Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 13 July 15 >

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 Nothing. Nom did not complete AfD and has instead merged/redirected articles. Non-admin close. -- Ned Scott 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Mandal[edit]

Prem Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

These articles are "In-Universe" articles (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional characters on the show Coronation Street. All of these articles have been shown less than a year but haven't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT on per WP:SOAPS.

Added Note: A regular search of any of these turns up very little besides arriving references. -- Dodgechris (talk | contribs) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of characters I'm nominating:

  • Prem Mandal - 1 hit on Google news, no time yet on show, no notabiliy asserted.
  • Nina Mandal - 1 hit on Google news, no time yet on show, no notabiliy asserted.
  • Lisa - 1 hit on Google news, no time yet on show, no notabiliy asserted.


The result ended in all being redirected to List of characters from Coronation Street

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 established by Oakshade. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riograndense Republic[edit]

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

Contested prod. Nomination made on behalf of Opinoso (talk · contribs) per comment on my talk page. Prod rationale was "This article is a propaganda of a Nazi group from Southern Brazil. Actually, "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil; it was a failed movement. Nazi people are using the War of the Farrapos as a way to instigate violence and claiming an unreal "separatist" movement in Southern Brazil, which actually does not exist. The sentence posted in this article "primary motivation for the proposal is that the population of these three states, unlike the population of the other states of Brazil, is almost entirely Caucasian" has an obvious Nazi influence. THIS ARTICLE MUST BE DELETED". For my part, Neutral. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After reading this article, this is nothing more than lies and propaganda. The "Riograndense Republic" never existed like this article claims, it was nothing more than an idea by radicals trying to ceded from Brazil. The whole "Modern separatist movement" section is nothing more than BS, I never heard about it, and never read anything that modern Rio Grande do Sul wants to ceded from Brazil. The external links are all from the same website written by a fanatics who dream an impossible dream of an independent Rio Grande do Sul. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in it's current format, the article fails WP:V. With only 361 ghits for "Riograndense Republic", it's possible that this never actually existed. As such, it should be removed, if it can be re-added citing reliable sources, fine. - Toon05 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my !vote to Keep, given the unearthing of a reliable source by Bigdaddy1981 (below), which (finally) establishes the existence of the subject, and would allow for some verification of facts. - Toon05 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Living in Quebec, I am all too familiar with this kind of wishful thinking based on revisionist history. the article mentions a flag, a national anthem, etc., everything except for recognition, be it domestic or international. Fails WP:V. Keep. The article in its current state looks nothing like the one I nominated. Establishes that a "failed," short-lived country once existed, and makes no mention of the alleged separatist movement. The only reason I am not withdrawing my nom is that I made it on behalf of another editor who was unfamiliar with the process. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. There are too many unsourced claims which hints at a lack of notability of this topic--possibly a WP:HOAX. Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reduce to a stub and let grow. I'm quite surprised at all the delete votes here. Even as an unfulfilled concept it's notable. A book search brings up many in-depth secondary sources of this topic. (more here). Here in California, there the State of Jefferson which never existed, but as a concept it does and has secondary sources about it. The California Republic is similar. Just a bunch of drunk guys in Sonoma "declaring" independence. But it's still notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am Brazilian and the Riograndense Republic is absolute invention, Pure Hoax. Motto of French Revolution? And all resources are from (unique) unreliable website? Totally fails. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please review http://www.brazil.org.uk/events/machadodeassis_assets/openingaddressvilaca.pdf. Footnote 7 of Vilaça's address (given at the Brazilian Embassy in London) reads in part: 'In 1835, led by Colonel (later General) Bento Gonçalves dismissed the local governor appointed by the central Government and occupied Porto Alegre proclaiming the Rio-Grandense Republic.' I think claims as per the non-existence of this failed state are pretty untenable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added these references to the article, which would seem to establish notabilty

for the original revolt: Flag of the Riograndense Republic: Background on the Farrophilha revolution: Conflict between the Imperial Brazilian Regency and the cattle ranchers of the South: This reference establishes notability for the modern secessionist movement: Christian Science Monitor February 9, 1993—“Some Southern Brazilians Want Out": There is no reason to delete this article. It has notability, it is an important part of Brazilian history, there is a modern secessionist movement and the article is properly referenced. Keraunos (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I have to point out that the first three sources clearly fail WP:RS - and can't verify existence or anything else due to this. The third, a report on the secessionist feeling in southern Brazil only mentions the Riograndense Republic in passing, and does nothing to establish the existence of such a state, just that some organisations in the south exist who want secession. Toon05 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the South Brazilian secessionists are primarily Caucasians doesn't mean that they are Nazis. That is preposterous and absurd. Keraunos (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the Christian Science Monitor article above does seem to establish a possible racial nature of the organisations involved, but certainly NAZI is a big allegation. - Toon05 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I told you, it's a Nazi article, full of lies. Opinoso (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this discussion is interesting, but I would like to know if the claims that this is merely national socialist propaganda have sources. That would help the argument of the nominator and be informative. Thanks --DerRichter (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources have been found for both the historical and modern movement. The nominator's claim that this is a Nazi group appears to be false and even if it was true that has nothing to do with notability. The nominator's claim that "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil' it was a failed movement." is interesting - based on that reasoning, the Confederate States of America should be deleted since that was also a failed separation movement. The claim that there is no modern separatist movement is also false based on the sources found, and even if the modern movement was a hoax, the historical movement existed so the article should be kept. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Edward321, The Confederacy and "Riograndense Republic" are different. The Confederacy had a government, a military, a central bank, and a currency. This false "Republic" did not have anything like that. It was nothing more than a idea by radicals. Also, most Southerns viewed the Confederacy as a their legitimate government, while most Southern Brazilians didn't know anything about an idea of seceding from Brazil because most of the population was foreign settlers from Italy, Germany, and Portugal. There is no comparison between the Confederacy and the "Riograndense Republic". Lehoiberri (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, success of a movement is not required for notability, nor is having desirable aims. All that matters is that this short lived state existed and it certainly appears to have based on cursory searches on google scholar. I think this is a bad faith AFD and the nominator admits as much. Speedy close. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Bigdaddy1981, this is not a "bad faith" AFD, because I am not a vandal user and you do not even know who I am.

1) "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed because it was never separed from Brazil.

2) The article War of the Farrapos already talks about this movement in Southern Brazil.

3) War of the Farrapos has NOTHING TO DO with this minor movement existing nowadays with some members in Southern Brazil. War of the Farrapos was because of economic problems in Southern Brazil, so they rebelled against the Empire.

4)Most of the soldiers in the War were poor peasants and former BLACK SLAVES. So, it's not possible to make a connection between the "Riograndenser Republic" and this nowadays Nazi movement that is trying to "preserve the German or Northern Italian heritage in Southern Brazil".

"Riograndenser Republic" is already included in the article War of the Farrapos. This "new" "movement" in Southern Brazil has nothing to do with the 19th century Riograndenser Republic and, moreover, does not have and notority outside of the "Internet world". Nobody in Brazil has never heard about this "movement". I didn't, until I find this pathetic propaganda on the Internet. Opinoso (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I don't think that you are a vandal, but I do think you are nominating this article because you dislike the aims of the people who admire this failed state. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the Google book search by Oakshade and others is sufficient to show that this is an encyclopedic topic, and that there have even been Brazilian authors who wrote about it. Even if the form at the time of nomination was suggestive of Nazi lies, a proper article can be written from some of these sources. I can see that it's a sore point for some; I'm not proud of the Ku Klux Klan's contributions to American history, but I can't deny its existence. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the responses, I have decided to support Keeping the article, at least the historical part if not the modern section. I am not sure about the notablility of the modern section, but generally that newspaper is reliable. Opinoso, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete. Even if none of your friends do not know it. I highly doubt you have read the mind of everybody in Brazil to see if they have heard of this movement. If you have all of this unused information about who was fighting and why, I encourage you to expand the article, as long as you are using sources. Please try to work on your arguments so as to not alienate undecided contributors who are paying attention to this discussion. --DerRichter (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Riograndense Republic has nothing to do with the modern "movement" going on by fanatic people on the Internet. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about what Riograndense Republic was. There's no reason to keep this article that's no more than a propaganda of that unknown modern movement of "keeping European heritage" in Southern Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Another reason why this article is important is because a modern trend in government is toward devolution, i.e., giving subunits within a national government more power. This is consistent with the political philosophy of Libertarianism (not Nazism, which favors centralization of power!). This has already happened in the United Kingdom, where Scotland was recently given its own parliament (although it still has representation within the national British Parliament). It is quite possible that in the future, each of the Regions of Brazil may have their own autonomous government below the level of the national government but above the level of the States of Brazil. The same thing is happening in Russia, with the recent newly established Regions of Russia. While both the Brazilian and the Russian regions are only economic regions so far and have no administrative function, it is quite possible this may change in the future. If this occurred, the largely Caucasian inhabitants of Southern Brazil would attain autonomy (not independence) as one of the administrative regions of Brazil, and might even have its own parliament (along with the other regions of Brazil). Northeast Brazil is largely inhabited by people of African ancestry, so they would have autonomy also, as would the largely Amerindian people of North Brazil. Keraunos (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- What does "autonomous government" have to do with "Riograndenser Republic"? By the way, it is your personal opinion that, in the future, the regions of Brazil will suffer a process of descentralization. Where are your sources to affirm this? Opinoso (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you actually think the Caucasian majority of Rio Grande do Sul wants to secede from a country that they benefited the most economically, Keraunos (Rio Grande do Sul is one the most wealthiest areas in Brazil}? This movement is unknown in Rio Grande do Sul, even to the Caucasian majority, I don't know why you are trying to make it notable. If this movement was notable, then why wasn't the movement part of the last election in Rio Grande do Sul, only state versions of the national parties (ex: PT and PSDB) were in the election. See here:[1] (note: is in Portuguese). Lehoiberri (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can we get back on topic here? The issue is verifiability -
      1. the sources used to establish existence aren't reliable
      2. The possible secessionist movement in southern Brazil don't belong in this form of article - they should be instead in an article entitled as "Secessionist movement in Southern Brazil" (or something with a better title, conforming to style guidelines etc.), which would then be properly sourced.
      Given there are no reliable sources, this article is basically WP:OR. This deletion debate isn't about how valid the secessionists' views are, or whether the movement is naziism - it comes down to policy, and this article should be deleted. - Toon05 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Dr Marcos Vinicius Vilaça President of the Brazilian Academy of Letters believes it existed then I think it likely existed. See http://www.brazil.org.uk/events/machadodeassis_assets/openingaddressvilaca.pdf. Footnote 7 of Vilaça's address (given at the Brazilian Embassy in London) reads in part: 'In 1835, led by Colonel (later General) Bento Gonçalves dismissed the local governor appointed by the central Government and occupied Porto Alegre proclaiming the Rio-Grandense Republic.' I think claims as per the non-existence of this failed state are pretty untenable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Your source seems reliable, and establishes the existence of the republic, and for some verification. Coupled with the earlier book search, it is clearly a notable event in Brazilian history. This is not the place for ideological discussions, and deletion arguaments should only be based upon policy and guidelines - I would hope all contributors to this discussion would take a look at the source given by Bigdaddy above, as it looks the real deal. Another useful link: Wikipedia:Deletion policy - Toon05 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because one person in history accepted the "Riograndense Republic" as a nation, the fact is "Riograndense Republic" was an idea not a real country. There was no government, military, central bank, and currency for this proclaimed nation. To be ligitimate, the "Riograndense Republic" needed to be recognized by the citizens that Republic claimed, but there was no acceptance to that Republic because most of the population that time was foreign born, and these people only cared about surviving in a new environment different from the Old World (Italy, Germany, and Portugal). Lehoiberri (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Can you people read? An article about the war in Southern Brazil that tried to separete Rio Grande do Sul from the Empire of Brazil already exists: War of the Farrapos. Read this article, please. NOBODY here is saying they did not try to separete from Brazil. However, this movement took place in 1835, and it has NOTHING TO DO with the nowadays false movement to "keep European heritage" in Southern Brazil.

It was failed movements. They did not have time to establish a new country, because soon they agreed to make a peace contract with Brazil. The "Riograndenser Republic" was NOT recognized as a new country by NOBODY. It was just a failed utopia.

Many other movements took place in Brazil at that time, and they also tried to separated their regions from the Empire of Brazil. Read the article Cabanagem; they tried to separate the Northern state of Pará from Brazil in the same period they tried to separate Rio Grande do Sul. These movements have nothing to do with these crazy Nazi on the Internet. It was because of economic stuff, not race at all. The "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed. The same way the "Republic of Cabanagem" NEVER existed too. Both

So, to affirm that this Republic existed is a lie. And also, it's not possible to make a connection with this 200 year ago movement in Southern Brazil with the "new" nazi people in the Internet. The Republic was a failed utopia. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about it. Opinoso (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please keep a cool head and remain civil. Since everyone here can write, you can assume everyone here can, indeed, read. You will likely get better replies and more consideration by refraining from hyperbole and sarcasm. Cheers, --Storkk (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Lehoiberri - Whatever it was, it certainly existed and forms a notable part of Brazilian history. If you have an arguament about the content of the article, this isn't the forum... head over to the article's talk page and discuss changing the phrasing etc. What we are after on wikipedia is not the WP:TRUTH - this subject's existence (as a country or whatever) has been verified by a Wikipedia:Reliable Source. Yours is a content dispute, not an arguament for deletion. Also, Opinoso - please remain WP:CIVIL and keep a calm head. - Toon05 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Toon - But, if the article will not be delet, we have to erase the "Modern separatist movement" part, because the new "Caucasian-Nazi" movements have nothing to do with the "Riograndenser Republic". Erasing the "Modern separatist movement", this article will become a small and insignificant stub. It's better to erase the article and merge the real informations of it in the article War of the Farrapos. Opinoso (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think removing the modern stuff is legitimate. But that doesn't mean that the article should then be deleted even if it is then much shorter. Instead it should be expanded. The republic clearly existed as a brief but (interesting) episode in Brazilian history and it would be terrible to delete an article about it. I for one had never heard of it before seeing this article despite my interest in historical geography. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggested solution It seems to me that a better arrangement would be to establish an article "Separatist movements in Brazil" or something, include the section "Modern separatist movement" from the Riograndense Republic (it would need to be referenced, but we have that 1 Christian Science Monitor article, there must be others regarding other movements etc), and merge the Riograndense Republic article into War of the Farrapos, as you have suggested, given the only link the modern movement has to the old republic is in name. Comments, suggestions, opinions? - Toon05 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think removing the modern material r.e. the current separatists from the article is legitimate. Any of the people arguing to delete the article can go ahead and make a case for this on the articles talk page (indeed they could have done so before trying to delete it). However, I don't think that merging the article into the War of the Farrapos article is a good idea. It is akin to merging the Confederate States of America in the US Civil War article. The only reason seems to be to appease people who are clearly trying to get this aticle deleted because they don't consider the Riograndense Republic to be 'legitimate'. My response to this is: so what? Was the Italian Social Republic legitimate? I'd guess most would say no (basically a German puppet, no elections, a nasty little fascist statlet that offers succor to present day fasists etc etc). Does this mean it should be deleted? I'd say no unless we want to make something like the old Great Soviet Encyclopedia purged of anything that doesn't pass the censors' approval. I have to say I think the (admitted) ideological motivations of some editors is pretty shocking. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Bigdaddy, please assume good faith, the discussion has taken a much better turn of recent, and we are trying to find an acceptable solution to the problem at hand, and I don't think going down that line of questioning is going to produce anything positive. You have agreed that removing the bit about the modern separatists is acceptable to you, and this is the main bone of contention. To merge the articles was clearly not in order to solve any "ideological motivations" since surely the removal or the aforementioned material would take care of that. I floated the idea as a possible solution, and fair enough it may not be ideal. The article can exist on its own as a stub, but I believe that the separatist part should be transferred to a standalone article on the issue on Brazil, should we find sufficent sources.
        Opinoso, would this solution satisfy you enough to change your prior vote to keep and cleanup? - Toon05 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I did not mean to question your good faith and I think that your solution of splitting off the modern (potentially inflammatory) stuff is a reasonable one. I was (perhaps clumsily) expressing my frustration at editors' concerns as to the 'legitimacy' of the country. Apologies for any offense. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - No problem. I just don't want to see this revert into the big mess it was before. - Toon05 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply- Ok, I agree not to delet the article, since the part of the new movement is deleted. However, I do not agree we have to create a new article to talk about the new "Nazi" pathetic movement, because it really does not have any notority to deserve an article. As Lehoberri said, if the new Nazi movement had any notority, their party would be voted by thousands of Southern Brazilians. But, taking a look at the last votes in Brazil, no Nazi or separatist party was elected, so their "movement" is not really a movement, but just a group of fanatics who do not deserve an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, you people have to proove "Riograndenser Republic" existed.

