Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 3 April 2007

< April 2	April 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Anne Hunter

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have actually met Anne, and my wife was one of her advisees, but this article fails to find any real notability for her. Out. Brianyoumans 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not seem to have real criteria on educational administrators. I think the key question is whether she in N outside MIT, and one outside source would be enough. DGG 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Is apparently 'legendary', but wouldn't need that connotation if this were true. No sources. Administers email lists of 2,000 people? Not notable. Possibly merge and redirect into MIT article if she has some meaning to them.--Dacium 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secretary who administers e-mail lists. Are the lists notable? No. Neither is she. Pete.Hurd 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:NN. Just a generic college administrator. Ravenswing 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete No claim to notablity outside a very specific department in MIT. A1octopus 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No other sources. Ab e g92contribs 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish enough notability outside of one particular department of MIT. Darth griz⁹⁸ 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable enough. NawlinWiki 12:04, 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 Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperative Reaction

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources, hasn't charted or been otherwise recognized, too many redlinks, fails WP:BAND. Realkyhick 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're touring with the apparently notable VNV Nation. They're pretty small-time still, but notable. Ventifax 07:00, 2 April 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]

Weak Keep has no external sources, but seem to have released enough albums on a decent label to pass WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 4--Dacium 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't even need to be weak -- criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC states that they have to have at least two releases on an important indie label, and this band has three. Rockstar915 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with previous poster. furthermore I'd suggest that an 'expand' or 'citation needed' tag have been place on the article before it was listed here. It is, I think, more constructive than slapping an AfD on it before any discussion takes place. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:59, 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 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

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]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --RFBailey 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More Balazsy spam. Realkyhick 04:03, 29 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]

Keep as per Pbpix's point. Ventifax 22:25, 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]

comment There should be an article, but this content is not appropriate. Stubbify, perhaps.
Keep Describing something is not a how-to. Stubify Fugi Transfer as it is unsourced.--Dacium 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Ben 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point made by Pbpix. Besides this process has received numerous non-trivial revues in photographic magazines. Alf^Photoman 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - both need a major rewrite but appear to describe a plausible technique. I think a 'citation needed' and/or 'expand' tag would have been a more constructive way to go first. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:04, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:46Z

Florida Trail Riders

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]

Keep and expand. I just cleaned up and removed schedule per Wikipedia is not a mirror. — Indon (reply) — 15:18, 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]

Weak Keep Tag for sources required, they are needed to establish the claimed notibility--Dacium 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. Sources, please, but notability is there, barely. Realkyhick 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because sufficient sources seem to exist, they just need to be cited. --W.marsh 21:12, 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. --Core desat 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungrykids

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]

Delete per nom, see also the Brad Hines afd. I get 74 unique Google hits, and a number of those aren't relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 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]

Delete Not notable. See WP:ORG--Dacium 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - well designed website but seems to be an empty shell of an organization. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Brad Hines link. Realkyhick 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG --Infrangible 01:51, 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. --Core desat 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegarth

Nonnotable per WP:ORG, no reliable sources about information Eyrian 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable game. YechielMan 18:43, 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]

Delete Fails WP:N WP:ORG. No sources outside of itself.--Dacium 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no independent sources. Realkyhick 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 00:25, 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 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

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]

Keep but needs major cleaning - it passes the (unscientific) "I'd already heard of her" test which makes me think she probably is notable enough, but this reads like it's been copied from press releases. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:33, 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]

Keep but needs work - Again, I am not sure why the wait between an 'expand' tag and AfD was only 20 minutes but at least someone had an attempt at alerting the author. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:09, 8 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. --Core desat 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realtravel

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]

Keep Media mentions seem non trivial and enough to show notibility.--Dacium 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertising, lists fake sources/interwiki links +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Hexagon1 nailed it. Realkyhick 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The USA Today article cited appears to make absolutely no mention of the site. --Infrangible 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked, sources accurate; USA article has company reference as 2 words.Talkterms 06:59, 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 Merge to Conscription in the United States. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:47Z

Poverty Draft

Completing malformed nomination. No reason given. — ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Conscription in the United States mi km 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Werth mentioning as per Mikm--Dacium 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Worth a mention, but not its own article. Realkyhick 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced enough, can be best handled in the context of a longer article.-- danntm ^T _C 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have heard this general claim (that the military targets poorer people) many times but I have never seen any evidence to support it (that includes the highly tendentious links the article provides). From what I have read the military remains predominately middle-class. Allon Fambrizzi 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizz[reply]
Delete Unsourced and POV. Dman727 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to one of the other articles mentioned above. Bearian 23:49, 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.--Wizardman 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand tennis

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]

Delete - as textbook as can be. --Haemo 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Mhking 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as an act of kindness and delete - per above. Metamagician3000 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedily as nonsense. I don't think we even owe the creator an act of kindness -- they need a lesson that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some place to post schoolhouse pranks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy for this, obviously made up in school one day.--Dacium 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, no doubt here. Could have even gone for speedy delete. Poeloq 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely falls under that category of not for things made up at school. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must have missed the ESPN2 coverage of the Champion's Cup last week. A bit humorous, this one, written as if it were a professioal sport, but a good laugh is not a good reason for an article. Delete per above, stuff made up in school. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Seed 2.0 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it shows up on ESPN8 someday. Realkyhick 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A humorous article, albeit it alls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day. --Concordia 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 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 delete. Hu12 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldro Ball

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]

Delete, nom says it all mi km 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notibility. Not verifiable. No reliable sources.--Dacium 04:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some schoolkids have too much time on their hands. Realkyhick 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no ghits but the page itself, goes right out and announces itself as something made up in school one day. I'll be happy to change my mind if someone shows me proof that "there are only two international federations in development, Egypt and Denmark", but I don't think that's going to happen. Pinball22 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. > Kamope < 01:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Hallowed ripples" of a swimming pool... almost qualifies for BJAODN, but not quite. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 02:42, 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. Hu12 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station Road, Dunstable

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of minor streets, fails notability Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 03:23, 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]

Delete Unless can be shown to pass WP:50k--Dacium 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN road in small place, very unencyplopedic entry. Poeloq 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:41, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (author blanked the page). Stifle (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles winston

Hoax. No ghits. -- RHaworth 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom mi km 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless sources magically appear Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX--Dacium 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Make it disappear into "the misty wood." Realkyhick 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hoax Improbcat 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked page, giving weight to the hoax argument. I say this AfD get snowed Improbcat 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proabable hoax. Ab e g92contribs 16:40, 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. --Core desat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Crying

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]

Delete per no original research, I could not find any evidence of this phenomenon Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, not verifiable since no sources.--Dacium 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a Monty Python bit? Realkyhick 17:45, 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 Merge to East Dunbartonshire. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:48Z

Tom Johnston House

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

“

Tom Johnston House is the administrative centre for East Dunbartonshire Council, located in Kirkintilloch.

