments. I have sympathy with the principle behind the nomination, but AfD is far too blunt an instrument to deal with a big decision like this. AndyJones 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Agree with above. I hate to say this because I respect the nominators' contributions, but to give delete as a preference here would seem to me utterly cynical. — 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics for precedent. –Pomte 07:54, 6 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 COMPLICATED. I'm going to treat these articles as one, more or less, and reach a decision about their disposition on that basis. There is not a consensus to delete all these articles in these debates. However, the debaters here have not done due diligence and examined how we have disposed of the same question for other, perhaps more established, chart listings. For example, we have things like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart and Pop 100 (US) and so on, a very encyclopedic treatment of the topic that rises above an obsessive listing that changes every few days - an approach that would be unsuitable for an archive of knowledge. This aspect is dealt with by the articles such as List of number-one albums (UK), List of number-one singles (UK) (and its subarticles) and Number-one dance hits of 2007 (USA) and other similar articles.

I am therefore going to DELETE Polish National Top 50, and KEEP Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006 and Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007. The List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits is pointless as it stands, and might have more utility about 10 years from now, so I shall DELETE it, and recommend that a template navbox be created to go at the bottom of the surviving articles.

I would recommend to those maintaining these articles that they get a very clear view of what is obsessive cruft and what is encyclopedia material. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just found Template:PNT50. Someone should do something about that. Splash - tk 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50

Polish National Top 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this applies to all of the Polish Top 50 nominations. The underlying concept of the top hits in Poland seems notable enough to warrant a page. Moreover, a website may well be a reliable enough source for this sort of data; that the compilers of the Polish Top 50 have a cheesy looking website on home.planet.nl is neither here nor there. If this site gets a data feed from another source, that source should be cited though, if available. I do think that the several pages about Polish hits ought to merge into one.

    With Gwen Stefani and Justin Timberlake on the charts, I am mighty glad not to have to listen to Polish radio. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Comment - I think the article is notable - if it is completely re-written to actually explain the history and methodology of the Polish music charts (article needs categories too). As it stands now its definitely a copyright violation as its probably updated every week with the current top ten by a music chart fan and those images can't possibly adhere to any fair use/image guidelines. - eo 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt if this is notable. It looks like wikicruft with copyvio. Appleseed (Talk) 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree the Polish National Top 50 article needs to be re-written but why are articles with lists of #1 hits in Poland nominated for deletion??? Addie555 21:50, 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 SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits

List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I don't know why this page should be deleted. It's just a list of Polish #1s. There are lots of pages like that that list #1 hits in other countries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addie555 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:11, 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 'SEE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50'. -Splash - tk 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not referenced to anything but homepage looking webpage. Likely OR, using Wikipedia to advertise non-notable project/website, or using Wikipedia as web hosting service. And non-notable project list of 50 whatevers is not notable, either. Creator has removed prod tags. Note this is one of the four similar articles found and nominated at AfD. PS. Please note that the creator of those articles responded to this AfD by removing those noms from AfD list.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:11, 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 and salt. —Cryptic 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgotten realms

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

Non-notable Flash cartoon that was previously deleted and re-created Mysdaao 04:13, 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 10:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kincaid

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

Notable porn star. Epbr123 04:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i see you want the article deleted on grounds that she is not famous enough. To be honest i am surprised you want to delete articles given that i thought wikipedia was an ever-expanding project aiming to be as comprehensive as possible. And also she is fairly famous having won several AVN awards.
I'm not calling you a liar but she hasn't won several AVN awards. Epbr123 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't won any awards, but she was nominated best actress at this years avn's. She didn't win, but she's still an actress of note, and her popularity is growing.

She has a fan base and is pretty famous. She has been in the industry for a while and she has established herself. I think the page should stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.154.11 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:51Z

Burnett and Vennard

Burnett and Vennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Burnett and vennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Contested prod from a while back. Non notable british comedic duo. Burnett and Vernard on Google gets 10 unique hits, basically all wikipedia or MySpace related, including a post of Vennard who boasts we're everywhere, including Wikipedia. The prod was removed by single-purpose account Musicsorcerer (talk · contribs). Incidentally, the last url shows that musicsorcerer is the email adress of Vanguard. Page creator is also single-purpose so there are very strong reasons to suspect WP:COI issues on top of the utter lack of third party reliable coverage. Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullenearth

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

Non-notable comic publisher. I'm pretty sure the subject doesn't meet WP:N, but that's what AfD is for... Possible WP:COI with the authors of the article. The Bleak content was in another article (speedy deleted for copyvio twice). -- Ben 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

° Why is this being contested? This is clearly a legitimate company with published works that are verified. What is the reason for any article on this website if not for sparking the interest of a specific subject? Seriously though, what would be the point Teri7 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

° This a legit. company why is this being contested? How many more ref. do we need to provide? http://shirts.meetees.com/jeffs.html http://www.whois.ws/whois-com/ip-address/sullenearth.com/ http://savage-comedy.com/_Sullenearth 15:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)~

° Is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Comics promotional?

° What constitutes promotional years of service? Hibbs8 22:30, 12 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. --Coredesat 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Jungle (band)

Rum Jungle (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:BAND as it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the band itself Garrie 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator, reasons above.Garrie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No establishment of notibility. No sources at all. Not verifiable.--Dacium 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless links to non-trivial publications about this band are added before the end of this debate. A1octopus 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any sources, but Internet sources for older bands like this are few and far between. Keep if sources can be found. J Milburn 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd be more inclined to be merciful if the full name of the vocalist was provided. As above, will change my vote if sources can be found. Lankiveil 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as author, for following reasons: Have updated page as requested, including name of vocalist & correct year of EP release (from album sleeve), and also that the EP was also sold through independent record shops across Australia (hence its entry and persistence in then-official national "Australian Alternative Top 10"). The notability criteria which Garrie originally nominated as a reason for deletion (that notice now restored - apologies for my accidental removal during another edit) specify that commercial album release and chart entry qualify as controversial though significant-enough reasons for retention. As to verifiability of sources, J Milburn's comment about Internet sources for older bands is very true, especially for Brisbane bands which have often been omitted from current musical history due to Sydney/Melbourne bias in earlier decades: Hence, I don't expect many corroborating sources to be found. I can truthfully swear that I was NOT a member of the band (!), and actually possess the album & still listen to it occasionally. I believe that deletion of this article from Wikipedia would merely contribute to the loss of pre-Internet history, and invite anyone else with any additional information to enhance the article accordingly. CouchTurnip 12:34, 5 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. --Coredesat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAIN, University of Queensland

PAIN, University of Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable student association.Garrie 04:49, 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. --Coredesat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Big Game

Wikipedia is neither Merriam-Webster nor Urban Dictionary. Zero sources, and I don't believe this article will ever rise above a (very poor, OR) dicdef. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:51, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:54Z

Upfunk Creek

Upfunk Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Upfunk-pyramid.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Upfunk.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Band fails WP:BAND in that they have to date won one local council music competition and published their music on myspace.com. Garrie 05:10, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al_Hidayah

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

No insight into the topic seems to be more of an advertisement for a group. Uses a coimmon arabic word without defining any context. ZaydHammoudeh 05:28, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_3&oldid=119908514"