I study Law, and as far as I know, for a country (State) exist, it must have: 1) a delimited territory, 2) a population 3)a Power

Riograndenser Republic did not have any of these itens. So, it was not a country, but a failed separatist movement. If you look any book or something similar from that period, you won't find anything like "the United States is the greatest commercial partner of Riograndenser Republic, the new country of South America". You won't find it, because it was not even recognized as a new country by nobody. Opinoso (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and edit carefully to distinguish historical events from current political movements--but both are notable. DGG (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that sources have been found and per Oakshade's "Keep" argument, edit carefully per DGG. Further comment to spaghetti-coders that it hurts your point to produce something that is extremely difficult to read, and that guidelines on discussions and WP:Indentation make things much easier to read. --Storkk (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I support the idea of removing the whole "modern separatist movement" BS section. It is not notable because it never participated in election (compared with Parti Québécois in Quebec or Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya in Catalonia) or started a violent independence campaign (compared with ETA in the Basque Country or Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Chiapas). It is an idea by a small group of fanatics. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Participation in elections or violence are not necessary to warrant inclusion of such material. Notability as established through some level of press coverage or external attention is sufficient. Everyking (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've moved the contentious section to Talk:Riograndense Republic/"Modern Separatist Movement" for now, until we decide on which bits (if any) should be in the article, or if the text will be used on another article but this can be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Should the current article satisfy participants enough that they wish to change their !vote, please use <s> and </s> to strikethough your old !vote, and put your new one after the code. Since this is just the AfD page, we should direct all discussion on the content of the article to it's talk page and use this page as only the deletion discussion. - Toon05 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks good, agree that the discussion of whether/where any information of present day separatists should go ahould be debated separate from this debate. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, existence is established. Everyking (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Air mattress. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air bed[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, badly written, no references -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Air mattress.--Lenticel (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, unless sources can be found to reference the article per WP:V which indicate cultural significance or other information justifying a fork from Air mattress - the majority of hits seem to refer to the latter anyway. - Toon05 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect from what I can tell, this is just another term for air mattress. But its a viable search term so a redirect would be proper.--Finalnight (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Notable topic, but there is little in this article that is not already covered in the Air mattress article. Eauhomme (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Codder (cocktail)[edit]

Cape Codder (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete already covered at Cape Cod (disambiguation), with no real sources for either, but it certainly exists in multiple recipes with or without lime juice/sugar - but not much else can be said about it, lack of potential to be much more than a one liner better handled on the dab page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Possible Speedy A3. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the article doesn't really qualify as a rephrasing of the title due to the identifier, as it's not really part of the item name. There is context - 'Cape codder is a cocktail' may be short, but it certainly fulfils the definition of context at wiktionary ("the text in which a word or passage appears and which helps ascertain its meaning") - the meaning is clear. - Toon05 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a pretty popular cocktail, definitely notable. Article does need expansion, however, preferably some references - there seem to be quite a few cocktail sites out there. A valid stub IMO. - Toon05 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There's no reason for this not to be a page. It's a legitimate cocktail and does not belong as merely a line on the Cape Cod disambiguation. It certainly needs expansion but should not be deleted. Quentinisgod (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article needs expanding, to be certain. But the drink is real and notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthedon (mythology)[edit]

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

This guy doesn't seem notable to me. According to the article he is only known as the father of Glaucus, which doesn't make him notable in his own right. Tavix (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "or" there could also mean that it is disputed if Anthedon or Poseidon is the father. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed, in fact further references confirm you are correct. The only references I can find say that Anthedon is (possibly) the father of Glaucus, and nothing else. Perhaps a case of Notability is inherited. However this seems a strange argument against the gods, particularly the family business of the Greek pantheon. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fairly strongly. My general feel is that subjects like this are "encyclopedic" (yes, I know) per se. Mythological names are notable by being preserved some two thousand years, even if at this remove little can be said about them with any certainty. Now, the identity and gender of Anthedon seems to be a rather confused subject at this point; but Anthedon, he or she, seems to have related to the curious legend of Glaucus, who apparently became a god by eating the right kind of grass. This also related to the founding legend of the original town of Anthedon - and I gather the one in Gaza we have an article about is not the original, since Pausanias puts it in Boeotia. I added information from Pausanias to the article, though it is just as sketchy as what we already had. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like your entry Later allusions. Do you have any clear references to USS Anthedon being named after this Anthedon? Or are your presuming the link as it seems logical? A good reference to this would convince me of a "keep". Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found a reference for the statement. It's on someone's private website, apparently catering to sub veterans, but it has a byline from a named retired USN commander, so it seems reliable enough for this purpose. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, thanking Smerdis of Tlön for answering my query. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Smerdis' info. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all figures from classical mythology are notable, as they all prove to have many later references to them. DGG (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christine breese[edit]

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

Author, meditation teacher and lecturer written up by someone with an obvious COI. Little evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You have to dig real deep in the article to find an assertion of notability that makes it immune to speedy A7, and it isn't enough to make the article a keeper. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article talks a lot about the subject but does not prove the subject's notability. Artene50 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability. Moontowandi (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(SpiritBeing (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Hello, Actually, the subject is notable with published and verifiable book on amazon.com that has been out since 1997. If wikipedia aims that the subject have verifiable notability concerning books, there's the proof for that. As for the subject's accomplishments and notability, also, see all the pages on Google which point to the subject's name. 148,000 links are found on the subject's name. RHaworth believes that there is no notability, but there is plenty and it is enough to make the article a keeper, as you will see below. Becuase RHaworth has never heard of this person, it is simply an opinion that there is no notability, not fact. The subject actually is well known in her particular venue, which you will also see below. The subject has been in the press, written many articles that have been published in spiritual magazines and newsletters, established large organizations serving thousands of people and is well known in her field.[reply]

I'm not sure what COI is, but if it is about me as the writer of the article feeling moved to write about a spiritual teacher who is blatantly missing from wikipedia's coffers, this is only the first of many that I had planned to write about. I was busy getting ready to upload artilces about other spiritual teachers that are well known in their fields when I found myself caught up in this deletion war with a couple people (who do not represent ALL of wikipedia and have not played fair, deleting my other article about the Universal Church of Metaphysics and also all the conversations therewith before I can finish typing responses or proof of verification and notability) who have a particular greivance about the topics I would like to write about. So my work has been disrupted and interrupted unreasonably by individuals who my have a personal vendetta against these types of subjects and articles. I believe I have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt as to the notability of this subject and that it has been targeted unfairly by a couple people who are trying to take down anything and everything I write that is in my field of interest.

The subject is listed at various Guru Ratings pages and other Spiritual Teacher sites. Saro's Guru Rating Service where you will find this teacher listed, and 3 Fold Sun where you will also find this teacher listed, and the fact that this teacher is listed all over the internet on hundreds of sites except wikipedia. These sites are where I am finding these teachers who I feel should be written about in Wikipedia.

I do not know these teachers personally, despite what RHawthorn is insinuating, and I do not work for them. However, I have a special interest in spiritual teachers, books and teachings and I have checked them out, looked at their sites, and I do feel that I resonate with their teachings and even though my first article about one of them may have been a little too long and had too many adjectives, I feel that I should not be the reason one or two people have a vendetta in wikipedia against having Christine Breese or any of these teachers deleted from wikipedia just because my first article was a little too long and I am new to the politics of wikipedia.

Proof that the subject is a published author and writer: (If you allow me enough time instead of immediately deleting this article, I will post all these article links in the article about this teacher, and every link I have presented from here on out, if you like.)
Articles written by Christine Breese in magazines not affiliated with her or her organizations she runs:
1) An Article published in Sentient Times a very large magazine on the west coast of California. This magazine is not produced by Christine Breese or any organization she is affiliated with.
2) Here is yet another article written by Christine Breese in a the Open Exchange magazine that is very well known and sizable on the west coast of California and is not affiliated with any organization she works with.
3) Yet another magazine called Kula Magazine where the subject has no authority or governance over the organization that runs this magazine.
4) here is another article in the Kula Magazine by this author all the way back to the Hurricane Katrina fiasco.
5) There are many other articles submitted to many magazines and published that are simply not online, including Isis Scrolls, The Ray, Psychic Times, Dreams, and many others that are not online. Since I am a purveyor of these types of magazines, I have come across this person's name a lot and I have felt it is time to check this teacher out, and once I decided that I liked what this teacher had to say, I felt it important to let wikipedia readers know as well. There are many spiritual teachers I would like to introduce to wikipedia.

The subject's book has been reviewed at many places, but here are a couple examples, just scroll down and you will see it at http://www.smallbusinesses.com/reviews4.htm, here's another at http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1C6Y3B4EEKSID and there are many more reviews about the book, but I believe that I have proven the point already with the notability of her book.

To see a listing of the book at Amazon.com, and also listed at Holistic Page, as well as Fields Books, Word Power Books, Gealina Online, Barnes And Noble Books, Powell's Books, ABD Sellers, Scribbly Gum Books, Sedona Journal Of Emergence, Insight Books, MSN Shopping, Alternatives Central, Spirit Wings, and this list just goes on and on and on for pages and pages and pages in Google Search for this book. It would just be ridiculous to list all the links on the internet to Christine Breese and her book. I do believe this proves that her and her book have notability.

The subject has been a guest on radio and TV shows, including Dave Alan's Nighthawk Series, and Baby Boomers Of Today or if you can't find the link there, go to Voice America and scroll down to the episode 3/4/08 - Baby Boomers Of Today Guest Christine Breese. If you would like to see a link to one of the TV shows she has been on in at a Station that is listed in your wikipedia at WTTV, go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=2h3ftUE2Vg0 if you would like to see a clip of the video.

Breese has also been to expos and presented many workshops, here is a link press release for one of them at http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1208239619.html She has presented workshops at the New Life Expo see workshop listings at 4-4:50 p.m. Saturday Room 102D: “Use Your Heart Instead of Your Head!” with Christine Breese and Sunday at 2-2:50 p.m. Room 102F: “Manifesting Simplified & Surrender to Divine Will” with Christine Breese. She has also presented at Conscious Life Expo in Los Angelos and her lecture listing is at this url on their site. She is also scheduled to speak at all these expos again next year, and she is scheduled to speak at the upcoming New Life Expo in New York City. She has also facilitated retreats at both Mount Madonna Retreat Center, Breitenbush Hot Springs, listing for the retreat is at http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/University.of.Metaphyiscal.Sciences.800-521-6382/2007/12/October-22-2007-Breitenbush-Hot-Springs-Retreat-/54597 , Tree Of Life Tree Of Life in San Diego, and Harbin Hot Springs the listing is in many places, here is one at http://technorati.com/blogs/christinebreese.wordpress.com

The subject's videos and writings have been translated into Dutch at http://nl.truveo.com/tag/Breese and on youtube, and her videos have been linked to and viewed over 350,000 times through other people's websites who simply chose them by no encouragement from Breese or her organization, they did this of their own accord. If you search for the subject's name you will find massive amounts of links to her videos, her articles, her writings and her church and school. At youtube, this woman's videos have been watched 320,464 times exactly at www.youtube.com/MetaphysicalSiences

This teacher has thousands of students worldwide, and I think that I have proven beyond a doubt the notability through many verifiable outside sources and the fact that this person is a published author, writer, and substantial proof that she is a lecturer and teacher. If the likes of Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji, Adyashanti, Osho, and many other spiritual teachers who are also teaching in this tradition are listed in wikipedia, then this teacher should be listed as well. It is my goal to list several spiritual teachers in this particular tradition who are blatantly missing from wikipedia and should be here if wikipedia is to be an accurate source of information about teachers in this particular spiritual tradition who have earned a degree of recognition and notability in their field.

I have presented my case. I will dig deeper and present more facts and links if you like, but try to set your criticism aside for just one moment and look at the real facts of the situation and let go of opinions about these spiritual teachers just becuase you have never heard of him or her. Many other people have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean that they are not well known in their particular genre.

By the way, do I have to fight this hard every time I present an article to wikipedia? How do you guys ever get anything done on this site if every article posted takes this much work to fight for and just gets deleted as soon as it's written? I had a lot I wanted to contribute to wikipedia, but if it is this big a fight every time something gets posted, I don't see how wikipedia can move forward. I do appreciate you finally not deleting this article before I have had a chance to present my case, although you have deleted the one about the church over and over and over agine before I even had time to explain or have a chance to present my case, so this feels more fair and reasonable. This is more like it. I appreciate the time wikipedia has allowed for a presentation of why I respectfully disagree with the intentions for deletion by a couple of people who don't know anything about this particular person. I hope you can see more clearly why I feel that this person is notable, verifiable, and that my resources are plenty. I have been researching these teachers for a long time and I feel that I should be able to present my findings here. I only hope to make wikipedia more accurate in its reporting of these people who are so well recognized in thier field and yet have no listing here.

This was far more work than I planned on doing to present articles to wikipedia. I had hoped it would be a reasonable and fair process. While the other page I created does not feel treated reasonably and fairly, at least this one didn't get deleted before I could even finish typing my response to the users who wanted deletion. I hope I have educated the users as to the notability of this particular person I have found all over the internet and in spiritual magazines. Now please, don't just keep repeating that this person doesn't have any notability now that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person does have notability. If you have contructive input to offer, I would like to hear it. (SpiritBeing (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)[reply]

  • Delete despite all the above the subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements and the lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing within the article creates a number of verifiability problems. 7 GNews hits on the name while searching all dates (none of which are about this person) and 7,830 Ghits (most of which are primary source, directories, wiki mirrors, or blogs) none of which are reliable 3rd party sources. This isn't about presenting cases. Wiki is not a place to "present your findings" which result from original research. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(SpiritBeing (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)[reply]
Strong opposition to deletion the above repetition of notability issues is erroneous, and there are plenty of third party websites, look at the article and the above, they are ignoring the ones that are third party because perhaps they are opposed to religions in this path? There is always opposition to this religion, and I believe they are using notability as an excuse. Look at the article, it has a long list of notability and a long list of third party sites that are verifiable, from press, to TV, to radio to listings. The woman's website ( I checked) has received 400,000 hits last year and the year before, and so far it has 200,000 hits, which means 1 million hits. I think that merits notability, besides all the third party sites provided which is within wikipedia guidelines and standards. At this point, people are only voicing opinions based on the fact that they either don't like this person, this religion, or this spiritual path, and using other issues as excuses, not proving their argument for non-notibility. I beleive notability has been proven beyond a doubt, but non-notability has not been proven, they just keep repeating it wihtout evidence.
Strong Keep (SpiritBeing (talk)SpiritBeing)