”

Mike 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. ~~Speedy delete~~ as CSD A1 (context) since it doesn't really say anything, or perhaps CSD G3 (vandalism) since it seems to exist "in your ass". --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The version of the article that is under AFD is the result of vandalism. Mind you, the earliest non-vandal version is an unreferenced stub with a very weak implication of notability. -- Whpq 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I guess I should look through the history more often. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the vandalism, but I'm still not convinced about the notability of the house. Is it a historic structure, or is it just a modern city hall (like Image:Bloomingtontownhall.jpg)? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:52, 30 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]

Merge into East Dunbartonshire (which is a desperately stubby article) and leave this as a redirect. -- RHaworth 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhaworth. May not be notable unto itself. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thomas Johnston. I think most people would be interested in the man, not the building. Cloveoil 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to East Dunbartonshire and/or Thomas Johnston. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 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 delete. --Core desat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA

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]

Delete: Per nom -- non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 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]

Yeah, I remember this one, and was originally a keeper - but the article's improvements haven't come to standard, which is kind of a bummer. Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No improvement since the last AfD and likely none forthcoming. I'm still a little dubious on the idea of articles for housing developments ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see a rationale - in this case, architecture reminiscent of The Shire in the LOTR novels merged into a housing development. Vaguely notable unto itself, but nowhere near enough for here. --Dennisthe2 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author has gone away, and so should this article. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I !voted delete last time, and there's absolutely nothing presented to change my mind. -- Kicking222 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' housing developments are rarely notable, and we gave it a good chance.-- danntm ^T _C 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't mean to tell me that sticking a cleanup notice at the top of an article doesn't guarantee reform! The first keep was improvidently granted to begin with, notwithstanding some optimists' visions of an encyclopedia-quality article lurking in the shades. Pop Secret 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per Arkyan. The previous decision was to keep only so that the author could be given the chance to improve it. Chance not taken. Goodbye. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 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 delete. --Core desat 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows

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]

Delete Non-notable. That was easy. MrMacMan 06:36, 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to tout notability, and we are not Freshmeat or Sourceforge. --Dennisthe2 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no standard for software (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) but it doesnt pass general standards like notibility or reliable external sources--Dacium 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hits are no substitute for proper attribution. All the external links are self-referential and the article borders on being promotional. All of the edits since the last AfD have made it more spammy if anything and have done nothing to resolve concerns of prior AfD nominations. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like Spam Lite. Realkyhick 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Do NOT Delete. Article about a popular and innovative technology. The content is technical and educational. If articles like Adobe Flash are allowed than Bindows should be allowed as well. ronm4321 17:54, 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  ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bindows have an animal book? --Dennisthe2 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Arkyan and lack of sources. Wikipedia isn't Sourceforge. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 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 delete. --Core desat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paza Rahm

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]

Delete. Not notable per WP:MUSIC. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:05, 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) 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC failure--Dacium 04:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Poeloq 09:03, 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

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]

Delete. Non-notable in wiki sense; might become so if the trial brings out some startling new information. Delete; re-create if becomes notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 13:47, 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) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs rewrite and Wiki-fixing. Realkyhick 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Springnuts. This is a minor news item that would be more appropriate for wikinews. The links are very likely to go dead soon - the one in the article already has. Re-create if something notable develops during the trial.--Kubigula (talk) 20:45, 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. --Core desat 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White noise magazine

Seems to be about these guys. Appears to fail notability for web content Pekaje 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not follow Internet Notability also lacks verifiable information and sources. ZBrannigan 02:18, 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) 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable web site. Realkyhick 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N WP:V. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Seed 2.0 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contorts

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

Delete Neo! Hayastan 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition or Neologism, neither of which have a place here. Doesn't even have a source, and I wish good luck to anyone trying to google "contorts" without stumbling across gymnasitc-themed porn. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a legal type is needed to tell us whether this is (or was) very significant, but it seems to be notable. I found numerous scholarly discussions with well-chosen google terms (contorts+contracts+torts yields 800+). It's well-described here and here. In any case, the claim of original research is incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 28 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]

Conditional Keep, and call for peer review. It's very much neologism flavored, and may be legal jargon, but it would be more appropriate (per Dhartung, above) for some legal types to come in and review. --Dennisthe2 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep assuming sources are added, as it seems they can be. DGG 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't care for some of the formatting choices the author has made, the term is genuinely used among contract scholars. Google "contorts"+"promissory estoppel" to see the legitimacy of the term. Pop Secret 10:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations added. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ourei Harada

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

Delete I see no assertion of notability. Not every performer qualifies for an article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular gravure (bikini) idol in Japan and in the US. The article needs to be fleshed out, but I see no reason for deletion.Haddub 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she is, good, then the article should be kept. But we need the text to say this and the sources to back that text up. Picaroon 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harada Ourei is a very notable gravure idol. Many products concerning her are available on J-list[2], cd-japan[3] and other websites where they sell extremely well. She has a proportionate amount of English speaking fans via the internet, which can be assumed from doing a google search on her name[4]. Many popular blogs have posted articles about her, like JapanSugoi [5].

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]

Weak Keep - weird! (the things you read about at AfD....). Satisfies notability. Article does need some help though and was tagged early on. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:29, 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 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 Train^{take 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.

Delete - At this point the unwikified article has had 6 months. If no one wants to take responsibility for making this a verifiable encyclopedic article, can it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tractor, not only WP:IVEHEARDOFIT, but a band championed by John Peel and signed to his Dandelion Records label really ought to be not only notable but sourceable; that they apparently have an AMG entry is a good sign. That said, if it's a copyvio delete without prejudice to recreation. --kingboyk 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless citations are added. With the massive amount of articles on the Wikipedia, there really is no time for "keep to allow a chance to find citations" and similar arguments. See also TonytheTiger's argument. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we're all missing the point of Wikipedia. Sure, the article needs cleaning. And if I have to do it, I have to do it. But the argument "this band fulfills WP:MUSIC, there exist numerous verifiable sources, but there's too many articles on Wikipedia already so it might not get cleaned up" is not appropriate. If something deserves to be on Wikipedia, for God's sake, keep the article and clean it up. Rockstar915 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tractor is a real band. The article may need to be cleaned up but not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jembay (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep if citations added before end of AfD, otherwise Delete per WP:Music. If article is to be kept it needs a lot of work. A1octopus 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep but needs a cleanup. Is this any less notable than an article on single Southpark episode? (And I watch southpark too...) However the tags have been there awhile...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:35, 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. --Core desat 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church

Non-notable church. Author effectively admits to it here. -- RHaworth 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says it all, link says more. --Dennisthe2 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dennisthe2 Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally support any article on a religion no matter how small, but a proposed religion is NN.DGG 02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure it's proposed - it seems to have been around for a while. Perhaps they're being too humble? =^^= --Dennisthe2 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and author's admission. Maxamegalon2000 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. direct author to add when it has become notable! Rimmeraj 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now separately nominated their humanitarian branch, the Good Service Network. -- RHaworth 07:44, 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. --Core desat 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Goetz

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]

Delete Unsourced, likely hoax. --SubSeven 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, only ghits are myspace and utube videos as far as I can see. Agree with nom and Seicer. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I used a few other search engines to verify the Google search results and it's basically more of the same. Seed 2.0 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 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]
- Comment I just tagged it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 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]

Comment. I'm a little worried about Stifle's familiarity with WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 17:34, 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]
- Comment. Per my research, it looks like this article is named incorrectly. It should probably either be "!Tchkung!" or simply "Tchkung!" Rockstar915 17:41, 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. --Core desat 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language names for Chinese people