  • Delete - I'm sure this is a wonderful person and I understand wanting to create an article for her, but right now, it doesn't appear that the article can be properly sourced to reliable third-party sources. SpiritBeing, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Your_first_article which gives some great tips on the necessary parts for Wikipedia articles. Shell babelfish 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was asked by SpiritBeing to stick my oar in, but frankly I can't see how this person passes WP:BIO:
* Far from 150,000 Google hits, I count 195 unique hits [2].
* Far from having hundreds of thousands of hits, christinebreese.com is the only site of the four listed on her article as having been created by her to break 3,000,000th in Alexa traffic rankings, and only by a nose.
* The sources listed on Google are all self-published or obscure: heaps of Youtube videos, her own websites, shilling on Wordpress, numerous blogsites and this article and many Wikimirrors.
* Her book listed on Amazon is self-published, and has a sales rank of over #1.3 million.
* I am also very unimpressed by the apparent fact that she claims to be a PhD and a Doctor of Divinity, both granted to herself by the "University" she founded, or by the "very large magazines" cited which are, in fact, freebie handouts in area stores, or by the "radio interviews" which she's given which are in fact obscure podcasts.
Obviously SpiritBeing feels passionately that this woman is important, but the fundamental WP:BIO criterion remains: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If SpiritBeing would care to source any articles in even significant alternate newspapers or widely distributed magazines, TV or radio interviews or mass market books written about her, that would establish notability; claiming vendetta or tossing around wholly unfounded accusations because editors seek out articles which fail to meet the appropriate policies and guidelines does not.  Ravenswing  09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most people, including this one, have not been the subject of sufficient independent notice for us to write a good article. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, a self granted PhD at a 'University' that she started (that has had it's page deleted) does not seem notable to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Conditional weak keep There are 147,000 google hits. In the field of spirituality she does seem to have some claim to notability and from what I've seen has a resume not too dissimilar to many other articles on here havin published journals etc. But regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My main concern with the article is that is just really doesn't assert notability or provide any real insight as to why this is a useful encyclopedia article. There are a lot of very dubious claims to notbaility such as the self granted phd and self published works. A lot of the article is irrelevant and unfocused not the mention the article title isn't even capitalized. It needs a great deal of work to bring up to a decent level. As it stands I would delete it. However I would propose allowing the creator to improve it, reference it and write it in an encyclopedic way. If he can't improve it and assert notability of the subject, then I would delete. For me discussing how she has made self made records, self published books and works and obtained a self degree or has appaeared on a low key readio station doesn't do much to explain why she is of note to me. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are 147,000 hits for "Christine" + "Breese" - which, of course, returns hits for either one of the two words if you stray off the first page or two. There are only 195 unique hits for "Christine Breese," a far more accurate rendition.  Ravenswing  13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Mmm I must admit her claim to notability is a dubious one. I;m sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who are on the same sort of notability level. The question is, is it vital that we have an article on her, does it really do anything to improve the project on a world scale or does it just serve as an advert and a way of getting her name out there? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'd rather assume good faith and bank on the article's creator not being a shill for Ms. Breese. As far as what I think about the article itself ... (points upward).  Ravenswing 
  • Delete per above.TheRingess (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not finding any mention of her in JSTOR, nor in the main health, religion, or academic abstracts or papers in EBSCO, nor Project Muse academic databases. I do find at least one person on youtube, however, mashing up her video with a humorous critique and 8000 views. So she is notable enough to suffer at the hands of popular opinion. Then a copyright take down request and a video response to the copyright request: [3] in which ultimately Christine responds directly and some humorous dialog occurs in the comments. Rock on everyone. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - google hits are minor asides there is nothing substantial other than in some blogs. Appears to be zero reporting about her in any RS. On an aside, article is unreferenced and also reads like WP:SOAP. Shot info (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, as a proper g-search shows, using quotation marks "Christine Breese", there are 7800, not 140,000. Of the first 200, not a single one was independent of her--except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Most of them are her videos or blogs. Nothing substantial at all. DGG (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -Vritti (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Politics[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. ukexpat (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Smash (album). The only keep comment that had any sensible argument in it stated, "Even though it fails WP:MUSIC...", which didn't help it's own argument. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Habit (The Offspring song)[edit]

Bad Habit (The Offspring song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Contested redirect. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whoever requested this article to be deleted needs to READ THE FUCKIN' ARTICLE, DAMN IT! According to the article itself, it was going to be the third single off the Smash before it switched to "Gotta Get Away". Despite the fact that it may or may not have been a single, KROQ's been playing it constantly every year when they first played it back in 1995. Even one of the station's countdown lists listed "Bad Habit". By all means, THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS FUCKIN' ARTICLE Alex (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Geez Alex, relax. Just because article has been requested for deletion doesn't mean you should get angry by adding insult to injury. Radio stations play some non-single songs sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're considered singles. 64.136.26.231 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have read the article. It's a song. It doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#SONGS. If it had been a single, it still wouldn't pass. That a radio station plays/played it doesn't change that. What notability guideline do you believe this article passes? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Common sense.--The Skeleton (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just keep. That's all I can say. 64.136.26.231 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm with the last three guys. Let's just keep this article. Mdsummermsw is just a stupid fuckin' idiot. RaNcIdPuNkS (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a "live CD bootleg single" :) OffsBlink (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is no such thing. This is a song on an album. Yes, someone put out a bootleg album and used the title of the song as the title of the bootleg. If the article is about the song, it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS ("Most songs do not merit an article..." etc.). If the article is about the bootleg, it fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums ("...bootlegs...are in general not notable...", etc.). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't really the forum for discussing redirects, but I think that some thought should go into the notability of this song before this gets snow closed. Does the song meet: {{quote|Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.}}
  • If not, we should consider merging it with Smash. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The song did not chart, did not win any significant awards and has not been performed by several artists. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the song isn't a single, nor has it attained notability as a song for The Offspring in some other fashion. There are no reliable sources writing about the song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Smash (album). As has been noted time and again, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Just because it was supposed to be the next single, does not make it notable. The article is unsourced and makes no assertion whatsoever as to the significance of the song. The most that is needed is a line in the Smash article along the lines of "Bad Habit was going to be a single, but instead "Gotta Get Away" was released". Furthermore, Alex, you need to refrain from shouting and swearing as you did above. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect non-notable track. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, the song itself is not notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about a song written by one of the most influential bands out there. Even though it fails WP:MUSIC, I decided to vote for yes as in keep. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But why? You say yourself "even though it fails WP:MUSIC, you fail to give any reason why there should be an article. Please remember this is not a vote. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the source album. Song is not necessarily notable; WP:MUSIC and all that. Was it ever top 40? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Libs (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I am usually an Inclusionist, but I really can't see it happening for this article. It's best bet is to start off as a merge - if you can gather more citations from reliable sources later, then perhaps it can be resplit, but for the moment, it should redirect to the Album page and have a brief mention there. Also, I would be interested for a checkuser to perhaps be done on User:Alex 101, considering his(/her) use of language is very similar to that of RaNcIdPuNkS, and that they appear to try to back eachother up on this. They both seem to be entirely dedicated to music-articles, particularly those related to The Offspring. Alex has edited this article: Rancid's seventh studio album, while RaNcIdPuNkS's name links to "Rancid", and he has edited Rancid (band), which is the band in question of Rancid's seventh studio album. They have both edited Rise Against, and Template:Rise Against. They have both edited Bad Religion. The same with Appeal to Reason (album)‎... and Generator (album)... and it goes on. RaNcIdPuNkS seems to edit in "splurts" every so often, leaving sometimes months between edits - potentially because he(/she) only arrives when in need of backing up Alex? Alex also seems to have a history of obvious sockpuppeting; see the contributions of this IP - i mean... it's fairly obvious. Also, both accounts seem to have a history of having uploaded non-free-use images, having their articles deleted, and making personal attacks. Well anyway, I guess this isn't really the place for it, but pending the results of some kind of checkuser, we won't know how many accounts out of the ones discussing here, may be real. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am also usually an Inclusionist but this article doesn't have enough information. I think we should keep it long enough for more information to be added. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable song, not a single, no sources, no notability established. Rehevkor ✉ 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fulford Harbour, British Columbia[edit]

Fulford Harbour, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about a docking facility - not every place wher commercial boats can dock is notable - and this has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a badly written article, granted, but it's not just a docking facility — it's an actual residential settlement which has a ferry dock. Keep articles on real places; I'll do a bit of cleanup on it. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a settlement, it's a keeper, but the article made no such assertion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said I'd do some cleanup on it... Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Since the start of the AfD significant content has been added. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2-Nonanol[edit]

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

Delete chemicals are not inherently notable and this unsourced article purports to give nothing more than its chemical formula. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing about where this chemical is found (if natural) or what it is used for (if artificial). Nothing about what it looks like. Those are the bare minimum expected in an article about a chemical compound, and they are not found in this article. Keep. Concerns have been addressed. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. While I do not approve of single-line entries, simple molecules are inherently notable due to their potential use as building blocks. If this were to be deleted, it should have been as A3 no content rather than not-notable. Simple molecules are usually commercially available, and extensive physical data are usually available (See NIST Webbook of Chemistry). This molecule appears to be used as a fragrance. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Rifleman. NIST Webbook of Chemistry and likelyhood of more data enought to make it notable. GregManninLB (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also agree with Rifleman. The concerns have been addressed. --Bduke (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really think that it is a waste of time that these concerns were not addressed on the talk page before nominating for deletion. This is particularly true when the article is only a single day old. M stone (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give it a chance! Chris (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scifinder turns up 660 references to this compound in the scientific literature, indicating its usefulness in the chemical sciences. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as Rifleman 82 JoJan (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, there is likely enough content that could be added to the article. EagleFalconn (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirecting to that section could cause confusion, since without references, the merged info would probably disappear quickly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambric tea[edit]

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

Delete unsourced oneliner about a drink with no indication why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced, doesn't meet notability. Lady Galaxy 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Tea#Adding milk to tea. The term is in Webster's and could be added to tea as an extreme example of adding milk.--Finalnight (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect/merge (bordering on Keep) per Finalnight. Google didn't turn up much more than this dicdef and this story, the latter of which might be encyclopedic. EBSCOhost turned up nothing, at least in the databases I selected. Amazon turned up this, whatever it might be, and some excerpts, but nothing that really stood out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8)[edit]

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete copy/paste of the text from Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), without following WP:REUSE. WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NN: Page cannot be resonably re-written yet as no information has been released about season 8, except to say that is will air. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, bad copy paste attempt and season 8 has no available information to fix article. Also please temporarily salt. This is like the third time the page has been created, with the first two having false info, and now this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please salt it, but only until September (It should be on air in October). There should be enough information by that time to create the beginnings of a decent article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was gonna say temporarily, but wasn't sure when season 8 was due to start :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Moon (CSI: Miami episode)[edit]

Blood Moon (CSI: Miami episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about tv episode, without anything indicating why this episode among the others is notable - falls far short of what is expected per WP:EPISODE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a given name, with no indication that this name is significant; WP is not a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not significant in itself. can be useful as part of a larger article on naming trends or popular names. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COVER ME[edit]

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

No official sources (Avex, news organizations, etc.) have even hinted at a cover album by Hamasaki. The Transmogrifier (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even her fans think it's a WP:HOAX. tomasz. 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Leon Jolie-Pitt[edit]

Knox Leon Jolie-Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a celebrity child, notability is not inherited. Author removed speedy tag. At best, should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑X-Man 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CD#A7 this is a speedy delete candidate. CSD was removed by the creator in contravention of wiki CSD guidelines. AfD is only required if a 3rd person contests CSD. --triwbe (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it will not be long before someone sites sources (like 2 billion g-hits) about the birth, but I remind those who do WP:NOT#NEWS. Since all of the sources will be about the single event instead of the person, the notability is not being established. Mention it in Bard and Angie's articles, but not a separate one yet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for above reasons, for the child not having done anything of notability, and for Wikipedia not being the place to be a tabloid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. The kid's 2 days old. Few 2-day-olds have achieved much. WP:CRYSTAL also applies. Yes, he's born into money and will probably be decent looking, but there's no way of knowing what he or his sister will end up doing with their lives. Maybe they'll actually stay out of the spotlight. Ahem... freshacconcispeaktome 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do people always create these? Short of royalty or possibly medical miracles, babies of this age are not notable- we are not a news service. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a speedy criterion — it's an example of bad reasoning in an essay that serves to guide, but not dictate, the process of building AFD consensus. The article does make a notability claim, and as such AFD is the correct procedure here. That said, the notability claim being made is invalid according to Wikipedia policy on such matters until such time as he has notable accomplishments of his own besides being born to famous parents, so it is an obvious delete even though it doesn't fall under speedy. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. No achievements of his own. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the parents. I think its the best course of action here.--Lenticel (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Angelina Jolie. Notability is not inherited. Artene50 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Angelina Jolie#Children per precedent and all above. We have been through this before with other celebrity children, including some of Jolie's. In fact, I created Knox Jolie-Pitt as a redirect to Jolie's article in hopes of dissuading the creation of an article such as this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable inheritently, has done nothing notable yet (if ever) Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT Delete because there is clearly no notability that can be presumed for the subject of this article nor its twin. SALT because rabid Brangelina fans find this sort of WP:CRUFT exremely important and will keep recreating to no end. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, notability is not inherited. I agree article needs to be salted otherwise people will be recreating it repeatedly. 23skidoo (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper to create article about everything that gets headlines. Mention the child in the articles about the parents. Edison (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this non-notable newborns biography --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt[edit]

Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a celebrity child and notability is not inherited. At best, this should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑X-Man 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CSD#A7 Notability is not shown and WP:NOTINHERITED as you say. --triwbe (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it will not be long before someone sites sources (like 2 billion g-hits) about the birth, but I remind those who do WP:NOT#NEWS. Since all of the sources will be about the single event instead of the person, the notability is not being established. Mention it in Bard and Angie's articles, but not a separate one yet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a speedy criterion — it's an example of bad reasoning in an essay that serves to guide, but not dictate, the process of building AFD consensus. The article does make a notability claim, and as such AFD is the correct procedure here. That said, the notability claim being made is invalid according to Wikipedia policy on such matters, until such time as she has notable accomplishments of her own besides being born to famous parents, so it is an obvious delete even though it doesn't fall under speedy. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- we're not a news service, and this child is not notable in her own right at this time. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent notability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the parents. I think its the best course of action here.--Lenticel (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Angelina Jolie#Children per precedent and all above. We have been through this before with other celebrity children, including some of Jolie's. In fact, I created Vivienne Jolie-Pitt as a redirect to Jolie's article in hopes of dissuading the creation of an article such as this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again non-notable inheritently, not done anything notable yet (if ever) Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT Delete because there is clearly no notability that can be presumed for the subject of this article nor its twin. SALT because rabid Brangelina fans find this sort of WP:CRUFT exremely important and will keep recreating to no end. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, notability is not inherited. I agree article needs to be salted otherwise people will be recreating it repeatedly. 23skidoo (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper to create article about everything that gets headlines. Mention the child in the articles about the parents. Edison (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mononymous persons[edit]

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

Article provides false information, lacks notability, is unverifiable, original research, and is little more than a poorly expanded definition which belongs in a dictionary Jdrewitt (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Could you expand a bit on what you mean by false information? Thank you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, the article is defining mononymous persons as somebody referred to only by their first a single name. However, for many of the examples of the famous people given whom are apparently mononymous persons clearly are not and are regularly referred to by both or all their names. Its like saying somebody is mononymous because their friends refer to them by their first name. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not what is described in the article. You might start by reading it. Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article, before I put it up for deletion, and believe my points are valid, this article is not a worthy encyclopedic entry. You may change the names in the list all you like to make them mononyms but it doesn't get around the fact that they are not true mononymous people. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article at that time was describing Galileo Galilei as a mononymous person which is a complete fallacy, not only do most people refer to this prominent scientist as Galileo Galilei but that was also precisely how he used to sign his work. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are reliable but irrelevant to this topic. See WP:SYNTH. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced with reliable sources which are relevant to the topic at hand. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not reliable! Most of the inline citations are simply footnotes with no further references. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading Jdrewitt's explanation, I see the point. In the old days, everyone was Mr, Ms, or Mrs, but today it is very common to refer to people by last name only. This list could get unbelievably long by this common practice, through referencing, even if people never use a single name reference themselves. I agree that this has crossed into WP:SYNTH. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not what is described in the article. Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep reasonable topic (and probably notable) but, requires massive cleanup and I'd suggest removing most of the examples making sure to only provide those that are 100% factual with no possibility of "interpretation". The examples should only include people that only used one-name and not include people like Hillary Clinton whom if you said Hillary to people wouldn't be guaranteed to be the first person they thought of. Those improvements can be discussed on the talkpage. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the practice of certain famous people (e.g. Rembrandt, Pele, Madonna, Bjork, Prince, Hildegarde, Voltaire) to be known by one name only is distinctive and well-reference. Certainly notable, and requiring a bit of copyediting and cleanup is not grounds for deletion. I have restructured the article somewhat, hopefully it reads better now. Neıl ☄ 09:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article still reads simply as an expansion on a dictionary definition and the information in this expansion, e.g in the section History doesn't appear to have enough notoriety to warrant its own article. The practice of famous people using single names is already dealt with in the article List of people known by one name and hence wikipedia does not need another article on the same subject. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list and an article are, by definition, not the same thing. Neıl ☄ 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except there really isn't much more you can say about the subject of this article that can't be dealt with in an expanded list. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such articles exist already, e.g. List of stage names or more for mononyms List of one-word stage names. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes and expansion of the list is preferable to both the superfluous category and article...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the very fact that this information isn't readily available elesewhere only goes to reinforce the argument that this article is original research. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not being readily available elsewhere is not the same as original research. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is when there are no reliable or relevant sources to back up the claims. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? You don't need a citation to prove the word "Apple" begins with an "A", or that water is wet. Neıl ☄ 11:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it simple, my point was this article contains no relevant reliable sources to back up its claims and is thus unencyclopedic. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jdrewitt, your arguments are not that convincing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the only editor who has expressed concerns about this article and category. The fact is the sources are either irrelevant to the article or not reliable. There is no other way to word this to make it more convincing without going through each source individually, which quite frankly you can do yourself. I am not intending to convince anyone of anything, I am simply expressing my opinion, which is by no means unique, and get attacked for it. I will thus leave this discussion. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jdrewitt, I'm not attacking you. I'm only suggesting that your arguments are not that convincing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many well known people are known by one name. The article passes WP:N and the sources are reliable. The article is encyclopedic. It also appeared on the DYK column on July 11, 2008. It is an interesting article and information provided by this article isn’t readily available elsewhere. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Modernist that this stuff probably isn't of earth-shattering importance. And if I were King of Wikipedia, we'd have a "WP:PROFUNDITY" policy or guideline. But alas, we must contend with WP:N, and I see no compelling case that the article fails to meet it. Nominator's claim that the material is "unverifiable" is ambiguous. Did nominator try to verify, but not succeed? Or is there something about the concept that is inherently immune to our attempts at verification? I still don't see where the "false information" is. Besides, if it can't be proven true (i.e., verified), then how can it be proven false? (In other words, if something is false, then any claims that it is also "unverifiable" are superfluous.) And I absolutely don't see how this is a WP:NAD. This is about a concept and its history, not about a word per se. And even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily be a WP:NAD, because some words, such as truthiness, are also encyclopedic (per WP:NOT). The article might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the argument for deletion doesn't seem to cut it (no pun intended). Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to characterize this nomination as frivolous, however, in the spirit of amicability and assuming good faith I think it will suffice to consider poor judgment to be the cause of this nomination. __meco (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged & redirected to U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.#USFA Custom Shop. --Stormie (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USFA Custom Shop[edit]

USFA Custom Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a blatant advert to me. It is mentioned in the U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. article; that would seem sufficient. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's an American Rifleman 2002 article which describes the NRA--Charlton Heston gun, but the only reference I can find to this published article is a blog posting (sheesh). I have been unable to retrieve[d (23:40 UTC, 15 July 2008)] the back issue. I added a link to the Cody Firearms Museum digital archive which illustrates the Cheney gun. It's a challenge documenting custom work by its nature, since reviews focus on production work broadly available. Therefore, I tried to show only the most significant works to illustrate this article. I'm not opposed to a merge if everyone concurs that is the best course of action. Newportm (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep will also support Merge.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems most appropriate. Doesn't seem like an advert to me, but is probably best included in the parent organization's article, instead of being a separate article that stands on its own. -- Yaf (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AseXML[edit]

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

Seems to be an unnotable variation of XML. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looked and couldn't establish notability. Though, I'd be ok with a redirect to XML.--Finalnight (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and oppose a redirect to XML as XML is a general facility and aseXML is an industry specific proposal for the energy sector. I found this paper but not really anything else about it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a variant of XML into the XML article BMW(drive) 16:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unsourced articles, keep sourced ones, per general agreement at the poll below. Mangojuicetalk 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: the articles kept were Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference. I also kept Northwest Conference (Iowa) since redirecting it to the Ohio conference page makes no sense. (And if I read the rest of the debate, there isn't a clear consensus, and certainly no one talks about this specific article. Please, if someone cares, nominate it individually.) Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchard Valley Conference[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blanchard Valley Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE; High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Material is mainly duplicate information anyway that is provided on a central list. Examples of articles that have been deleted from the central list already, Cincinnati Hills League (since re-added by User:RockMFR), Greater Miami Conference (since re-added by User:RockMFR), and Suburban League. Therefore these other 20+ articles that show no difference than those should be deleted as well. Here are some examples from other states that have had conferences deleted, Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference. These are the 27 articles proposed by User:UWMSports for deletion as stated in previous discussion. Other conferences will be evaluated individually. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference without improvement since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list as they are articles brought back in their dead state by an admin who just had the power to do so.

  • Keep with reluctance - I am not convinced that all of these nominees are in violation of WP:N, and I am pretty sure that nowhere does it say "high school athletic conferences are automatically not notable." I would be more willing to look at them a few at a time, because I am equally sure that many of these are pretty likely worthy of deletion ..... but I can't do it lock stock and barrel. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Facts laid out well by nominator. Doesn't make sense to have some exist and others not. I would say if keep is the decision those deleted conferences should be re-built. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be clear: you are OK with deleting articles with established notability just because an editor chose to bundle them, and your thinking is "eh, the editors can just start over from scratch and rewrite it", even if it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place? I'm just asking.
  • Keep - Please look at specific articles that I've been able to take the time to rewrite with sourcing: Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference. These articles should show that when given time, they can be properly sourced to show their notability. I've been slowly working on these articles to get them up to par, but being stubs is NOT a valid deletion reason. Additionally, the nominator has been relatively active in inhibiting or harassing people working on these articles, as can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. matt91486 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, new responders, please take the time to read the previous AfD. Most of the pieces of information cited aren't valid things, like PRODs that missed contesting, and a botched CSD. None of the information cited is actually consensus-based precedent, and shouldn't really be used in this, or any, AfD. matt91486 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've long proposed those 27 articles be deleted based on the reasons BurpTheBaby has layed out. However, Matt91486 and a couple others have done a nice job upgrading some of the articles and it's a long job with basically no recognition. I responded to a note he left on my talkpage the other day wanting to know how I intend on handling these articles in the future. I said I'd give him and others the summer to keep improving the articles based on their efforts so far. I think he deserves that. I would encourage the other users that were so big in the last AfD to help Matt. He's going to need it. So I will refrain from voting delete until Labor Day at the earliest. I recommend that this AfD be suspended. The user who proposed it has not been cooperative with those on the other side of the fence either. I don't like the timing of this AfD one bit. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per every lasy reason from the last gruelling(sp?) Afd. I will request a withdraw, take a look at Burp's contribs. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the nomination is being made in bad faith. It was made in an attempt to undermine the efforts of the Wikipedia community to improve these articles. It should also be noted that the previous nomination was closed barely a month ago Frank Anchor Talk to me 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Frank Anchor above. This AfD seems to be exactly what WP:GAME is here to prevent NewYork483 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assure you that this is not bad faith. I find it funny that no one is helping Matt with the conferences, but the moment an AfD comes to light everyone cries foul. Excluding matt and a tad bit of frank, how come none of you have helped rebuild the conferences? It really is embarrassing. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B.B. - While I am no fan of abandoned articles, I think:
1. All people leaving comments here do not necessarily work on articles related to athletic conferences. Some people work on other articles, and coming through AfD, see one, examine it, and leave their comments. Some of these people will oppose deletion for a variety reasons. They have the right to.
2. A lot of people are in the midst of working on other articles that are equally in need of care, or in other stages of improvement.
It is a shame that some articles end up in bad shape for very long periods of time, but that's no reason to be lecturing everyone for not helping.
Further, I note that B.B. has been here for shade over a month. I'm not sure I would go the route of saying this is a bad faith nom unless there has been some communication as to why this is a bad idea. Still, it is every editor's right to make a nomination, just as it is the community's right to recommend an article for being kept or deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are turning OtherStuffExists 180 degrees. Thats to be used when a user complains that their article is a target when others of similar quality exist. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff exists works both ways. Read the policy. It states "We do not have an article on y [in this case, the deleted Cincinnati Hills League and other conferences named in the nomination], so we should not have an article on this [meaning the 27 conferences you propose to delete]" as being an invalid reason to delete an article. Frank Anchor Talk to me 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails Notability. Just because a couple users are looking to upgrade the articles that does not make them notable. WP:PRETTY is not a reason to keep articles. I see all or nothing here. The previous AfD had other conferences that were unique for reasons like existing in two states, famous athletes, etc. These 27 do not differ from each other even if some look nicer than others. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how WP:PRETTY applies with the number of reliable sources I've been able to find. matt91486 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a matter of WP:PRETTY! There are some articles with references in WP:RS. They have established notability and verifiability. They are full articles (not lists, directories, or some other grey area). There is no reason for them to be listed. I have already said that this nomination was not in bad faith, and I stand by it, but there has clearly been a grave error. I would strongly recommend ending this, and trying smaller bundles, or listing them singly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Reliable sources don't establish that something is notable. My son was written about for his 1st place victory at a local Science fair. While that source is from a reliable paper, it does not make him notable enough to have his own Wikipedia entry. What you have here is basically you have a few local websites that publish about these schools and some local newspapers that have to fill their sports page. Don't be fooled because something has sources. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory and that is precisely what these conferences are. A directory of every high school conference in Ohio. --FancyMustard (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "fooled" by anything. Your son, had he been in several newspapers, would have only not been notable for one event status. High school conferences last for years and wouldn't have the same one event notability. These articles, when fleshed out fully, are not at all directories. You should re-read the criteria that you linked to. These articles don't meet any of those, so I have no idea what you're trying to imply with that policy. matt91486 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that being mentioned in WP:RS does not automatically confer notability, and your example is a good one. Some of these are nothing more than directories, and should be deleted. Some are not. Some have (within the context of what they are) notable histories and have had notable membership. All I am asking is: relist them so that we can review them separately. My history is to tend deletion, but I do not support railroading good articles out with the bad. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's a very bad example. A WP:BLP has more stringent rules for notability than most of the other articles on Wikipedia. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were 27 that most people agreed upon as equal status at the last AfD. Everything and anything can have a history. The Ohio Cardinal Conference formed in 2001. It is hardly a rich and notable history. --FancyMustard (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of them have been completely rewritten since then; the rest have not had the chance yet. And the length of history is not what's important, it's the amount of media coverage the league has received. The FIRST sentence of the actual content of WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The Ohio Cardinal Conference certainly has received that, and I think the article pretty clearly illustrates that. matt91486 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss for how any of these articles qualify for speedy deletion. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment - as I mentioned on a talk page a while back, my biggest issue with these articles is the precedent that they provide. So if it comes to us needing to reach a consensus somewhere, I'll be willing to move towards a deletion of the articles that have not been rewritten with sources, which would amount to the nominated articles minus Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference which assert notability quite clearly, provided that the deletion has no prejudice towards recreation of articles when we are able to have them finished and sourced. I don't think this is an ideal solution, since I think that stub articles are fine since they can be shown to be notable with work and it's ridiculous to delete things for being incomplete, but I think its even more ridiculous to go round and round in another week long debate and get nowhere, so that's where I'm willing to compromise. My biggest issue is that this AfD should not be able to serve as a precedent for the deletion of sourced, notable high school conferences. If we have to delete the ones that are just lists temporarily until they are expanded, I disagree, but whatever, that's not the big issue for me. I just wanted to be completely up front about my position this time in hopes that it doesn't spiral as out of control as before. matt91486 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now that is something I can live with. If the article has no sourcing, has not asserted notability, then tie a piece of lead to it and kick it off the deck. My concern is that this nomination, accidental as it was, just seemed to bundle some local conferences together and delete them, followed by the promise that others are on the way. As at least one editor proffered, it sounded like a man with an agenda to get rid of all such articles (I didn't wholly buy that, but I can see why that came out), and another who basically said (let's delete irrelevant of of notability or WP:RS, those can just be started over. That dog don't hunt! The problem with these bundled noms is that you run into these issues. I would wholly approve of your suggestion, with the note that in the future, you need to be more careful about what you are bundling together. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Matt's idea is a good compromise, but I wouldn't have a problem for deleted articles to be worked on in the drafts User:Davidwr provided or in a given sandbox for reinstatement down the road. I still am puzzled by the timing of this AfD though as progress has been made. However, if this compromise curtails endless back and forth debate than I'm for it. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. I like the idea of coming back in 3-4 months and seeing how these are doing. There seems to be agreement that some of these are well sourced, and others less so. Further, I strongly suspect that most all of them could be well sourced given time and effort. Hobit (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I find these articles to be helpful in understanding the relationships between communities within a conference. And the history of certain conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Leroys3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - High school conferences are not notable as the proof by BTB illustrates. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the evidence he provided in greater detail; many of the pieces don't really correlate to these articles. One, for example, was a speedy deletion of an article without context, NOT a notability-related deletion of a conference. None of the others were consensus based decisions either. matt91486 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a speedy deletion it clearly met some criteria for not belonging on Wiki. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if you read what matt said that criteria was CSD A1. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article in that case was just poorly written, it had nothing to do with the subject matter. It was just a really bad article. matt91486 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being simply poorly written is not grounds for deletion, especially a speedy delete. I've been in many AfDs that are there based on sloppiness and the result is generally a keep. So clearly there must have been a good reason why Cincinnati Hills League was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Interstate Eight Conference, where the article was deleted for a lack of context so it could not be identified - in other words, a poorly written article. As for Cincinnati Hills League, we've been through this before, the admin is no longer active, so we are unable to figure out what he or she was thinking, because there is no set policy on high school athletic conferences. I'm not sure why we keep going round and round in circles on that, though, because there clearly isn't a policy, otherwise we'd be citing it. All we have is non-consensus based, unilateral decisions. matt91486 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! As per Hobit. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems like we have a split vote here and if that's the case then precedent should be the tiebreaker. Otherwise it appears this debate will go on forever. --FourteenClowns (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a split vote, because this is not a vote. AfD is about finding consensus, not about taking a numeric tally of ballots. In the absence of a consensus, history has typically been to let the articles stand, though there are some ideas on the table here that are between "keep" and "delete all". LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep having no consensus. I will go with the compromise Matt provided. Keep the two articles he's really worked hard on and if he feels he can get those deleted eventually up to code in his sandbox like UWM proposed then that's cool. But for now, other than those 2, the articles are nothing more than what's on the central list. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would not have a problem with that, unless someone wants to make a case for another article. The only information I can see in those articles is information very easily restored. Those other two should be kept.
Having said that, sometimes consensus is not reached, though I would like to think that Matt's suggestion is the most reasonable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this whole thing going no consensus forever if a compromise isn't reached. I do think this is fair, hopefully others will too. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all and consider merging, perhaps by state. The guidelines are of no use for something like this--the basic question is whether we want them in the encyclopedia or not--we can find sufficient reason for whichever we want. I have no personal interest in the subject, but as others do, the default should be to keep. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There is no doubt that all of these conferences have multiple reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable. --- RockMFR 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Only a few of them actually have sources. And the best one is Ohio Cardinal Conference, but those sources are from very local newspapers and websites as Mustard stated above. I think people are way too swayed by sources here on Wikipedia. Obviously a good article needs sources, but I think a lot of people feel if a topic has a couple sources that appear reliable it makes the topic automatically notable. I'm sure if you dig enough on anything you can find sources. For example, my church does a bake sale every year and notices of this are posted in several local newspapers. Even the local news channel does a story on it. So can I can site all of this and make a page on my church's bake sale? Of course not. You do enough digging you can find sources on just about everything. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think comparing high school athletics conferences to a bake sale is somewhat exaggerated; the high school conferences operate events 9 months of the year, as opposed to one afternoon. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are "swayed" by sources when determining notablity because WP:N defines notability by sources. If you don't think that is correct, you should argue for a change of WP:N there, not here. "Local" sources are perfectly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't appear to be baby's point. What he is saying is true. Anything and everything exists on the Internet, so you can find sources on ANYTHING! Every church, grocery store and restaurant has a website these days. I'm going to make a page on my favorite pizzeria and then use its website as a source. I'll use Yahoo reviews as the second source to establish notability! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - these new pages aren't archived in our drafts for work on. If this closes with my compromise proposal, please move these two new additions to my user space so I can put them in the draft area. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I forget how close we are to a close out date, but I know we've got to be getting pretty close, and just now there is a decision to add two recently recreated articles. I am trying to assume good faith, but that has got to not be on the level ... I don't think it is very fair to anyone to start throwing new articles into the deletion debate at the last minute. I am glad that someone is willing to take them on, but that note to the closing admin makes it seem like this is now a lock to delete. I would want some time to look at the new articles that were just added for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't right to have two deleted articles reinstated while an AfD is going on. Those articles are bottom of the barrel and belong on this list. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Says who? This just seems weird. I have never seen a policy that says certain articles are off limits during an AfD. I know articles can be locked during edit warring, and I've seen it very temporarily done during extreme vandalism, but otherwise I have never heard this. If someone can point me to a policy, or even an essay, please educate me on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles have been deleted for TWO YEARS. Seems very shady to have them brought back today especially when those two were from my six examples of deleted articles. I'd have no problem if they were brought back if the consensus here is to keep, but not now as we're set to close this discussion. I believe this to be a blatant abuse of power by an admin who has the controls to bring back a dead article. It is wrong and definitely in bad faith. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BTB here. Lonely, what's so hard about reading two more articles that maybe have 200 words combined? It is clearly a power play by the admin in question. Wikipedia is a group effort. Admins should know that more than anyone, but unfortunately I find more and more of them are here just to push their agendas. Bringing back two speedy deleted articles could have waited. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greater Miami Conference article actually has some good information in it. It's unsourced at the moment, but it'd be valuable to have that as a resource for rewriting purposes. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two articles clearly fit the same profile as the other 27 I initially set aside as instant deletion candidates in the first AfD. I think at this point to avoid further back and forth we should go with Matt's compromise. I don't agree with Baby's all of methods and timing of things, but he is right about one thing. If we don't come to some sort of compromise there could be countless AfDs that keep ending in "no consensus". We need a resolution. Matt's compromise is the way to go. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. While I'm sure many of these conferences are not notable, trying to determine the individual notability of over 25 articles at once is ridiculous. As Matt and others have demonstrated many conferences are notable. I think the best solution would be to nominate several conferences at a time over a period of time so each conference’s notability can be evaluated. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Eóin, there is a reason why Wikipedia offers bundled AfDs. I play in a softball league that has 20 different teams. Lets say all 20 teams have articles. They should be bundled together because it keeps things consistent. These conferences are all part of a system like those softball teams and should be deleted or kept together. There is no reason that I see as to why one conference should be kept or one conference should be deleted here. I've looked at these articles and none of them demonstrate a unique notability. In any event, the previous AfD saw 10+ articles broken off from the system that may have some notability that can be brought back individually. These 25+ should be deleted together. --Airtuna08 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eoin, if you feel some aren't notable then tell us which ones you feel aren't. It does not do anyone any good to say I'm sure many aren't notable but keep. UWM hit the nail on the head, we need some sort of decision. Tuna made a good point too. These conferences are part of a system. Those who really understand sports should realize that and not be scared off by many articles bundled together at once. It does keep things consistent. If you have 30 separate AfDs, then you could get 30 entirely different decisions simply based on who is present for the discussions. That would get really messy and open up a whole new can of worms. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His point was mainly that we should have to go through Deletion Review, which isn't true. Deletion Review shouldn't be used as an excuse for too-broad bundling. It's to fix mistakes; we shouldn't be deliberately creating mistakes because it's easier. matt91486 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you could have 30 separate AfD decisions based on the notability of the each article. Airtuna08's softball league analogy is poor, by that reasoning all bands, whether they are notable or not, under a record label should be kept or deleted together just because they are part of a system. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, it's hard to tell without being centralized, who is in favor of my proposal of keeping the sourced articles and deleting the unsourced and permitting future recreation when they are written properly? I know several people are, on both the keep and delete sides, but it'd be nice to have that information in one place for the admin. matt91486 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matt, why don't you set up a separate section to get a quick yea/ney from users on your compromise. Might help the closing admin make their decision. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. matt91486 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All for now. Attempts have been made over the past month or so to improve these articles and the articles should be given until at least October based on the improvements shown through the WikiProject. The nomination violates WP:GAME. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I love how you just come into a situation without pre-knowledge of it and say my nomination is in bad faith. The WikiProject has stalled except for Matt's efforts. I'm willing to compromise and see if he can further improve those two articles he wants to keep. They can be given sometime and he can pass them off for peer review and what not to see if they are good enough to keep and good enough to warrant the re-creation of articles that have been or will be deleted. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise quick poll[edit]