(not a vote)Original research, to classify ethnic slurs for Chinese. `'mikka 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Neutral~~ After a more careful reading I am not so sure about my initial impression about the article. `'mikka 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid topic. More encyclopedic than numerous separate slurs. `'mikka 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? So why not delete List of ethnic slurs and List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity? This is not an "encyclopedic" article, but one written to undermine other encyclopedia articles, and it was ONLY CREATED in order to try and force a merge on the Chinaman article, which is about a lot more than ethnic slurs. The pretense that it was created for ANY OTHER REASON is just that, pretense.Skookum1 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what? I was thinking about this, too. But I am sure they will be outvoted to stay, so I didn't bother to waste wikipedian's time. `'mikka 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly, and wasting wikipedians' time is what Uncle G has done with the creation of this "article" (it's really a tract).Skookum1 17:13, 6 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]
- Comment: Many of these names are already listed on List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#East_Asian_descent. — ERcheck (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the words are legitimate. Read the article, which tells you exactly that, as do the cited sources. These words are not necessarily slurs, as both the article and the sources tell you. Uncle G 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the autonomy of articles like Chink and Chinaman and all the many other listed and linked on List of ethnic slurs is well-established. The implication of his argument re the Chinaman merger and his own highly Original research article is that ALL the items on List of ethnic slurs reduced to entries on his ethnic-specific page, and ALL those articles should be merged to parallel articles for other ethnicity slurs/names? Is there a WP essay on "reinventing the wheel"? If not, there should be (also one about putting down tirebelts, which is what this article and its "mergist" agenda is all about. He's not wanting this to be an encyclopedia, but a tract.Skookum1 15:42, 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]
      - 1. I did not claim that your motive is anything other than what you actually said. Yes, you believe that Chink and Chinaman are duplicate articles that should be merged, and English language names for Chinese people is an attempt to do so. Others disagree, however, and overwhelmingly opposed such a merger. I wouldn't describe the creation of English language names for Chinese people as a bad-faith act, but it was a consensus-defying act.
        2. I could easily combine information about apples and oranges to create a new article called Fruits commonly referenced idiomatically. That doesn't mean that apples and oranges are "a single subject" and their articles should be merged. —David Levy 17:25, 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]
- Comment Your position opens the door for articles such as Terms for Italian people in English, Terms for Muslims in English, Terms for Irish people in English. And, last but not least, Terms for non-Chinese in Chinese ("English" doesn't work there for obvious reasons). Is Wikipedia really the right forum to list and popularize pages that largely serve to divide and hate-monger (remember Canadian slang before it was deleted?).Skookum1 03:58, 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]
    - Wrong. This article is part of that same discussion, demonstrating my argument that there's one single subject here. Uncle G 11:17, 4 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]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. `'mikka 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is - Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Also see WP:Lederhosen. Jörg Vogt 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be suggesting that analysis sourced from secondary source books is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. You'll find that that quite the contrary is the case, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Rather, it is original lexicographic analyses performed by Wikipedia editors directly that is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, as per our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policies. Uncle G 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No that's not what I am saying at all. Please do not divert discussion towards such semantics. Consider my lederhosen.Jörg Vogt 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Our policies and guidelines, and how they apply, is exactly what we should be discussing here at AFD. Uncle G 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Maybe you shouldn't be wearing your lederhosen when working on Wikipedia, then? :-).Skookum1 04:10, 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]
      - "the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled in response to the aggressive edit war caused by his interference and obfuscatory questions and wheedling". Once again: Please stop. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How very typical of you to post a link that doesn't go to what you've titled it......deception and misdirection from you we're getting use to, those of us who know your negative and interferential track record at Talk:Chinaman. To other editors/readers: The actual link to the materials which myself, Zeus1234, and Keefer4 compiled is HERE, not where Uncle G wants to send you, which is to another passage on THIS page (which everyone has already read, Uncle G, and don't need your help). The REAL link that should be there is what you hate and want to have wiped off the record; but it's all web references, all out there in the public eye, despite your one-sided attempts to pick and choose evidence which suits your one-note agenda. It should also be noted that I didn't title that page "Skookum1's Resources", that was done by User:Xiner and IMO should have had a less personal sandbox name because other editors contributed to its contents, even before Xiner created it in order to move the mounting evidence against the case being foisted by Uncle G et al.Skookum1 07:34, 4 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]
- The emboldened word says "delete", but your actual rationale says "keep and merge". Uncle G 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you are misrepresenting what Hong is saying too; here's your own words to eat, I suggest with an nice bitter chili sauce: "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." (quoted from above). Hong chose to vote "delete". He did not vote to "keep and merge" - although you'd certainly like him to.Skookum1 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - HongQiGong's stated rationale is that the content belongs in Chinese people. That's a rationale for keeping and merging. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're not really capable of letting Hong speak for himself, are you? The equation Chinese people=Chinaman is also spurious, and was also shot down on Talk:Chinaman, just as also your attempt to equate chink=chinaman, which led to your creation of this article.Skookum1 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is saying chink=chinaman except you. —Cryptic 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you haven't been paying attention; that's EXACTLY what Uncle G tried to maintain on Talk:Chinaman; that we shot him down is why he created this article, which is (now that I know the term) very obviously a POV fork.Skookum1 07:27, 4 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]

Delete. Bad-faith attempt by Uncle G to get around previous deletions. Realkyhick 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for deletion. The article must be judged by its merits, not by author's. `'mikka 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article has no merits that are not already contained in other articles. This is a "bad faith" article, period.Skookum1 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no previous deletions involved here at all, as you can see by looking at the deletion log, so this is hardly an attempt to get around any, of whatever faith. Uncle G 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a POV fork. Author's intentions do indeed play a part in the deletion:

“

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus.

”

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 refrain from distribute the "chill pill" (slang words euphemise harmful poison). Legal repercussion will result.203.27.90.236 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've just made a legal threat, which perhaps accounts for your hiding behind an IP address. This is a blockworthy offense, more than most.....for the record this IP address traces to the Australian Capital Territory.Skookum1 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And PS - I don't think you know the context that JuJube was making; it wasn't a reference to libel chill; a chill pill is sort of a tranquilizer, and not "slang words euphemize harmful poison". A chill pill is a tranquilizer, not a poison. Lies and misdirection are what's poison.Skookum1 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the 'reference to legal repercussion' comment was more like a 'Hey dont give ppl drugs, you might get arrested dude' than an 'I'm gonna sue you bitch' comment. Though its hard to tell, I wish there was a minimum english proficiency requirement for Wikipedia Jörg Vogt 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would exclude about half the native English speakers in the world ;-). At least.Skookum1 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting that there's no article on libel chill....I suppose it must be in Wiktionary, but it seems eminently suitable as an article topic, no?Skookum1 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, I don't even know what "libel chill" is. Some of you really do need to take chill pills. Then I'll throw down a facedown, and that'll be it! ^_^ JuJube 12:39, 4 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]
        Shut up, Skookum1. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I'd imagine you'd like me to "stop" confronting people with the truth that they are so ardently in denial of. See WP:Civil.Skookum1 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only "truth" I see you confronting people with is that you are making personal attacks. Perhaps you, too, should read WP:CIVIL, because it's self-evident by your own actions that you've forgotten how to behave that way. At any rate, I am going to agree to disagree with you, and end my participation in this with my signature. If you like, you can even have the last word! --Dennisthe2 07:07, 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]
        You already said this on another Talk page about 15 minutes ago. On what other Talk pages are you going to announce your exit for the day? Go on and lead your life already. There's sunshine out there to enjoy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You just can't stop making personal snipes, can you, Hong? Taking shots at me when you think I might not be around to answer reminds me of past conduct of yours....and it's grey-bright outside today, not sunny (yet).Skookum1 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole point of my reply was that I know you're still sitting there browsing on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 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]
  - This article, apparently, is not specifically to do with ethnic slurs, however.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So its author claims.....Skookum1 22:30, 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. --Core desat 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freckles (game)

verifiablity problems. Not a single admissible source Mukadderat 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS. Wish I hadn't read this before lunch. Realkyhick 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dear lord... SpookyPig 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I actually did a google search. No hits except wp mirrors. - Aagtbdfoua 00:36, 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 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

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]

Delete, distinct lack of sources and references. Let's have some press or other coverage please. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 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]

Keep assuming some reviews can be found and included. The "UK Symphony Orchestra scene" is a sufficient wide area, DGG 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources (not counting the band's own website) are provided by the time this AfD closes. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 15:40Z
Delete unless an assertion of notability and sources are provided. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, that is if references can be found. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As group, it does nothing to establish any kind of notability. 07:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

55 Squadron ATC

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. — ERcheck (talk) 03:05, 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]

Previous precedent has been to delete these, and I believe it's right. There's certainly nothing inherently significant about an ATC squadron. Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 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 speedy delete, no claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santo caserio

very poorly written article about nn band, fails WP:MUSIC, also WP:VAIN Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - yet another garage band. So tagged. MER-C 09:49, 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 Speedy Delete A7. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday slaves

Poorly written vanity Page SpookyPig 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ZayZayEM 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Vanity articleCoaster Kid 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ab e g92contribs 10:59, 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 delete.--Wizardman 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent School, Inc.