Yes, AfD is not a vote, but with this discussion ranging far and wide as the last one did, let's employ the same methods.

Here is my compromise suggestion: Keep articles with sources (Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference - are there any others I'm unaware of?). Delete unsourced articles, with no prejudice for recreation when they are sourced and include more than a list of squads. Move the two newly created articles Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference to my userspace so I can put them with the other draft articles to be improved upon.

I know this isn't my ideal solution, or probably anyone else's, but it should solve the biggest problem that people have with the articles here. Please just sign underneath.

  • Comment the other articles should be redirected to the conference list, rather than deleted, to preserve their histories so those wishing to expand them have somewhere to start Frank Anchor Talk to me 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second that, it will help spruce up the central list. --FancyMustard (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given those redirects and keeping of history thus far, I'm fine with this compromise. Deletion unwarranted at this time. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will support redirecting (which was an alternative all along). I will not support deletion under these conditions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you'll have a list that is way to long. The material won't be lost. Offer your help to Matt to help upgrade the drafts he'll have. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the list will not be any longer than it is. The content of the articles already exists on the list. go read what a redirect is before making such outlandish statements Frank Anchor Talk to me 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Frank, redirection is a better way to go than deleting NewYork483 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, redirecting is fine for me. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT

AGAINST

The above is not a vote

I think its time for this AfD to be close and the compromise based on the % of people willing to accept it to be put into effect by the closing admin. It's been a couple days since anyone has commented, so lets end this. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy and tell user to publish elsewhere. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Lords Official Help Page[edit]

Lords of Lords Official Help Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a manual/help page for a game. Not encylopedic content. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got deleted already! No need for this Afd. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art of the Devil (Remake)[edit]

Art of the Devil (Remake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant crystal ballery and quite clearly fails WP:NFF. As reported in this article in Variety, the rights to the film have been sold, and that's pretty much it. PC78 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since filming has not started and is not guaranteed to. Just because rights are bought to produce a film does not mean that film will be produced. In the film industry, there are numerous factors that can interfere with the start of production. Recreate only if filming has begun and general notability is established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The Hollywood Reported also has the rights story, but per Erik, come back when you have commenced filming... Livitup (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is not even in preproduction, and anything could happen before gets there. The article can be recreated when, or if, principal photography begins. Steve T • C 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:FILM and per WP:CRYSTAL. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da 1 U Luv 2 Hate[edit]

Da 1 U Luv 2 Hate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by Spider Loc. This album doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. No independent coverage etc. Reverend X (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing wrong with the article. Eatpeaches (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- articles on official albums by notable artists are generally considered notable. Even if only the track listing and basic information is available, it's worth having. In any case, there will probably be further coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Album by a notable artist. Article is fine even with minimal details, although i'm sure more can be found. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 08:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i've the tracklisting, rewritten the intro, added some review & reception section with references and fixed up the infobox. This article is now better than a lot of other album articles on wikipedia. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rum'el[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rum'el (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject.  Sandstein  17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:N... all this article is, is a list of names taken from 1 Enoch 69:2 of part of the group of angels that lead the fall of man. There isn't even any further information on them in the bible other than that list of names. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a 4.5 year old article with no reliable sources. Here is my Google search on the topic. Only 11 hits only. Hardly notable. Artene50 (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could see an article on fallen angels (provided it is reliably sourced, but as is, it is not notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- I added a note to Fallen angel#Others, so a redirect would be appropriate. 200 angels joined Lucifer according to Enoch, there just isn't information enough for an article on each of them, but I think listing them is very encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per J Milburn.--Lenticel (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per J Milburn. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per J Milburn. I would think that even though that is only a list at this point, an editor could include some more information for any of those angels on the list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuma'el[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tuma'el (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2005. It's also entirely written in an in-universe style, to borrow a phrase frequently used in fiction AfDs. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject.  Sandstein  17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:N... Tuma'el was only mentioned in a list of angels that lead the fall of man in 1 Enoch 69:2. There isn't even any further information on them in the bible other than that list of names. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V and certainly WP:RS as this search shows. Non-notable. Artene50 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per the previous article here. The same reasoning applies. DGG (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Redirect to?... - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeter'el[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yeter'el (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003 (!). No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject.  Sandstein  17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:N... Only mentioned in a list of angels that lead the fall of man in 1 Enoch 69:2. There isn't even any further information on them in the bible other than that list of names. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS This is a more than 4 year old article with no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could see an article on fallen angels (provided it is reliably sourced, but as is, it is not notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above--same reasoning. I actually think we could find sufficient older printed literature, but I'm not able or willing to do it myself now. DGG (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Redirect to?... - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of fallen angels (that's my suggestion) LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nothing apparent to establish notability of this mixtape, so going with WP:MUSIC standards. --Stormie (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dillagence[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el - Nabla (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neqa'el[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neqa'el (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mythological creature that fails WP:V; the article is unsourced since December 2006. I couldn't find any on-topic Google, Google Scholar or Google Book hits. The (few) search results that are returned appear to deal with some other creature or concept from Jewish tradition.  Sandstein  17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I could see an article on fallen angels (provided it is reliably sourced), but as is, it is not notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above--same reasoning. I actually think we could find sufficient older printed literature, but I'm not able or willing to do it myself now. DGG (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Redirect to?... - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of fallen angels (that's my suggestion) LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color of the bikeshed[edit]

Color of the bikeshed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An utterly nonnotable catch phrase. Only 45 unique google hits for "color of the bikeshed" plus 29 unique google hits for "coloUr of the bikeshed". The text is one big original research plus some tentative refs to hacker lore sources. `'Míkka>t 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that this neologism is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact that it is discussed by Parkinson would seem to establish notability. I don't understand why deletion is even an issue. Among technocrats this is a familiar phrase. Sources could be better but the mere fact of inadequate sources does not make something a neologism. Spinality (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Parkinson quote can be found by searching for "bicycle," cf. p. 29. Thus in this case, the WP article "colo[u]r of the bikeshed" is not referring to a phrase but a concept. Google searches for that particular phrase all seem to vector to that particular FreeBSD document, but searches for "bikeshed painting" or "bicycle shed" will find different and larger result sets. Clearly, from the number of blog references etc., the FreeBSD piece has been widely-read and has been significant in drawing attention to this topic. However just because something is widely referenced in blogs and achieves somewhat of a meme status does not diminish its importance. There are many aphorisms by the likes of Ruskin, La Rochefoulcauld, and Churchill that are difficult to track down but nevertheless play an important role in our collective experience. I have heard bicycle shed comments for years, and was thus surprised that anybody might think it was a recent invention. Spinality (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be equally happy if the article were made a redirect to a section on the Parkinson article (obviously after such a section were created). Spinality (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument below is not whether lots of people know the term; it's whether we can document that the term is widely known. (Laudak's argument below adds a higher but not-unreasonable threshold.) The difference between stuff discussed in blogs and seminal "aphorisms by the likes of Ruskin, La Rochefoulcauld, and Churchill" is professionally published evidence. Any of the latter, if they truly "play an important role in our collective experience", will be widely published, even if their specific origin is murky. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—As I was doing my research on this one Spinality stole my thunder. It seems that this term has an established place in technology (especially software) development and project management. The problem for me is more references than notability. While searching I found the term mentioned (though only in a footnote) in this paper which apparently was submitted to the GCC developer's conference in 2003. Since we recognize conference papers as a legitimate source, I think this article needs to stay. Livitup (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless multiple reliable sources are cited to demonstrate that this is not a neologism. The spelling of the subject is indicative of the true reason the article exists — because it caught someone's eye on the U.S.-leaning FreeBSD development mailing list, not because it is found in British author Parkinson's writings (in which it is apparently spelled colour of the bike shed; I can't be sure because no version of Parkinson's Law scanned by Google Book Search (GBS) seems to include this expression, which may be because they've not been fully or properly converted to searchable text). Spinality is technically correct that the current lack of reliable sources is not non-notability proof. Nevertheless, one of the major reasons for sources is to show that something is notable. Furthermore, just because Parkinson may be considerable notable doesn't automatically make any specific thing he said worthy of a Wikipedia article. Here's the only GBS-scanned book I found that includes this expression in any of its four most obvious forms (i.e., color/colour, bikeshed/bike shed):
    • Reed, Alec (2001). Innovation in Human Resource Management: Tooling Up for the Talent. Simon Caulkin ("Foreward"). CIPD Publishing. pp. page viii. ISBN 0852929285.
    See comment above; try searching Parkinson's Law for 'bicycle.' Spinality (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference in a mailing list and another in a conference paper add almost nothing to the argument that this expression is in wide use. Let's dig up some solid evidence so we don't have to argue the colo[u]r of this bikeshed while building Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I see now that there are many more relevant references for "bicycle shed" in Google Book Search, and some of them imply that a better name for the article would be "Parkinson's Law of Triviality", with various forms of "colo[u]r of the bike/bicycle shed" being redirected to it. But I haven't the time to analyze the data to see how solid these are. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term has been around for years. No doubt sources can be found. Look in idiom and proverb dictionaries. The Transhumanist 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a WP:NEOLOGISM to me. Most of the article is currently original research and i doubt the article could get past being a stub. --neon white talk 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there are zillions of witticisms uttered by smart people and circulated among closed professional societies. And we could have flooded wikipedia with articles about these. The major threshold is reasonable notability; the latter is identified by some reputable ref which critically discusses the term, not simply uses it. Laudak (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article is sourced to show the term has been in use for over 50 years, WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't apply. This should be kept as an obviously notable phrase due to regular use, and a well sourced origin having been provided. Jim Miller (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no sources to show that only examples of it being used. --neon white talk 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know about WP:OR, but WP:SYNTHESIS seems to be at work here. One source, no matter how old is almost never enough to establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have end up in this article by searching in the wikipedia for the meaning of the concept. Although it is a weak point, the arguments given by Spinality apply very much to my case. In any case, as the arguments for and against the article are quite reasonable, I would give the article the benefit of the doubt. Mimosinnet (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This term is used by Caulkin, Simon (2001) Foreword, In Alec Reed Innovation in Human Resource Management. Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (ISBN-10: 0852929285). Mimosinnet (talk 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to guidelines neologisms cannot be considered notable by a few examples of it's use. This is original research. To quote "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." --neon white talk 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be a relatively common misreading of the Parkinson argument, but that's all it is - a misreading of the Parkinson argument. The article is based around it having been sent out as an email to a mailing list this one time, which isn't notable. Redirect to Parkinson. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to keep based on recasting, with an assumed move to a more appropriate title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable neologism. No evidence this phrase has garnered use by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a clear preference above for deletion. The arguments are persuasive; but let me state what I think would be my preferred outcome, based on how WikiPedia actually gets used. 1. Create a section under Parkinson called "bicycle shed example" containing relevant sourced content. 2. Create redirects for "bicycle shed", "bike shed", "bikeshed", and "color of the bikeshed" to this section. This is on the grounds that a) Parkinson's bicycle shed example seems to be of (modest) notability; b) It is not unusual for an article about an author to mention salient topics based primarily on that author's writing; c) There are sufficient references to the example (both correct and misread) to expect that people will search WikiPedia for this information; d) Though arguably borderline, this doesn't strike me as an egregious neologism, but is more along the lines of other adages (which we should comb for notability); and e) By referring to it under "bicycle shed" rather than "color of the bikeshed," the issue of neologism is removed. I might cite WP:IGNORE as an argument for retaining an article that some of us, at least, were glad to find. Finally, one might add that this discussion seems to be an excellent example of the "bicycle shed" principle. Spinality (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick look through Google Books shows at least three published titles that use the phrase in relation to project management, and not only in software; Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, Perl Template Toolkit, and Innovation in Human Resource Management: Tooling Up for the Talent Wars. This isn't just a meme that appeared last month on some message board; it's been around since the 1950s and appears in serious books. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out. I have added numerous references to the article, a pointless task :P which I believe lays to rest the idea that the bicycle shed example is some lost bit of trivia. Since its association with the phrase "color of the bikeshed" seems to be an Internet-era recasting of the story (albeit one that is cited in what look like credible publications), I again suggest that this material probably DOES belong in WikiPedia; that it belongs under Parkinson rather than as a stand-alone article; and that several redirects are appropriate. Spinality (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As i pointed out above, neologisms are not considered notabile by citing examples of their use in primary sources. This is original research. If the term is not covered in secondary sources it lacks notablity. --neon white talk 15:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is Parkinson's "bicycle shed" example a neologism? And why aren't the numerous references to this example and the "Law of Triviality" now cited on the page, most of which are indeed secondary sources, sufficient evidence that this concept is notable? (I can see that the phrase "color of the bikeshed" per se is less well established, although it is still discussed (not simply used) in secondary sources. For that reason the main discussion probably belongs under Parkinson, Law of Triviality, etc.) But I must be missing something about the "delete" argument. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are original research and that cant be used to assert notability. The term needs to be covered in secondary sources. --neon white talk 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. These are secondary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY:
"Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source.... Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims."
With respect to Parkinson's Law of Triviality, the primary source is Parkinson's Law, and virtually any reference to and discussion of that concept is thus a secondary source. Spinality (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinson's is a source of the neologism. Parkinson's is just a case of comparison, treated literally, not as a fixed expression. `'Míkka>t 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not understanding. I thought the real issue here was whether Parkinson's example, which has been referred to as "Law of Triviality," "bikeshed effect," "color of the bikeshed," "bicycle shed example," etc., is notable. I realize that the current article title is "color of the bikeshed," and there are arguments for and against viewing this either as a simple descriptive phrase, as a non-notable neologism, or as a notable one. One might split hairs about how best to refer to many laws and adages. But including some description of Parkinson's Law of Triviality would seem to be expected, and it seems as notable as most of the other adages and eponymous principles described elsewhere in WikiPedia. Presumably the goal is to avoid creating useless lists describing silly, single-source phrases, not to exclude articles that people will reasonably expect to find here. Spinality (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's already been established that this example is used in multiple secondary sources. The "neologism" argument is over and done with. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NEO. For a neoligism to be notable there has to be evidence that it has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable second or third party sources, merely pointing to examples of it's use in primary sources is not that and is original resaerch. The guideline makes that quite clear. Please do not claim false consensus. --neon white talk 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not examples of use in primary sources. They are secondary sources that discuss the bicycle shed example. Moreover, the issue of the origin of the phrase "color of the bikeshed" IMO is far less important than the concept of Parkinson's Law of Triviality, which is widely discussed in these sources and elsewhere. Spinality (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what they are, they are examples of the term being used in primary sources that editors of wikipedia have found, thus it's research that has not been done before and is original. I cannot see any examples of the term/phrase being discussed in terms of its meaning and origin in reliable secondary sources. --neon white talk 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO restricts itself to "terms that have recently been coined." I still do not believe that this guideline is at all applicable. 1957 doesn't seem recent enough to qualify. Even using the actual wording on this article (which is a content dispute) which dates to 1999 seems be to old to fail WP:NEO. The concept is notable by its use, the wording of the title is a matter for the talk page. Jim Miller (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1957 is hundreds of years later than 99% of the english language. Regardless, neologism or not, the term does not have significant coverage in independent second party sources. No subjects are notable by merely existing. This is contrary to notability policy. A subject has to have been noticed and writen about by someone other than the wikipedia editors that created the page which is the case here and why the article is a piece of original research and the subject, not notable. --neon white talk 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've often mentioned (if not by name) this phenomenon and the associated Law of Triviality in conversation; so, although this is my first encounter with the Wikipedia article, I can see it being a very useful source to which I can refer others. I wouldn't object, however, if it survived as a paragraph or two in a larger collection of such verities, such as the Peter Principle (everyone tends to his/her level of incompetence) or Murphy's Law (everything that can go wrong will go wrong; everything that can't go wrong still goes wrong). Shakescene (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable neologism falsely attributed to Parkinson. I personally checked while the book indeed parodically compares debates about expenses for a reactor, for bicycle shed & for refreshments, it does not mention color neither uses the Americanism, "bike". Therefore the article title is invented by someone else, although eveidently derived from Parkinson's. Whether the concept is notable is not proven by metareferenes (i.e., not merely usage citations), the article is 100% original research and invention. The apparently impessive list of references is not about the expression in question. Timurite (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once more, for the folks in the balcony. Yes, the title of the article is wrong for various reasons. The solution is not to delete it but rename it. I added the references to the article to substantiate that the concept is notable. These are legitimate print references to Parkinson's Law of Triviality and his bicycle shed example – references, not "meta-references"; these authors discuss the concept, and are not simply uses of a catchphrase, which would be improper references. Moreover, a few of these sources refer to the Parkinson example using the description "color of the bikeshed" – due no doubt to Kamp's mischaracterization (but which nevertheless has itself been discussed in legitimate sources). In my quick review of these sources, I read them all as referring to the concept and not to the phrase; I did not include citations that simply used the phrase in a descriptive manner, i.e. as a non-notable or (perhaps a notable) neologism. Surely you will agree that Parkinson's example has been discussed widely for many years. Why shouldn't we have an article or article section about Parkinson's Law of Triviality that describes inter alia the bicycle shed example? This is precisely what many of these authors have done. And if we do, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide redirects for terms such as "bikeshed" and "bicycle shed" that are manifestly in common use? I am truly puzzled that this is generating debate. Spinality (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have mildly reworded the article so that it discusses the concept rather than the phrase. If we follow this route, and retitle it, will the foes of neologism be more comfortable? Spinality (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New to me, but apparently a widely used concept. DGG (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no sources that document it's use so we cannot know that. --neon white talk 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with the recent recasting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I hope the irony of this now rather large debate is not lost on most AfDers, considering the subject under discussion. :) Livitup (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that unintentionally humorous overlay of this issue has motivated me to keep bashing away. :) This is why I try to shy away from debates about policy, meta-policy, and their bureaucratic implementation. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear that it's not a neologism (because it doesn't fit the requirement of being recently coined). It's also clear that it's notable (from the multiple secondary sources). It's also clear that it isn't original research (since those many different secondary sources discuss it, not just mention it (In fact, I find it kinda hard to imagine how one could mention the term without discussing it, especially if it was non-notable as has been asserted). This covers all of the deletion reasons. However, it does probably need to be re-titled. As the bottom of WP:NEO suggests, this notable topic seems to have no accepted shorthand (the shorthand used is not recent, but does not seem to be "accepted"), so instead the title should use "a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." BurnChao (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources? --neon white talk 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Three quotes quickly pulled from the sources listed in the current article:
  • "Poul-Henning Kamp's famous "bikeshed" post (an excerpt from which appears in Chapter 6) is an eloquent disquisition on what tends to go wrong in group discussions." Karl Fogel et al., Producing Open Source Software...', pp. 135, 261-268
  • "The difference, according to Parkinson, was that everyone had some experiences with projects of the bicycle-shed variety; in contrast to their experience with nuclear physics buildings." Grace Budrys, Planning for the nation's health...", p. 81
  • "A few decades ago, Professor Northcote Parkinson published a series of essays on the science of public and business administration.... [His] Law of Triviality [uses an example that] describes the perfunctory discussion on an item concerning an expensive...nuclear reactor and compares this with the fierce debate over the proposed new bicycle shed.... [No] self-respecting committee member would confess to not understanding the construction and economics of a bicycle shed! Few better illustrations of the workings of the various laws enunciated by Parkinson could be provided than the development of nuclear power...." Bob Burton et al., Nuclear Power, Pollution and Politics, p. ix
These are secondary sources since they cite Parkinson. The other sources I smacked into the article were similar, and were found via a brief foray in Google Books to aid in the present AfD discussion. A more thorough survey of the literature would no doubt allow greater depth and selectivity. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it sounds like there may be some confusion here about what is a "secondary source." Although I believe WP:PRIMARY makes this quite clear, it seems as though some 'deleters' are looking for citations from historical surveys that are specifically on the topic of references to Parkinson's bicycle shed – who would write such a book? – and which BTW would probably be tertiary sources. The assessment of primary/secondary/tertiary to a source is always with respect to some subject matter – in this case, Parkinson's book, which is the primary source. If you are asserting that no book may be quoted in Wikipedia which is also a source of original research, you reduce us to quoting from encyclopaedias and textbooks. I can't recall any article I've read or written that ignores sources that contain original content – because of course few publishers would be interested in a book that says nothing new. Moreover we are not even enjoined from citing original research published in credible sources. We may not place our own original research on WikiPedia, and we may not use original research to establish notability. When we refer to a source that cites Parkinson's work, that source is manifestly not original research. Spinality (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the deletionist argument is that just because a phrase is used in some published books, that doesn't make them secondary sources on the phrase. One example would be if we did an article about the prevalence of some slang expression and cited occurences of it in print as evidence thereof; that's not enough for an article. However, that's not the case here. We cite books that discuss the "bikeshed" analogy and how it applies to different situations in business. And that discussion and analysis makes them secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my interpretation as well. A list of search engine hits for a particular phrase would obviously not make that phrase notable. Perhaps when adding the sources, I did not make it clear that they all included substantive discussion of the underlying topic. Also, there is a big difference between a discussion of a catchphrase versus a discussion of the concept it references. In this case, the choice of reference phrase is probably only significant in relation to the ways people are likely to search for the article. Spinality (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rename as "Bicycle shed (proverb)" ( I could have sworn the version I first heard was the roof on the bicycle shed. ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Comment That's basically what's debated in Parkinson's example: should it be aluminium, asbestos or galvanized iron? (page 69 of the 1957 edition published by John Murray, London) Shakescene (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, sources show that it has been used many times. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, you didn't bother to check the "sources" `'Míkka>t 01:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, I just looked at the Gentlemen and Tradesmen article ( which apparently you deleted as a reference ), which quotes Parkinson's adage as an example of what can happen in business when generalists are promoted over specialists. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have restored the sources that refer to this CONCEPT (not PHRASE) since we are actively discussing this issue. user:mikkalai, since you obviously think that these are not proper sources, please discuss your position here rather than just removing article content. Please see the comments above (including source quotes) that explain why I at least regard these as legitimate secondary sources. What is wrong with them? Spinality (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should pick about five good sources and actually cite them, leaving the rest aside. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Basically agree, but remember that the current long list of sources was quickly placed on the page simply to address the AfD discussion. I believe that the right sequence of events would be
        1. Resolve the AfD decision; and then (assuming Keep is the decision):
        2. Create a Parkinson's Law of Triviality article as a sub-article to C Northcote Parkinson (and do the same for other Parkinson sub-topics)
        3. Clean up the new article to discuss the CONCEPT as opposed to catch phrases, including quotes cited from a good subset of sources (although I might point out that most articles simply cite sources by name and page number, and don't provide specific textual context, but I agree that this is a special situation since the sources were called into question)
        4. Replace the current article with a redirect
        As a start, I have inserted the three quotes cited above on the article page. However I have left the other sources in place, pending resolution of the AfD. Spinality (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a neologism because the article is not about the specific phrase but about the idea. The fact that the "wrong" version of the example was used for the title of the article is evidence of that! --Itub (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on points covered under all above "keeps". By the way, there may be notable topics without even a single google hit. --Bhadani (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very well known phrase and concept dating back over half a century! How ironic to see it referred to as a neologism. I agree with the comment above, however, that the author was British and the article should probably use UK spelling. Oh, and there's also the fact that it is the basis of a wikipedia essay that has been around for over 2 years: Wikipedia:Avoid Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect. --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution[edit]

At this point, the preponderance of responses suggest keeping an improved/recasted article. To summarize:

  • Delete (7 votes): Main objection centers around the phrase "color of the bikeshed" and the sense that it is a) a neologism, b) not notable, c) not related to Parkinson's original example, d) concern that the sources cited are primary sources, and e) concern that the cited sources illustrate use of rather than discussion of the concept/phrase.
  • Keep (15 votes, including one reversed 'delete'): Parkinson's Law of Triviality and its bicycle shed example are seen as notable and well-documented; there is some agreement that the concept is more important than a particular phrase/adage, and that this should be refleced in the article.
  • Abstain (1 vote, reversed from 'delete'): Probably worn out by this endless "bike shed" discussion.