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]

Delete per nominee's statement, and so says Google, twice. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not referenced. SpookyPig 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all schools are considered notable. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even 'saturday schools'? I don't think so - can you point me to the relevant guideline?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a source for that guideline? Vegaswikian 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes no attempt to assert notability and is totally unreferenced. Vegaswikian 02:08, 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. --Core desat 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eikaiwa managers

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]

Delete Soapbox, fails WP:ATT. Information of this sort can probably be found in WP:RS (IIRC, at one point the US State Department published warnings about English cram schools in Korea), but it doesn't really belong on separate "Criticisms of"-style pages like this. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As soon as possible. This kind of article makes wikipedia look like a joke. MightyAtom 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neier 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources provided. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. -- Hoary 03:25, 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 close, procedural keep; if you're going to nominate the lists within these categories, nominate them separately. --Core desat 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  ^(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]
- That's not really a similar situation. I do not think any of us voting above would object to individual lists being nominated separately at AfD. AndyJones 13:09, 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 delete and salt. —Cryptic 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgotten realms

Non-notable Flash cartoon that was previously deleted and re-created Mysdaao 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources which either assert or support notability. --24.68.187.88 07:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. and no sources +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 - it's the third time now it has been recreated. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kincaid

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.

Delete as failing biographical notability - no news articles, no awards... just another porn actress - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Preserve Very inobscure person. Way more notable than a Hollywood extra. Piccadilly 11:54, 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

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]

Delete - NN, WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 21:04, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullenearth

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]

Delete Doesn't seem notable, appears to be promotional. Artw 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:27, 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]

Weak Keep I seems notable to me but it could be promotional and I think it needs work on NPOV.--Joebengo 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reputable third party sources discussing any importance. --Dragonfiend 15:52, 10 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]

Delete nn. Mukadderat 17:13, 13 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. --Core desat 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rum Jungle (band)

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 Ga rr ie 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator, reasons above.Ga rr ie 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. --Core desat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAIN, University of Queensland

Non notable student association.Ga rr ie 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as above.Ga rr ie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. one of hundreds of clubs at the university. Rimmeraj 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable student club. Lankiveil 12:11, 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. --Core desat 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]

Delete. A Google search did find a couple of cases where the phrase was used in this sense, but they were dwarfed by the number of cases where one was talking about either a big sports event or hunting. --Alvestrand 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide to slang. Recury 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete thinly veiled attack page. JuJube 22:47, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:54Z

Upfunk Creek

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

Delete non-notable Ga rr ie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN MySpace band. WP:VSCA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Upfunk Creek features the lyrical genius and engaging delivery of frontman Jamie Beaton, the musical entente of guitarist/vocalist Grant Arthur, salivating grooves from bassist Gene Taylor, slinky tones from keyboardist Laura Altman, slithering skin patting from drummer Mike Solo, and the brilliant, mind-blowingly endearing cuteness of horn players Richard, Steve, Matt and Justin." Yeah. Delete. Lankiveil 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have not created this page to advertise a band that i am a member of. I am a huge fan of this band and for the moment I have just copied what they have written on their myspace and included one of the highlights. I am working on the proper article and will include their entire list of highlights and awards, airplay info, and radio reviews. I request the deletion warning be removed as this is just the layout for the moment.
- Comment, can you please specify how this band meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC? Lankiveil 12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I heard them being described on Triple J as a "fresh discovery" and I personally quite like their music. However, the article must be the contributors original work. Improve or Delete--Trogador20X6 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Triple J calling a new band a "fresh discovery" does not establish notability.--ZayZayEM 06:14, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al_Hidayah

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]

Speedy delete - group of people with no assertion of notability. Also another case of "so what?". So tagged. MER-C 09:42, 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 Err. The nominator is creator of the article, and doesn't seem to have much knowledge of AfD. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. utcursch | talk 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagyoga

Reason:::Vagyoga is a invented technique for grammer of Sanskrit which has its applications in Yoga and Meditation. Several people from all over the world follow this technique. you may please visit to www.vagyoga.com Vagyoga 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above person believes that they are nominating the article to be featured... they seem to be promoting it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed, the nominator certainly doesn't seem to be trying to convince us to delete this! The AfD nomination likely should be closed due to the apparent mixup (and it does seem to at least nominally pass inclusion criteria) but that article is in serious need of cleanup and help, it's messy and confusing. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note there appears to be some mix-up; the article was moved to Gurudeva Vagish Shastri by Redvers and then nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. Currently, however, Gurudeva Vagish Shastri is just a redirect to Vagyoga, and there appear to be two unrelated AfD discussions. (And also User:Vagyoga is not the nominator.) 131.111.8.104 00:45, 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 Redirect to Little Rock School District in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:55Z

Washington Basic Skills Math-Science Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School

Non-notable school, one of many that have nothing distinctive or of wide-scale interest. Delete. Doesn't pass SCHOOLS. - Denny 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:SCHOOLS, is nothing special, no assertion of notability. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:30, 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 speedy delete by Alison as copyvio. WjBscribe 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordeal ritual

Article is completely original research and personal opinion. —dgies^t_c 07:02, 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, though an article on Russian students in the United States or somesuch might be interesting, and if that is created, this can be undeleted and merged. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:59Z

Rodnoi Ugolok

no assertion of notability Chris 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:VSCA. It's most of those - an advertisement, non-notable (a club at a university? of course that deserves an article), and invites readers to join. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:28, 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. Discussion on what else to do with this article can be done on its talk page. --Core desat 03:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of ethnic groups

I am questioning the usefulness of this article/gallery. Galleries should not be welcome on wikipedia and should exist on commons instead.

There is also the matter of weather or not ethnicities can have flags. Flags are symbols of countries. Unless the country claims to exist the verifiability of the Flag is compromised which prompts "original research".