Proposed actions: a) Keep the article. b) Refocus and retitle it to address the concept rather than the phrase. c) Integrate it better with other Parkinson material. d) Clean up the sources. [And with luck e) Never need to discuss this again.] Kindly add any dissenting comments below, with explanation, please – e.g. explaining why you feel that the quoted sources are inadequate. :) Spinality (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. I would be happy to merge & redirect the article to one on the Missouri House of Reps election, but there does not seem to be one. If I've missed it, point it out to me, I'd be happy to undelete, merge & redirect. --Stormie (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Webber[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CRYSTAL, may merit deletion per WP:RECENTISM; he doesn't appear to be particularly notable apart from election coverage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN, the main criteria that would apply to him in terms of notability since he's nothing more than a nominee for the democratic primary for the Missouri House of Representatives. He appears to have quite a bit of independent coverage from reliable sources but all of those are related to a single event, failing WP:ONEVENT. The subject would merit inclusion into a possible article on the election to the Missouri House of Representatives if, and only if, he's chosen as the democratic nominee. Even then, barring other events that would make him notable, he does not deserve a stand-alone article unless he's elected to serve in the House. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Would need considerable coverage beyond being elected to acheive WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi; I’m the original author of the article. I’ve never previously been involved in an Article for Deletion discussion, so I apologize if I make any style errors here.
The five standards that the article is alleged not to have met are WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:ONEVENT. I don’t agree that the article fails the tests of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:CRYSTAL, and I have added some information to the article to try to rectify WP:RECENTISM and WP:ONEVENT.
WP:NOTADVOCATE
WP:NOTADVOCATE prohibits, “Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.”
I think the article has been written objectively and from a neutral point of view; would one of you be interested in fleshing out the argument that it hasn’t been?
WP:POLITICIAN
Swik78 writes that WP:POLITICIAN is “the main criteria that would apply to him in terms of notability since he's nothing more than a nominee for the democratic primary for the Missouri House of Representatives.”
While WP:POLITICIAN allows that being a nominee for elected office “does not guarantee notibility,” it adds that “such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.’”
The article (in its original form; I’ve since added a couple citations mentioned below) cites ten articles from independent, reliable sources independent of the subjecct. Five of the ten are written by the same author, Jason Rosenbaum, of the Columbia Tribune. Rosenbaum is the primary political reporter for Columbia’s daily newspaper, and almost all the paper’s articles relating to poltics feature his byline. Three of the ten are from other Missouri news sources, and the remaining two are from Missouri organizations that endorsed the Webber campaign. I think this should constitute as significant coverage.
Lonely Beacon writes, “Would need considerable coverage beyond being elected to acheive WP:N.”
To my mind, ten independent articles should constitute considerable coverage; are there more specific standards that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon?
WP:CRYSTAL
I don’t think the article includes any “unverifiable speculation.”
WP:RECENTISM
and
WP:ONEVENT
These two strike me as the strongest arguments for deletion.
I’m not sure how to respond to WP:RECENTISM. Reading the entry on recentism, I’m inclined to say that I agree with the “inclusionist” philosophy that Wikipedia should serve as a documentation of all knowledge, and that most things are permissible if they are verifiable and have been deemed notable by independent news sources.
Regarding WP:ONEVENT, I added information from and cited an article about his service in Iraq published before the election, as well as information about Webber’s essays about the Iraq war that were published in two books, one of which was New York Times bestseller. I don’t know whether that satisfactorally addresses the one event issue, as I doubt either of those facts independently would warrant a Wikipedia entry.
Thoughts?Chrysanthememe (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Chrysanthememe! Welcome!
I agree that you have brought up some good points. I hate to sound a bit like I am wikilawyering, but I want to bring up WP:NOT#NEWS (it reads essentially as WP:ONEVENT)and WP:POLITICIAN. This is what deals with significant coverage over a single event (in this case, an election). My statement Would need considerable coverage beyond being elected to acheive WP:N. would mean that, as I am seeing this, there would need to be coverage beyond the election. To wit: virtually any politician would get coverage around an election. That would mean virtually any politician around the world would be eligible for inclusion. The significant coverage would mean, essentially, beyond just the election. If (I'm pulling a number out of a hat) over the course of the next 2 years he is the subject of considerable coverage, then even as a non-national level legislator, then I think you've got an article. That's just where I'm coming from. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, LonelyBeacon. Thanks for the welcome! It seems to me that you are saying that being an unelected candidate for office is a sufficient condition to prove non-notability. I think that, while it's true that merely being a candidate is not a sufficient condition for notability, being the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is. See WP:POLITICIAN.
The issue, then, is WP:ONEVENT. I'm not sure what to say about this. I understand the position that a person associated with only one event may not need a separate article. It also seems to me that Wikipedia's goal of assembling knowledge is well-served by having individual pages for individual politicians. Too many times have I searched Wikipedia for information about a person running for public office, only to find nothing (the impetus for me to start my current project of creating pages for Missouri politicians). Do you think it'd be better to have a page for the election itself, but not for individual candidates? That strikes me as something that'd be better for Wikinews. Or maybe all of this information could be included on a page about the 23rd District of Missouri, including a history of previous elections? What do you think? To my mind, a page like that would be great, but individual pages for the people who would be discussed in such a page would be even greater. Chrysanthememe (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a voter guide. It is a reference work of subjects of enduring interest. Elections themselves tend to have historic interest long after they happen. Unelected politicians generally don't have ongoing general interest after the election is over, especially not enough to justify their own articles. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), the nomination was withdrawn. Ruslik (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EasyChair[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn - see the end of this discussion. This is a misleading article about conference management software. I've tried to stubify it but various editors insist on reinstating it, so a proper debate is needed.

The article fails WP:VER and WP:NOTABILITY for the following reasons:

  • No independent evidence of notability
  • No independent evidence for any of the claims made about usage and functionality
  • Some of the statements made about usage are wrong and misleading - e.g. the product website says that it has been used for certain conferences where in fact rival software was used
  • The article makes exaggerated claims that are not backed by any evidence, for example saying that it's definitely "the most widely used conference management system"
  • The software functionality is no different from many rival products

Essentially, it's spam. If it wasn't for the fact that it's freeware it would have been deleted long ago andy (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic "conference management software" in general is notable, but, Andy, I agree with you that single systems such as EasyChair might not (yet) be. I suggest moving the current EasyChair article to an article Conference Management Software, stripping all references to EasyChair from the general part of the article, but preserving the list of common features and the reference to that one scientific paper about such systems, and then mentioning EasyChair and competitors in a subsection of that article. --Langec (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm there ahead of you. Most of the encyclopedic stuff is already at Abstract management (I recently added the section on functionality after stubbing EasyChair). But experience with this and other articles shows that specific software is usually regarded as spam - and why not? After all, if you want to find some there's Google. WP should be for the background info. So how about a redirect to Abstract management? andy (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract management is a fraction of functionality Conference Managament Systems usually do -- you have full papers, even LaTeX paper sources submitted and the system can compile them for you and form proceedings volumes, like EasyChair does for instance. You can manage the actual schedule of the conference, parallel tracks of the same conference (e.g. there was th FLoC conference EasyChair hadnled the special needs for), when the papers (full papers, not just abstracts) review is done, they can be rebutted by the authors in case of rejection. I think Abstract management should fold into Conference management software instead, or even more generally, Conference management as there is more to it than abstracts. --Mokhov (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, thanks for the pointer to Abstract management. I wasn't aware of the existence of the article. The article itself looks good, but the lemma is probably not to the point, as such systems generally do more than managing abstracts. --Langec (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I rv'd some unintentionally disruptive edits by User:Mokhov and asked for them to be reinserted properly. Mokhov voted keep - see here
  • I re-added my stuff below, indentend without missing up your nomination this time. Sorry if it's not as tidy as you would like it to be. --Mokhov (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my take on responding to the points (appended this time instead of purely inline, per recommendation from Andy). The original response items preserved, but indented (--Mokhov (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)):[reply]
  • No independent evidence of notability
  • the above is a bold and uninformed/unsuppored claim. Please see the list of notable conferences that use the EasyChair conference system --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No independent evidence for any of the claims made about usage and functionality
  • the very same notable conferences and many others use it for the very functionality --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -that's not what notability means in Wikipedia - see WP:N. andy (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the statements made about usage are wrong and misleading - e.g. the product website says that it has been used for certain conferences where in fact rival software was used
  • your claim/facts are outofdate. It happens for coferences to start with one system first, and then in the course of action switch to another system. Also andy when you checked back in March, we are in July, things evolve. Many conferences later remove the links to submission when the submission deadline passes. Now, the confereces listed on the stats page due to the systems requirements to combat spam and auto-registration -- have to be approved manually after submitting a form. The fact they even appear there is that the conference organizers made a request to have it hosted by EasyChair and were granted (manual) approval to do so. If one conferences has switched from one system it started with and then to EasyChair as another system does not support your claim, as the conference web page maintainers also quite often lag behind updating the pages with the proper links. In another instance I have experienced, was the initial submission was through one system for a review, and the final camera-ready submission was through another, which was announced through the acceptance email rather than on the web page. --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains that the product website contains false claims that it was used on certain conferences. andy (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes exaggerated claims that are not backed by any evidence, for example saying that it's definitely "the most widely used conference management system"
  • there are no such claims in the aticle anymore; the original contributor may have been very pationate and did not remove the NPOV wording, but we can clean up all those remaining, if any, in the short term --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The software functionality is no different from many rival products
  • perhaps the claimant hasn't used this or any other system of this kind to make such a claim; one only learns by usage and experience, which it seems andy does not have (this not personal) --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I have, but that's neither here nor there. A quick look at other product websites will show that they all claim broadly similar functionality. E.g. compare with Oxford Abstracts andy (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize the list of features--Mokhov (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) is the weakest part of the article, I agree. In this case, if we are to consolidate various software systems under one article (one of the previouslu proposed), we can have a table -- a matrix denoting systems vs. claimed features and cost for comparison. --Mokhov (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, it's spam. If it wasn't for the fact that it's freeware it would have been deleted long ago andy (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely diagree it is a spam. I used the said system (and many others) to submit my academic articles through for review and publication and this one is most functional by far; regardless the "spam" assertion is not supported enough given there are plethora of independent evidence from the very conferences and the notable conferences that use it. The only problem with the article is not elaborate enough and had a few NPOV traces; which is often a problem of many articles as they start up. --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps I added too much text in the inline comments above in the defense of the article... I am not sure if we will manage to keep the EasyChair wikipedia article in place, but I will not oppose consolidating it under Conference Management Software as Langec suggests if the community finds the current article still to fail the said standards and to be deleted. --Mokhov (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is, therefore, my vote, per the above reasons I put in my responses inline and signed. --Mokhov (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mokhov said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Mokhov said Keep but also supported the proposals of both Langec and myself for a redirect to a generic article, either a new one or Abstract management andy (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is correct; that is if the article doesn't survive on its own, I am for merging its content, in full or in part, into the "generic article". Sorry for messing up with the AfD, as you pointed out it was unintentional (after all it's a first time I am participating actively in one). --Mokhov (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrge into an article, but "abstract management" is only part of what it does. DGG (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well since nobody has written the generic article yet, and most of the functionality is covered in Abstract management how about a redirect to that article until such time as someone writes something more generic? The article isn't acceptable as it stands, and the lack of a really good place to merge or redirect to is no excuse for keeping it. andy (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on re-reading Abstract_management#Functionality I think it covers about 90% of the "meat" of this article without once plugging a particular software solution. andy (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstract management itself should be moved and redirected to Conference management or some such, per my lengthy comments earlier. In the case of EasyChair they are also make a publishing service within the system itself, and can organize the schedules of a conference and other things like that with parallel tracks, which is more than just abstracts. Now, what about the full papers, their camera-ready versions, and others? Are we going to have Full-paper management or Camera-ready paper management as well?? For instance, EasyChair allows upload of papers and compiling an LNCS volume automatically for the editors, etc. So, essentially this boils down to renaming abstract management to conference management, having a section on conference management systems from EasyChair including EasyChair itself, and making a table comparison matrix of various software systems supporting various degrees of paper management, conference management, other features, publishing, and cost. Abstract management then should redirect to Conferece management, and so are specific software tools that do the management. Or, the EasyChair article simply be improved further. :-) --Mokhov (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you going to write this non-existent article? If not, then until someone does EasyChair should be stubified and a link added to Abstract management and anywhere else that seems relevant such as Academic conference. Hmmm... didn't I do that already? andy (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support Mokhov's plan, if somebody goes ahead and writes that article. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it right know. Otherwise, Andy's plan is OK. --Langec (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus? - it seems to be agreed by the only three people who've done any serious editing of the article that a generic article is needed. So I've created a stub (someone had to!) here and stubified EasyChair and put in the appropriate links. Hopefully the new article will develop into something useful and generic. On that basis I'm withdrawing my nomination. andy (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Charter School[edit]

Elysian Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Prod was removed and a merge was suggested, but the material here is largely trivial and unreferenced so a merge doesn't make much sense as the material isn't viable even in another host article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added two references, one from the New York Times. --Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that the article about the kids winning the video award amounts to establishing notability because every school on the planet gets written up for something like that, but the other article might have something to it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that notability has been established. Merge to its district -- or possibly Bank Street College of Education if its status as exemplar of that college's style is important enough to use it as an example for that article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Non-notable school" is a contradiction in terms. Schools are enduring public institutions, and thus are inherently "notable". This one has also been the subject of New York Times reportage. Nuff said. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The wikipedia community has a long tradition of refuting that idea. Schools have been deleted before, so it is far from universal that "non-notable school" is accepted as an axiom here. The same could be said for post offices, village halls, police departments, fire departments, but nowhere does it say that these enduring public institutions are automatically notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, such institutions are very widely documented in WP, along with thousands of other facilities as individual railway stations, which also have their own dedicated articles. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gene, I think you may be misunderstanding. I am aware that many of those institutions have articles. I was stating that they are not automatically notable. They need to establish notability. It seemed that in your first post, you were saying all schools were automatically notable. That would not be true. I was not saying that all schools were not notable (I work on many school articles .... I hope some are notable! LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added a further source and there is another reasonable reference here but I don't have High Beam access to incorporate it. Taken together, WP:ORG is met. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:ORG states: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The new source has incidental coverage of this school (it is about charter schools in general, not about this one in particular). The second source is from a Jersey City (?) article, and does not mention the school at all (it may in the rest of the article which we cannot read). I am not convinced that WP:ORG has been met. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -On the contrary; the new NYT source I have added specifically mentions moving this school into a residential building in what looks a highly unusual if not unique arrangement. The High Beam source specifically deals with the school as can be seen from the Gsearch here. TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an elementary school. that it occupies a few floors or a residential building is actually quite usual in cities. Deevlopers do this as a public amenity to get zoning benefits. DGG (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that 'Delete as an elementary school' is a valid deletion argument. The article has multiple reliable sources which is the claim that needs scrutiny. TerriersFan (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- While the attributes of this elementary school are quite common, the secondary coverage of this one including from the NYT is in-depth, which every elementary school does not have.--Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep.  Sandstein  17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anheuser-Busch InBev[edit]