-- Cat ^chi? 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR issues aside, this should probably be renamed to List of cultural flags -- Cat ^chi? 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and page has been boldly renamed to List of cultural flags -- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to include sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question This is a good idea and I agree, but who is going to do this? If it doesn't get done within the timeframe of this AfD, should this comment be considered as a "delete" or a "keep"? As for where to get the sources, many might be found on the Image pages for each flag, but I don't have the time to do this myself. Finally, this follow-up should not be construed as criticism of Hexagon1's comment. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone interested and dedicated enough will surely come by and try to help if a {{sources}} template is placed there. If there are no improvements in a significant timeframe, let's say 9 months, then it can be relisted. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think this could be a useful page if it is suitably referenced. Thunderwing 09:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the article's many contributors receive courtesy notifications as recommended by the AfD procedure. From looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of ethnic groups, this doesn't appear to have been done. The nominator's original research concern is a valid one (who decides on official flags for unofficial groupings) but I think that's more of an editorial issue than a deletion issue.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notion of "Flags of ethnic groups" falls under Original Research. The LGB flag is widely used but it is not universal. Flags of countries represent large groups of ethnic peoples. The german flag represents the majority of the German ethnicity but not some Germans (such as the ones that live in the US with US-only citizenship) -- Cat ^chi? 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, notification is not a requirement, it is a courtesy, and is not a reason to halt an AFD. Second, flags most certainly predate the modern notion of the nation-state extant since the Peace of Westphalia, and many entities that are not countries have flags, ranging from the UN to subnational groups including states and cities, and private entities as well. It would probably be better to use this article to list the articles on ethnic group flags that are in Wikipedia. Galleries are indeed now deprecated to commons. --Dhartung | Talk 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True re: courtesy notifications, but I think they help the AfD process in terms of making a good decision for Wikipedia's purposes. They also help morale and improve the perception of fairness and openness; they're something I always do when nominating an article for AfD. Finally, multiple editors have cited the need for references and concerns about original research; the existing contributors probably are the ones that would do the work and know where some of the sources are if the article is kept. As for the galleries question, that would extend beyond this page to a number of similar articles -- see Category:Ethnic flags and Category:Lists of flags. I wonder if anybody has looked at a strategy for this whole issue you've raised? I see there's a WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology; I'll post a note there. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on notification: The AfD nomination procedure is very specific on edit summaries -- no edit summary was used when this article was tagged for deletion, so nobody with this article on their watchlist knows of this AfD. I note that dozens of different editors have made over 150 edits to the article and over 30 to the talk page with no mention anywhere of a need to delete this article. I'm not trying to be difficult or critical here but I do want to see the right outcome for this AfD, whatever that turns out to be. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ethnic groups are usually not legal entities which is the prerequisite for the use of a flag. In some cases the flags in this category might be used generally recognized entities, but those would then belong in a different article.--Caranorn 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. As a gallery, it does not belong here and should be transwiki'd to Commons. As a list, it should indeed be kept, with sources included. Flags are not only symbols of countries, and it is nonsense to say they only exist for legal entities. When there is not a legal entity, there might be more ambiguity about whether it is fair to say a particular flag is the flag of a group, but this does not make the questions of OR and NPOV any harder than many topics on Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure organizations can also have flags. Red Cross has a flag. I am not saying ethnicities cant have flags. Ethnicities cant have official flags. Basically I or anyone can design a flag for my favorite ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if only you use the flag you design, it wouldn't be notable enough to be included. However, if it is more notable, then lack of official status (and some of these do have official status in one sense or another), is a reason not to describe the flag as an official flag, not a reason not to document the flag at all. JPD (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does me designing a flag or someone else matter? If the flag is notable - it will be notable for other reasons than representing ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you get a WP:RS to say its the flag of that ethnic group, it goes in WP, remember we work on reliable sources, not any objective truth here. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the flag may go to the article of the ethnic people. But putting them in a gallery like this makes it look like these flags represent an ethnicity universally. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree wholeheartedly with JPD above. Lexicon (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This, like the other flag galleries on Wikipedia, is a useful vexillological resource — much more useful than a list of text entries would be. In terms of adding sources, I question the usefulness or need of adding them to this article -- essentially an illustrated list. Instead, should they not be included on the article for the flag, or if it has no article, with on the flag image page itself? --ScottMainwaring 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition of providing references/sources to document the adoption of the flag or its history. Acadiana is an example of this being done, a short description "adopted by the Louisiana legislature" would be how I'd put it on the page. The question of what to do about a gallery of flags is not too convincing to me, I think such is appropriate for an Encyclopedia, but if not, let's start here instead. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source it's certainly a good start of an article and if fully referenced would appear to meet all criteria for inclusion at WP. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a collection of original research. --Pejman47 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain what you mean? A lack of sources does not equal original research, and I know several of the flags could be sourced. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just sourced a few of them. More to follow, just a matter of finding the cites. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that some sort of recognized organization has indeed adopted these flags as representative of said organization. Citations can be shown for the adoption of a flag as representative by a government, corporation, or other organization. How does an ethnicity adopt a flag? And how does one determine the official representative group for said ethnicity in the event of conflicting claims? Jim Miller 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern, while a reasonable concern on the subject of individual entries, doesn't mean there is a problem with the page. Several of the entries could be sourced to recognition by official governments (such as is the case of the Acadians I already mentioned), others might qualify by common recognition (if a bunch of sources say "This is what People X consider their ethnic flag" who are we to argue?). So, I think you might want to revise your delete statement. FrozenPurpleCube 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this last night, and just re-read this "article". It is not an article at all. It is a gallery, as noted in the original RfD. It might be fine as a category. If someone were to actually write something, I would suggest it is an article, but it currently has zero content. I maintain my opinion of Delete given that there really is no article here at all that discusses "Flags of ethnic groups". It's a list or a gallery, and fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Jim Miller 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction between gallery/article here as needless, presenting this information in visual form is quite reasonable, but if you for some reason think it needs more information on the page, that's a trivial addition already done on a couple of pages. See the category for examples. That's more of a content issue though, than a problem with the subject of the article itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect that some of these are thingsmadeuponeday on the basis of logic not actual use, but this is for the talk page of the article. Some of the individual items may be OR but not the page as a whole. DGG 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make sure the flag is well referenced and is notable (either by having gotten publicity, or by being the official symbol of a group (whether recognised as a government is not relevant) that clearly has notability). ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a symbol of an organization rather than ethnicity? We would need a source that the flag universaly represents an ethnicity. -- Cat ^chi? 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have a point. I'd be fine with your proposed move to List of cultural flags... in fact why not be bold, do that, and withdraw the nomination? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason for deletion.Biophys 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Caranorn. This stuff belongs to Commons, it is not even a list, is full of OR, open to abuse of all sorts and edit-wars. Take all that stuff to Commons.. Baristarim 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Commons does not need edit wars either, thanks very much. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Pointless and inane to have this sort of article in an encyclopedia. Ugh. metaspheres 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly! This is useful and interesting. I made a Coptic keyboard and used the Coptic flag as an icon. I corroborated it with an external source. No reason to delete this. -- Evertype·✆ 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a list of flags of the member states of the UN encyclopedic? Yes, I've never seen an encyclopedia that didn't have a list of such flags. This list has a different scope but the idea is the same. It just needs many more references. "List of cultural flags" sounds like a decent title. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:52, 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 Delete non notable club as per past AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECA Football Club

Non-notable Sunday league football team that play in a public park. Past precedent on Wikipedia is that these teams are very much non-notable (e.g. #1, #2).

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Colquhoun. Qwghlm 08:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Placidcasual345 10:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Sunday League team. Tangerines 20:53, 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. WP:SNOW. Literally something made up by a schoolboy one day. kingboyk 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Vestria

Alleged micronation. Lack of references suggests that it is merely something made up in school one day. -- RHaworth 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One cannot simply claim that "I am a separate country" and expect to be accepted as notable. Agree with the nominator's concern over lack of referencing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Look at how few Google hits there are, none of which are related. Not only that, but the information in it is wrong- it has claimed a large segment of another country as its own. We need to delete this (and I would say all traces of it, but there are none) from Wikipedia. In fact, I reckon it would pass as a non notable group, so speedy delete if anyone else thinks it passes. J Milburn 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete made-up fake country, no sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFT and WP:CB. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:26, 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. These "has >N links to arbitrary news sources" comments are weak. Sure, it has those. Do they establish encyclopedic notability, and if so, how? Do they demonstrate that the article meets the guidelines/policies, or is there are there reason(s) for making exceptions to them? The deleters, otoh, are firmly rooted in references to WP:MUSIC. -Splash - tk 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giddy-up, helicopter!

Contest prod so brought here for procedure. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I AfD'd this for procedure after a prod was deleted. I think it's borderline at this stage as to whether it meets WP:BAND - they do get 336 Ghits with a fair bit of press coverage. (Since nomination I've added a couple of references to the article to give it multiple non-trivial published sources.) Also, the original nominator (172.147.54.62) looks like it may be a single purpose sockpuppet as their (single day) edit history seems to consist entirely of prods, {{context}} tagging & adding "uncategorised" to articles, whilst their original {{prod}} notice has a whiff of bad faith about it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the sources cited, but could definately do with a cleanup. No lead paragraph, needs to sort out capitalisation, that picture is somewhat invasive, and further categorisation would be nice, among other things J Milburn 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing as it's his/her first full article, I've told the creator that if it gets kept I'll go through it and clean it up - but no point doing it if it only has four days to live. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I am the one that originally prod'd the page because I felt, and still do, that it is a non notable band. The article may be drastically improve since it's initial posting but a good article on a non notable band isn't really the issue. The issue is really rather or not the band deserves a page on Wiki regardless of the quality of the article. And so far, nothing I have seen has shown that this band is "Wiki Worthy." 172.133.130.59 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.133.130.59, see the message I've left on my talk page re this (presumably no point leaving on yours if AOL is playing their old serverhopping game). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the bottom part of the article: "CMJ music festival accepted them to play in New York but then took it back; they now want revenge and a solid summer tour." That is why I said get revenge on original prod. But still, further proof this article is partly a joke to them! 172.147.143.182 03:21, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of anything else, they don't pass WP:MUSIC at the moment. No prejudice to recreation if/when they do. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Keep. Multiple press sources. Ab e g92contribs 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC for the moment. If they're signed to a notable label and get a couple of records out, then we'll talk, but right now, I don't feel they meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, edging toward indie-level notability, but not there yet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 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 Redirect to Raheny. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:00Z

Raheny Business Association

Non-notable local organisation for a small portion of one city StuartDouglas 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, only notable in a very small area. Does not provide a lot of info as to why it needs an article, but it does have a source or two. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:23, 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. --Core desat 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hebewebe

Nearly every sentence in this article has at least one thing wrong with it. An annonymous IP took the proposed deletion tag down without discussing why. -Haikon 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No decent sources, but it certainly does seem to be in use, in various forms ('Hebewebe', 'HebeWebe' and especially 'HeBeWeBe') Perhaps it would work best as a redirect to Martin Luther King Day? I think Wikipedia is not a dictionary covers this. J Milburn 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, poorly written, if it's deemed to be notable enough it should be on Wiktionary, not here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statement, "It's origins are unknown by this author." indicates a problem with WP:V. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:25, 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 08:01Z

Servants For Haiti

Fails WP:V, 4 non-wiki ghits. Only sources are self-published. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, no press comment, notability is questionable. EdJohnston 22:23, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPGds

Non-notable software. I'm unable to find any secondary, reliable sources to verify any of the content in the article, and, as the article has remained tagged {{primarysources}} since November 2006, neither has anyone else. —Cryptic 10:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason to delete this. You can verify by visiting the website. http://www.rpgds.com/ --Darth Borehd 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "secondary" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? —Cryptic 01:10, 7 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) 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from being completely NN, according to the article it's still in Beta test. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a beta test and that is certainly not notable.--Joebengo 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it sheds beta status and actually has some coverage outside of the project. Once the program is mature enough, I guess that won't be a problem at that point, right now it might be... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This project has been in "beta" for years, now. If I recall correctly, it's essentially a try at a freeware version of RPG Maker 2000. Lack of sources means that this article lacks the required verification needed to remain. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:13, 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.

Closure overturned to Delete by unanimous DRV. Xoloz 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Drop shipping. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:10Z

Doba (company)

I originally speedily deleted this article under criteria G11 (as it was tagged) and A7. The article's author objected so I have restored it and brought it here for wider consideration. cj | talk 10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like an A7 to me, too. —Cryptic 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search makes it look to me like this may well be notable. Have a look at this, was an interesting read. Lots of Google hits, hard to know if any of them confer notability though. Seem to be some reviews around- this and this are two good examples. I would say that, in its current state, it is perhaps speediable, but, as a subject, probably isn't. Can't really tell if it should be kept- there are a lot of mentions, it is just not awfully easy to find any very reliable ones. J Milburn 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company has a well know status through out several communities seen by doing a search at Google or Yahoo. A look at the Alexa rating does provide some incite (while limited) to the status of the company too. The CEO, Jeremy Hanks, has helped author a couple of books as well see the main one. A look at inventory.overture.com also shows the name Doba receives a substantial amount of search traffic. Another look at search results on Google and Yahoo shows that lots of other companies (including eBay) are paying to show up on for this search term. And as Milburn noted there have been some reviews and other news articles written reguarding the company. The answer isn't going to obvious I guess, but it does not seem to be clear enough to make a deletion decision. Ryskis 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a barn burner, here....however, online visibility doesn't necessarily assume notability. See entries at RipoffReport for substantial entries, and/or feedback posted here. Affiliate links and/or paid traffic isn't proof of notability, either. This appears to be a G11 entry. Rec'd AFD. --LeroyWilkins 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a G11 or A7. Reading the content of the article makes it seem like a far stretch to say that this is blatant advertising. The content is more biographical and unbiased than any advertising speak. Hirank 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be biographical, but autobiographical, which would qualify for deletion. See reference to Conflict of Interest--LeroyWilkins 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leroy, I disagree with you on this one. This doesn't seem "autobiographical" to me. And in any case Leroy, autobiographical isn't a valid reason for deletion, even if it was. You can reference the criteria for deletion page: Criteria for Deletion Hirank 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See the following entries within Conflict of Interest: 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. This article violates numerous conditions for entry (as previously mentioned), at least three so far. --LeroyWilkins 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. - Aagtbdfoua 00:29, 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. --Core desat 05:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terraworld Online

Non-notable online game. It garners 599 ghits (120 unique), but they're rife with topsites, forums, and unedited, fan-created "review" sites like Gameogre; I'm unable to find any secondary, reliable sources at all in order to verify any of the content of the article. As the article has remained tagged {{primarysources}} since December 2006, neither, it seems, can anyone else. —Cryptic 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Delete per nominator's reasoning. Highly unlikely that any reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons listed above, but also note that the only reference sourced in the article is a link to a store where you can buy in-game items. --Dariusk 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources citing its notability. --Scottie_theNerd 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nomination. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:40, 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, though if an article about a category of MMOs such as this that isn't too broad were created, it could be a good merge target. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:13Z

Tactics Arena Online

Non-notable online game. It gets ~27000 ghits, but I can't find any that aren't directory entries, fansites, and forum posts, none of which are the sort of reliable source we need in order to justify an article here. The article as it stands cites only primary sources, and has been so tagged since December 2006; I suspect legitimate secondary sources don't exist. —Cryptic

Delete: Finding decent sources for obscure MMOs is not easy, but I suspect that there are none for this. They are all just too short- too trivial, and they all just copy off one another. If someone can find sources, then keep. J Milburn 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 14:01, 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 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanised Convulsions

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. No hits, tours or awards and no 3rd-party commentary. EdJohnston 22:20, 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) 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, can't find any reliable sources (looked on a couple of subscription engines too). Orderinchaos 08:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources and fails notablity of WP:MUSIC--Joebengo 18:21, 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. --Core desat 05:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Moorjani

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

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

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

I do not believe this person to be sufficiently notable to need a Wikipedia article. FisherQueen (Talk) 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just as dying is not criteria for notability, neither is not dying. I can see her becoming notable, but a couple of websites documenting her recovery isn't enough. I don't like the way the article is written, either- not sure what it is, it reads too much like a charity leaflet, or a poster trying to make you join a church. J Milburn 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have put notifications on the talk pages of the three major contributors to the article. I would have thought it a good idea to approach these relatively new editors with some kind of explanation, and so did it myself. Shenme 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I feel that her story is noteworthy, and worthy of being here. She is not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything. Merely provide information to a phenomena that is already written about on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2007— Doctorko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I am not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything, I am merely trying to provide information about a subject that is already written about on Wikipedia (by expanding articles on Wikipedia). Why do I not get an article? In short, your argument makes no sense. The stories are not about her, but about her near-death experience- you could argue that they were, in fact, about her doctors. Perhaps she deserves a mention in a larger article somewhere, but unless she is notable beyond her experience (perhaps through her consultant work) then this article should go. It is also rather POVish. Phrases like "truly an inspirational" and "most sought after motivational speakers" just aren't helping this article's case. J Milburn 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This lady is fast becoming very noteworthy in this part of Asia. (And we in Asia have started to rely on Wikipedia more and more). Perhaps if we can edit her story to meet your standards, you would consider leaving it in? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2007— Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment:I notice the wikipedia entry for Anita Moorjani coming up near the top on the google search. It looks like there is a lot of demand for information on her, as her google hits have also gone up dramatically just over the last few months. It would be great if she could be kept in wikipedia, perhaps with just a bit of editing of the article. She has been on the radio in Hong Kong several times, she has come out in many press publications throughout Asia, as well as many internet news articles. It would sure be appreciated from us on this side of the planet! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Indigo lady (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2007— Indigo lady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you add links to the internet news articles to the article, that would help. Recury 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and any possibly salvageable content be merged into Near-death experience (examples of famous NDEs? I dunno...). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being sucha novice in using wikipedia. But we have added the links to the story showing the various publications where Anita has appeared. She is still being interviewed by more publications as we speak. Sorry for not adding my signature previously. Indigo lady 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) — Indigo lady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, the sources added demonstrate notability. Recury 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe her experience merits having an article. Many people every day recover from seemingly insurmountable odds. Her case is no different and thus no more notable. My other problem lies with how the article is written. It reads like an e-mail chain letter. Anything worth while should be merged into Near death experience.--Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but it needs sterilizing and rebuilding from the ground up. There is an interesting story there (not so much the not dying - I've not died, and I don't have a Wikipedia entry - but the weird career she seems to be building out of it), and she does have the multiple non-trivial etc etc. However, at the moment this article seems to boil down to spam for her website, with a window-dressing of sources to stop it being db'd. And having so many possible sockpuppets involved isn't doing the 'keep' case any favours - obviously, they may well all be genuine but it seems odd that so many people with an interest in the same subject would all create accounts on the same day. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The "sources" attempt establish some borderline notability, but I do have to point out that they are all scans of articles posted on her personal website. Given the newness of the editors involved I will assume good faith and guess that they don't see a problem with this, and for future reference should note that referring to the article itself, preferably with a link to the website if the material is online, is what should be done, and posting information from your own website appears suspect. That said, I do not believe the coverage constitutes enough notability to warrant inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references appear to be promotional material originating with the individual. The article is very promotional in tone. Many people have nearly died but recivered, so that claim in itself is not all ta=hat remarkable, and her claims of mystic revelations are not verifiable. Edison 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the three main contributors all seem to be SPAs, with the original creator being a likely relative. If she turns up worthy in the future, then somebody not directly involved writes the article. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on meeting the formal requirements. I recall some of the recent discussions on sexual fetishes, where the postulated impossibility was used as an arguement. I supported them on the basis that the belief in them or even thought of them was notable, and I guess the same holds here. My reaction would be to delete as commercial spam if not hoax, as she charges HK$150 to hear her speak, which seems incompatible with her claims of newly-attained knowledge of relative insignificance of the material world. But we already have the established justification of "notable hoax" so I suppose we can have the justification of "notable spam." Yes, I did add a comment to the article talk page, and the bare fact to the article DGG 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hello. I just want to comment on the HK$150. That's only about US$20. The money goes to cover costs of the venue, and the promos to announce the event. Anita doesn't get paid for speaking. Hong Kong is a very expensive city. $150 is actually very little. Just thought I'd let you know. THANKS! Morganjeffrey 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
COMMENT If I may just add one more thing - Anita has now been approached by the BBC who are considering making a documentary on her case. Just to let you know something about her - she is very generous with her time and information (while not actually promoting anything). She speaks freely when invited, and has been speaking at Rotary Clubs, various women's groups, etc. Her experience seems to have created a lot of (ongoing) public interest. One suggestion - perhaps if we could be guided as to how to edit the article to meet wikipedia standards, would you consider keeping it? Just a thought. Whichever way, we leave the decision of deletion to your professional editing capabilities. Thanks.Leelawong 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Leelawong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I apologize for excessive POV comments here; what I added to the page itself was neutral. DGG 03:39, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:15Z

Outdoor Cannabis cultivation

Wikipedia is not a How To guide Alex Bakharev 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, we're not a howto guide. Second, the article is written in a POV showing that the author is aware of one very important detail: the primary audience lives in the United States, where it is illegal to even possess marijuana. I could be wrong about my concerns, but I'm under the impression that this alone would put WP in a really bad position. --Dennisthe2 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep per the following discussion. Thanks for the enlightenment. =^^= --Dennisthe2 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This isn't remotely a how-to or recipe, but a technical description of a process; normally I'd support a merge to the main article, but that would make it way too long. Dennisthe2, if you're concerned about describing a possibly illegal act on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't read Heroin manufacturing, Ricin manufacture or Nuclear weapon design in that case. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to grow cannabis, even in the US, but only to grow/sell it without a licence; it's farmed commercially worldwide under licence (mainly to make canvas and for fish bait). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with article below~~ - I agree with iridescenti's reasons for keeping, and I further believe that merging it back into the main article would result in too long an entry. For this reason, I propose a merge, not with the main Cannabis article, but with Indoor Cannabis cultivation (see AfD discussion below) to create a general Cannabis cultivation article (it is currently just a disambig. for these two and another article anyway) with the information from these two current articles as two main sections. Redirects from these two to the cultivation article could then be set in place. Together they can provide a complete and encyclopedic view of the topic, and I don't see the need for two separate articles unless they individually become significantly larger than they now are. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing my vote to Keep due to the discussion below regarding the reason for splitting. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Is it just me, or is both the creators and deltetors forgot there's wikiversity and wikibooks that exist? This is the third time today where I suggest to transwiki to wikibooks! 142.58.101.27 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic there? It's totally inappropriate for Wikibooks. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject and verifiable RaveenS 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.This article includes a lot of interesting information. You must consult with biologists before deleting it.Biophys 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable and certainly not a how-to guide. The legal argument is without substance, as even literature explaining in detail how to grow marijuana is legal to publish and distribute in the USA. See this site for examples. TimVickers 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my comments for the below section. Xanucia 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. this is not an how-to article. Frankly, I thought from the title that it would be, but then I read the article itself. It is an apparently objective description of the cultivation of a notable plant. There is adequate sourcing; there is undoubtedly more available, since only published books were used. As for legality, NPOV is demonstrated as the article specifically discusses this aspect. The existence of the two articles is justified by their length, most of which is specific to the individual method. DGG 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am definitely not an author of the article, I Wikipedia:Split it along with Alternative Cannabis cultivation, and Indoor Cannabis cultivation from Cannabis cultivation. It was marked ready to split, and discussed on the talk page, so I did. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsure why nomination was made, doesn't appear to make reference to any wikipedia policy I can find which allows for deletion. Cloveoil 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete; maybe move all or part of the article to Wikibooks.--dannycas 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a good article, no reason to delete it. It may be more appropriate for wikibooks, but a cannabis cultivation wikibook was already started and then deleted by some guy. If someone else were to start a wikibook (I dont know how things work over there) I would assist in moving things over there for it.
Keep Can't see the reason for deletion here either. Adamantios 21:48, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:16Z

Indoor Cannabis cultivation

Wikipedia is not a how to guide Alex Bakharev 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much of a how-to guide to have on Wikipedia. If it was made into an article about in-door cannabis cultivation (its history, notable growers, etc) and a lot of the how-to stuff was cut back, then maybe, but I can't see that happening. J Milburn 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a howto. I also would like to echo my concerns for containing this information on WP due to the primary audience problem (see the AFD for Outdoor Cannabis cultivation for my concerns). --Dennisthe2 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and per the Outdoor Cannabis cultivation AfD, changing my vote to Keep. --Dennisthe2 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This isn't remotely a how-to or recipe, but a technical description of a process; normally I'd support a merge to the main article, but that would make it way too long. Dennisthe2, if you're concerned about describing a possibly illegal act on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't read Heroin manufacturing, Ricin manufacture or Nuclear weapon design in that case. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to grow cannabis, even in the US, but only to grow/sell it without a licence; it's farmed commercially worldwide under licence (mainly to make canvas and for fish bait). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with article above~~ - See above AfD for full comment, but basically... I propose a merge, with Indoor Cannabis cultivation to create a general Cannabis cultivation article (currently a disambig. for these two and another article) with redirects from these two. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing my vote to Keep due to the discussion below regarding the reason for splitting. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.This article includes a lot of interesting information. You must consult with biologists before deleting it.Biophys 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable. Although the style could be improved it isn't simply a how-to manual. See (see the AFD for Outdoor Cannabis cultivation for my response to legal concerns). TimVickers 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's encyclopedic and informative and therefore suitable material for Wikipedia. Xanucia 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.as above. The existence of the two articles is justified by their length, most of which is specific to the individual method. DGG 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsure why nomination was made, doesn't appear to make reference to any wikipedia policy I can find which allows for deletion. Cloveoil 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, No Merge - I split the articles from Cannabis cultivation for reasons stated on the talk page of Cannabis (drug) cultivation. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete; maybe move all or part of the article to Wikibooks.--dannycas 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup so that it's not a howto. The topic itself is quite clearly one about which a featured article could be written eventually (although I'd bet good money it never will!) Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see the reason for deletion. Adamantios 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this information is actually illegal to propagate in the US. Jtrainor 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely not. It's not illegal to grow cannabis in the US, provided you have a licence (there's even a US Government sponsored cannabis plantation at the University of Mississippi), let alone talk about it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:14, 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 keep Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Batchelor

Non-notable professor with some consultancy work on the side. Pleclech 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, autobiographical, advert, no sources, not even a full biography. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:45, 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) 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named chair at the 2nd-best business-school in the UK, strong research record, stronger record of industry and government panel involvement. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF to me. I wikified the article but didn't change the content much; there's a lot more that could be added from his web page. —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Added later): I ran a Google news archive search and included some results. Now has multiple independent sources per WP:N. —David Eppstein 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs a lot more information and sources to support claim of notibility.--Joebengo 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article seems acceptable. --Eastmain 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior academic and notable author. Piccadilly 11:57, 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 Redirect to NBA Draft; can be un-redirected when more information becomes available. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:18Z

2008 NBA Draft

Nothing can be said of note about the draft until next year that is not POV and crystal-ballism. All of the information on the page is already on NBA Draft Thomas.macmillan 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just also added 2009. 2010 redirects to NBA Draft. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both per crystal ball, redirect them to NBA Draft. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal Ball.... SpookyPig 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Crystal Ball. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I suggest reading: WP:CRYSTAL. This article doesn't violate it at all. The event is certain to occur, the information in the article is verifiable. Broadcast rights and eligibility requirements are not POV. It's a stub now, and that's perfectly appropriate. --JayHenry 19:45, 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 Redirect to Christian IV of Denmark. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:19Z

Christian 4

I propose deleting this page because there is already a far more complete page on Christian IV of Denmark. Boreanesia 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost a test page, duplicate article, badly built, no mergeable content, improperly titled (one does not refer to a monarch like a Terminator sequel). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian IV of Denmark, plausible enough search term.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, obviously. 96T 19:12, 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 Redirect to Choate Rosemary Hall in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:20Z

Edward J. Shanahan

Template fixed Ng.j 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. The school is notable, the Headmaster is not. No real sources, Googletest brings up 500 results for "Edward Shanahan". —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment headmasters of the very few most notable schools can be notable, but there has to be more information. Most people in such positions publish something. DGG 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. - Aagtbdfoua 00:31, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:51Z

Lazy mule

Recipe for tequila shooter. No sources, no assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this probably should have been PRODded. Contravenes most of MoS, uses second person pronouns, NN, is a recipe for goodness' sake. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod was removed by anon IP. I almost deleted it as an a7 speedy, but there's no clear policy on non-notable drinks :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks-Cookbook section. 142.58.101.27 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no indicatation of this drink's notoriety. The inventors don't appear to be notable either. Ar-wiki 20:36, 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 Redirect to Robot kit. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:52Z

Lynxmotion

Delete No encyclopedic value The Talking Mac 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - second person, NN, no sources, pretty much NN. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:25, 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.

Please do not delete this article, it is informative for new users like me who are searching for, companies like lynxmotion which provide some ready made robotic kit.

Also I would like to raise voice againt wikipedias speedy deletion policy, as many a time I have found, you admin's or so called protectors of wikipedia, delete the article which you think is of not any value but for marketing purpose, is wrong attitude and negative approach towards the growth of the wikipedia in long term.

You as single person never know who on the internet is using this posted information in what way, there is infinite way one can utilize the information posted on the wikipedia by some one, I dont think anyone on the earth is perfect enough to judge the utilization of the information posted by someone on the wikipedia, irrespective of the intention of the person who has posted the information.

you guys dont have any right to delete anything posted on the wikipedia by some user, unless it offends something.

I think there should not be any deletion creterion, as this is againt free speech. Only edit and update and additions should be allwed.

There should be very hig creterion to delete something which is once posted on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by San taunk (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Picaroon 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System(anatomy)

Probably made with a typo, orphaned page, for deletion. Snowman 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Redirects for deletion, but maybe it's eligible for speedy? Delete --Dhartung | Talk 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete R3 (implausible typo). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 15:00, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Chaudhuri

Not notable Ng.j 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE - I did not nominate this article, I was simply fixing templates when I came across it. This seems autobiographical, cleary very self promotional, and I'm surprised it has been around so long. --Ng.j 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - autobiographical, promotes subject. Reads like an inspiring profile, but not an article. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiographical and utterly unencyclopedic. An embarassment for us all that it's been around since last year! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promotional flyer. This article has POV problems across the board. Also, the subject does not appear to be very notable. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (Wikipedia is not a directory), but the topic is encyclopedic so a new article is welcome. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:54Z

Restaurants in Jordan

Non-notable page about restaurants in Jordan. I can't even make out what the main feature of the article is to be about. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even a directory, it's a list of restaurants. That's it. --Dennisthe2 15:01, 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 Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:21Z

Divine magic (Dungeons & Dragons)

Unreferenced; near-orphan; game playing minutiae (WP:NOT) kingboyk 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Spells of Dungeons & Dragons page, which already contains most of this infomration, so just redirect may well serve. FrozenPurpleCube 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spells of Dungeons & Dragons. There isn't anything here that isn't said better in that article. Note that the Spells article has a link to this one, and that link should be removed if consensus deletes/merges/redirects it. -- GJD 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete and do not redirect. Seems like a pretty unlikely search term to me. --Iamunknown 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete redirect I'm sure this is on some D&D wiki already so no need to transwiki The Placebo Effect 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect. Contains no information about the subject which isn't covered in Spells of Dungeons & Dragons already, the only real difference is the ability score used and the capability of casting in armor. :P Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 02:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger Per above. - Denny 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:22Z

Micropreneur

Inappropriately listed as a G11 speedy, when not a company. Quite possibly a neologism; sent to AfD for further input. Xoloz 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary or delete - there are a fair few Ghits on it so it may be enough of a genuine word that they'd want it, but it's certainly nothing more than a dicdef. Frankly, I'm amazed it's survived three years. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to be used by this company, and there is a nice article here. I think there could be a good article on this word, but I am not sure whether it would be suited to Wikipedia, or whether it should just have an entry on Wiktionary. J Milburn 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not appear that the creator and substantial editors of this article have been notified about the AfD. [WP:AfD] says that providing such notice is seen as civil. This guidance is often ignored. Providing this notice should be the responsibility of those initiating the deletion process. I will do this myself tomorrow, time permitting, if no one else steps up to do so. Also, I'm not sure of the exact impact here but it seem worth noting that Muhammad Yunus won the most recent Noble Peace Prize for his work on micro-credit. Edivorce 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and do not transwiki to Wiktionary, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The intro text to Category:PajamaNation (category nominated for deletion), into which this has been otherwise inexplicably sorted, reveals that it is a "(c)ategory for grouping together articles relating to the pajamanation global series of enterprises, including national and international initiatives, concepts such as micropreneur and microjobs." In other words, this is spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided the notices discussed above. Edivorce 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow speedy as A1, A7, G11, G1, W12, XRF99 or any other criterion that makes it plain that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company by writing about some neologism you just created. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 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.

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eikaiwa managers}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of topics by country and region}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish National Top 50 number-one hits}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unforgotten realms}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Kincaid}}