Anheuser-Busch InBev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Renamed Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev, per concerns raised in discussion below.S. Dean Jameson 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anheuser-Busch InBev does not exist, as the merger is not yet approved. Thus, this is an unnecessary crystal ball article that simply repeats content from existing articles. The article should be recreated later if/when the new company actually exists. Superm401 - Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source explicitly says the deal is complete, and not pending any approval? Now, granted, some sources aren't mentioning approval either way, but they're just being careless. Superm401 - Talk 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the merger would fail, the attempt and the proposal have gained notability because of the importance for the global beer market and far stage of the negotiations. The importance is well known because it would establish the biggest brewer group ever, usurping 25% of the global beer market and becoming the fifth biggest consumer group in the world. A failure of this proposal would have equally important ramifications for the global beer market. 81.240.170.97 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This deal is far from complete, the fact that analysts consider it very likely to happen is not relevant. This article is written as if the takeover has already taken place (mentioning dates and all), which is not the case. At this point, Anheuser-Busch InBev simply doesn't exist yet. 217.149.210.16 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That subject will be the name of the merged company, but it's not a done deal yet. From this article, "The deal is subject to approval by shareholders of both Anheuser-Busch and InBev, and it must pass muster with U.S. and other regulators." At best, the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that. --LarryMac | Talk 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article should be rewritten to mirror the fact that it is a proposal. BUT: a significant proposal can have notability, even if it never comes to completion. The media attention to this proposal, the statements of significant politicians (eg Obama), the impact this proposal (or its failure) would have, the fact that it's the biggest cash take-over attempt ever, the fact that it "could" create a completely different beer market, etc. MAKE it notable. Btw there are a lot of proposals (for peace treaties, for the European Defence Community, etc.) that never came into existence. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violation of Crystal Ball policy. Do we even know that if the deal goes through, that the name of the company will be Anheuser-Busch InBev? --Tocino 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am quite split on this issue. While the deal has not gone through yet it is too early to put this up. Although it can be added later. While the deal has been announced, and albeit likely to go through (SAB Miller did, despite it being a smaller acquisition), it has to pass American and EU regulatory approvals (which can add another para. worth to the article), it is not ready for an article just yet. And if the deal fall through it can always, and probably will, be added to the InBev and/or Anheuser pages. Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deal is pretty much sealed and this is the announced name of the new company. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a terrible name. --Tocino 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of this particular moment, the merger has been agreed upon - the company's going to be created. CCG (T-C) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name has been decided (it is in the joint press release) and the companies themselves don't even mention regulatory approval - probably because there is very little geographical overlap. User:Luzdanoite
  • Keep The points of those arguing for deletion appear to have become moot. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Uh, how so, given that absolutely nothing has changed since the nomination? Superm401 - Talk 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This merger and the corporate name when merged have been announced by both parties, which is notable in itself. Add that both AB's and InBev's articles will almost certainly forward to this new page shortly, and deleting it at this point seems a bit silly. Deal's also on front page, so... - Kallahan (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This user has used his admin tools to revert a completely appropriate and peace-making move to a more appropriate title. There was no attempt to communicate with me regarding reverting my move with his tools, and the only response from anyone (other than the abuse of admin tools to revert the move) was a user commenting in support of the move. S. Dean Jameson 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • What in the world are you talking about? What admin tools? -- Kallahan (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I distribute Five newspaper publications every day, And this was front page material on three of them, Not including the St. Louis Post Dispatch. And I bet this will be in the upcoming saturday-only Barrons! This is a clean article, And as long as it is updated as the news rolls in on this merger, This article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.164.156 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Merger is all but done, and this is a completely notable attempt at a merger if nothing else. 143.165.8.50 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Even if it should fail -- unlikely -- then the attempt would be notable on its own. —Nightstallion 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if, as expected the merger goes thru the way to handle the proposed company is to merge the existing Anheuser-Busch & InBev articles into the new Anheuser-Busch InBev and replace the old pages with redirects, not add a additional page and keeping the other two. Jon (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most proposed mergers have their own article. Why should this be any different? --Allemannster (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as well as the comments of Jon above. The deal is a proposed one, as of this very moment, with approval from various entities still required for it to become official. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above IP vote was mine. I thought I was logged in, but actually wasn't. My apologies.. --Winger84 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those who say "the company's going to be created" and "That subject will be the name of the merged company", "the companies themselves don't even mention regulatory approval ", etc. you're simply wrong. There is no deal and no company without approval by regulators and shareholders. The companies in fact do state themselves that approval is required.[14]. Nor is the fact that it's "Front page material" relevant; this isn't a newspaper. Superm401 - Talk 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have WP:BOLDly redirected this to the A-B article. It's a clear case of crystal-balling, and the article history remains--pending the result of this AfD of course--for if and when the deal actually goes through. Remember, my action does not affect this AfD, it simply removes a blatant example of crystal-balling, at least for now. S. Dean Jameson 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undeleted. I count 14 keep and 8 delete, which is a pretty clear decision if ever I've seen one. And I'd suggest that the other pages may not need to be redirected at all; see Latrobe Brewing Company, currently a part of AB (and formerly a part of InBev, but now... you catch my drift.) -- Kallahan (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You "undeleted" nothing. As it was simply redirected (and appropriately so), there was nothing to "undelete." Also, you should know that AfDs are not a vote count, in any way. They are a discussion. Citing "14 to 8" is completely, utterly irrelevant. I read the discussion thoroughly. And this is pretty clear-cut crystal-balling. There may be some point in the future when a viable article may be needed with this title, which is why I redirected it, saving the history. Right now, this "company" doesn't even exist, though, and neither should the article. S. Dean Jameson 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dean, as long as the article deals with a "proposed" company, it is not crystal-balling, because it IS a proposed company. It would be crystal-balling if the article would state that the company will (in all possible circumstances) be created. Many examples have been set across Wikipedia about proposals for treaties, countries, movies, flags, etc. that were never realized. These articles are valid as long as the subject in itself is notable. Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          As such, I've moved the article to a more appropriately-titled name, for now. It's easy enough to move it back, should the merger be approved. S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the changed title. If it's moved back, then I think we should delete it, per the crystal-balling title. S. Dean Jameson 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for move. I agree with Dean's move, as it better reflects the ongoing and uncertain nature of the proposed merger. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I invite the community to take Jameson's move for what it is and assess if he's being unduly uncooperative and uncollaborative, given the responses on the board. A tad vindictive given the supermajority opposed to his position; I invite everyone to observe his comments on my Talk wall and my response on his. Unimpressed and will more than gladly take his/her bullying to the higher ups if need be. -- Kallahan (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is bullying here? I made a wholly benign page move, that was supported by an editor who had previously been at odds with my position. You reverted it, simply because I was the one who made it, and you were angry about my initial idea to redirect the article. You're being utterly unhelpful here, and I'm still struggling to understand how you could have possibly thought that moving it back without discussion would be helpful at all. S. Dean Jameson 03:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've moved it back. I just realized that Kallahan is not an administrator, and did not need to use tools to move it back. I implore both Kallahan and anyone considering moving it back to closely examine the article as it reads with its new title. With its new title, it's a clear keep. With the title that basically predicts the merger will receive approval, it's not a clear keep. S. Dean Jameson 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep: This article will be notable regardless of outcome. The deal has already been approved; only regulatory action could block it. Provided the deal goes through, it's a blatantly notable corporation (the world's largest beer producer). If it is blocked, it's a notable case study in regulatory intervention between two very large companies (could use a name change to 2008 Proposed Merger between Anheuser-Busch and InBev if that were the case). Either way, the article is a painfully obvious keep. 86.204.121.194 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: This article can be revived if regulatory approval occurs. It is not necessary at this time. KansasCity (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In what case is the proposed merger not notable? If it is approved, it is notable. If it is not approved, it is still notable as a proposed merger into the world's largest beer company and as a regulatory precedent. Either way, the proposition itself (as the title of the article now stands) is notable. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there is one major author who blanked the page (WP:CSD#G7). Editor advised to use WP:CSD in future. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Market requirement[edit]

Market requirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author asking for speedy delete or AFD. Copyright issues.Spinacia (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the suggestions for keeping this article have addressed the problem of notability. Shereth 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigovernment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wikigovernment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article itself, which has a source or two, doesn't suggest anything notable about this (really, really bad) idea. I shudder to think what it would be like if the regulars in AfD were in control of a nuclear weapon. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree with Mansford the idea of the article is bad, I vote for keeping and developing to document the bad idea and how it progresses in their College, so to "provide a model for other colleges and universities" of what NOT to do, as it is so open to abuse, and may prove to be a great overhead to be managed effectively. --Mokhov (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with both editors here, but you can't write about a train wreck until the first dent appears in the locomotive. Wait until the source develop. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that's a quote worth repeating. Both Mokhov and Lonely are correct that I'm not saying that we can't write an article about a "bad idea" for government. At the moment, the issue is notability of the idea; I agree with Otolemur that it hasn't progressed to the point where people are talking about something of this nature. My personal opinion is that we are living in the "Golden Age of Wiki", witnessing a change in society that wasn't possible before high speed internet. I'm sure there are other people who would, kinda sorta, agree with the Golden Age of Wiki suggestion. However, until someone publishes articles, writes a masters or doctoral thesis, authors a bestseller about the impact of the wiki... there isn't a dent. How soon before we see the first dent in the locomotive? I give it two more years. On July 15, 2010, we'll see if I was right. Mandsford (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe article deals with a real phenomena, see http://www.mass-collaboration.net/wiki/index.php?title=Massively_Collaborative_Direct_Democracy Fred Talk 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. The name does not seem to be used in academic journals [15], and only in one book.[16] The idea is interesting, but so far seems rather ORish. I'd say userfy, or essayfy... but give it a year or two and I am sure it will be recreated with better sources. And Fred, with all due respect, a wiki essay theory does not make ([17], [18]) - the concept of a Massively Collaborative Direct Democracy is as ORish as that of a wikigovernment, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like an important type of possible government and application of collaboration style. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One example doesn't make the concept notable. The sourcing just isn't here for this at this point. Maybe it will be in a while, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL applies there -- we should delete it now, we can always restore it later. Mangojuicetalk 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Think About Life; Keep (no consensus) on Miracle Fortress. Waggers (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think About Life[edit]

Miracle Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Think About Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These two bands do not pass any category for WP:MUSIC. The only reference for Think About Life is an independent vegan blogger who interviewed the band and attended one show in Brooklyn. The only reference for Miracle Fortress is their myspace page...and I'm not even going to get started on that one. --Адам12901 T/C 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change my vote to no opinion for Miracle Fortress because of the Polaris Prize. I'm not familiar with the notability of the Polaris Prize, so I will not be endorsing deletion of Miracle Fortress anymore. ----Адам12901 T/C 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless some reliable sources pop up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Moontowandi (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Miracle Fortress only - was a Polaris Prize shortlisted nominee in 2007. The references are up on the page. vckeating (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Miracle Fortress. They did some shows in the Netherlands, which led me to this article, and I was glad it existed - also was a Polaris Prize shortlisted nominee in 2007. Stijndon (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Hustle Music Group[edit]

Major Hustle Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No content, unknown band. This is not Myspace:Bands... imho at least. Carbonrodney (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death note 2[edit]

Death note 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, looks like a hoax. Sceptre (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete arguments appear to be largely unfounded or have been addressed. Mangojuicetalk 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of sydney[edit]

Regions of sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list which add no meaning to any articles or Wikipedia Bidgee (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the term also used Blue ribbon is more of a point of view and adds no meaning to an Encyclopedia. Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or keep and cleanup. The article is indeed in awful shape, but with some referencing, formatting, categorization and rewriting, I can see this being useful. If nothing else it can be merged into Sydney, Australia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea where these came from, but they're certainly not in regular use (with the exception of Northern Beaches, which is only a general hand-wave indication rather than a defined district). Appears to be in recent use by some government agencies but certainly not "regions" by any meaningful stretch. Orderinchaos 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content is entirely factual, and the listed regional names are certainly all in common use. Needs sources and cleanup, not deletion. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it's factual then it would be well used by everyone however it's not. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the stupidest comment I've seen in over 5 years as a WP contributor. If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather then trying to undermine other editors try and find sources in which state fact. I've also raised the statment you just made on AN/I. Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced he wasn't talking to you, since his statement has no apparent connection to what you said. But whatever he claims is the "stupidest" comment he's seen in 5 years, he must not get out much. I see 100-times "stupider" comments every day, and that's not even counting the ones I make! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. is rather insulting comment to make since if he looked at what I've contributed he would find that I have a place here to contribute on WP but the comment he made should be withdrawn otherwise If he can't contribute with other editors which I can then maybe he needs to take a good look at himself and they way he behaves with other editors who may not have the same view as him. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair statement. My point is that there is nothing he's saying that seems to refer to anything in your comment. None of the claims he makes in that statement are true about your comment. So it's bizarre. It's like he answered someone else's comment somewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is! It's right under my comment which is like what we are currently doing. It may not name me but to be under a comment made by myself and no one else shows that it is directed at myself. If admins here think statments such as the one Gene made are fine then WP is going down the wrong path. Bidgee (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that there's nothing in his comment that makes any sense in reference to your comment. In fact, his comment is one of the stupider ones I've seen here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The stated regions are in general use by the news media. The article may still need some tidying up and improving. --Lester 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise you just invalidated your own nomination, don't you? If government agencies use them, then they are certainly not "unsourced". --Gene_poole (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. I've not invalidated the nomination. Yes some government agencies use the terms but not publicly nor do they use the areas in the so called blue ribbon suburbs. As I've said nothing has been found on Georaphical Names Board of NSW. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earth to planet Bidgee! If you're aware that government agencies are using it then it cannot, by definition be "unsourced" because you yourself are stating that a source exists. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe instead of continuing to hurl insults, you could spend some time actually finding a reliable source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't ADD any links since it's not available online and a document thats not really in the public therefore it's UNSOURCED. Please take your insult elsewhere. Bidgee (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to show you how to use the Internet if you think that might help. I just did a 3 second Google search and came up with a few hundred public links, many to government sites, all publicly accessible, which you might want to cast your eyes over. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to bother wasting my time searching online when I have other articles to deal with. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to continue to be a contributor to WP I'm afraid you will have to drastically modify your attitude. Contemptible nonsense of that sort has no place in this community. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at your own attitude before questioning another editor [19]. Bidgee (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced, "blue ribbon suburbs" appears to be WP:OR. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Moondyne 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and please note that there may be a difference between 'OR' and 'unsourced' - this Sydneysider (although not born and bred :-) ) can attest that these are accurate, and that this is actually useful information - I believe it's suitable for inclusion here, and will try and find some sources now.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's my patented five minute cleanup done! - it could do with more work and expansion, but I think it's got a place here... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still have numerous issues with this article:
I have not heard of the City of Botany Bay described as Eastern Suburbs elsewhere
Why no mention of Northern Suburbs, South-eastern Sydney, Macarthur etc as listed on Template:Sydney regions? Very inconsistent ...
The listing of "3 Suburbs" seems random and unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lets do a Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald to see how the newspaper uses these terms: Eastern Suburbs, Northern Beaches, Lower North Shore, Upper North Shore, Inner West. Is that proof enough for everyone? --Lester 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Evil[edit]

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

Non-notable game mod. Only 13 Google hits for "Primal Evil" + "Half-Life" [20], a few of them not pertaining to this subject. Speedy removed on the somewhat unusual grounds of "not a biography." Fails WP:V, WP:N, and not a game guide.  RGTraynor  14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've already thanked RGTraynor for bringing my somewhat cryptic edit summary to my attention on my talk page, and I've replied that this article doesn't meet A7 because it's about a piece of software, which is the reason I removed his inappropriate speedy tag. Now, back to the deletion discussion: not enough secondary sources exist for this mod to meet WP:N, so it should be deleted. Darkspots (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable. Google search as per nominator revealed no reliable sources independent of the creators. Similar results for search for "primal evil" mod, and no hits at all on blogs or google groups. Also, the mod seems to be in development (see the link in the article). Silverfish (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Looking beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS (This seems to be a popular reason behind AfDs lately!), it looks like all original research, and it even seems like this was written by the creator of the mod itself. The sole reference points to another Wikipedia article, which is a no–no. Finally, no out–of–universe notability is inferred nor established. MuZemike (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to mention that I don't feel that the nomination is per WP:GHITS but is rather mentions google to document the failure of a relevant search to find sources. Since the article itself references no secondary sources, the nominator did the responsible thing and made sure that it really does fail WP:V and WP:N before nominating it. Darkspots (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much. Obviously there's no standard of Google hits at which articles become notable (nor should there be), but it's the soundest method available to us to track down whether there are valid, reliable sources, and our overwhelming experience is that 13 hits is indicative of about as insignificant as it's possible to get. By contrast, Googling my own name with the name of a gaming company for whom I wrote my most recent published work fifteen years ago returns 4000 hits, but I don't think I pass WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we should not rely on Google hits as the basis of the nomination, at least not primarily. That's why I weighed the article solely on the bases of notability and verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't base AfD nominations on ghits. The nominator did not do so here at all, he based it on notability and verifiability. He brought up the google search to show that he did his homework and saw for himself that sources did not exist to show N and V. Side note: I have 668 ghits for the exact phrase of my (real) name (I'm pretty sure they're all me). I'd have to do some serious wikilawyering to pretend to pass WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Notability not even asserted, much less demonstrated. Ford MF (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator of the article made a keep recommendation on the talk page. Darkspots (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's currently non-notable, but I'm sure it's going to be BIG! I don't know if you are a gamer, but if you are, then imagine playing God of War on the computer screen. There are currently only two concept-arts, but soon a trailer will be released. Please, give this mod's page in Wiki a chance!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristian (talk • contribs)

Quite aside from that this mod doesn't pass any standards of notability or verifiability, which are absolute requirements for any article, WP:CRYSTAL is a bar against things which don't yet exist. Gaming mods especially require huge buzz and verification by reliable sources to have any notability beyond their parent games, and generally do not succeed in keeping articles at AfD.  RGTraynor  18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Never try the "It's gonna be big!" argument if you expect to be taken seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldengatehenge[edit]

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

In one word: Notability. I could find nothing that would justify an article. user:Everyme 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable event. I'm tempted to call it a neologism. TN‑X-Man 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That reminds me that tonight the sun is going down tonight in almost the exact same place it did one year ago over that apartment building behind mine. Ah, the miracle of the universe! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reptilian humanoid#In fiction. Consensus is difficult to assess because during the AfD, the article has been cut down from a huge unsourced laundry list of appearances in fiction to two paragraphs. Taking into account that there's at least consensus that this should not be an article of its own, the sensible thing to do is to merge the remaining two paragraphs into the main article. (The opinion of the banned user taking part in this discussion was discounted.)  Sandstein  17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian humanoids in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Reptilian humanoids in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since its previous AfD one year ago, only two in-line external links to primary sources and no reliable, secondary sources have been added. Criteria for inclusion seems based on WP:OR -- where is the publication that identifies these entries as "reptilian humanoids"? Not even citations to dialog to justify entries' inclusion here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was just a waste of time; horribly written, does not deserve to be an article. --Vhoscythechatter-sign 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a random collection of unconnected information and original research. "Reptilian" is a questionable criteria, since there doesn't seem to be any other connections between any of these characters or genres except for one small shared literary descriptive device. Essentially there's no difference between this and "Blue-eyed people" or "Movie Aliens who speak with Germanic Accents". By trying to find a connection between these subjects based on one ephemeral aspect, it becomes original research. The article starter (and later editors) have decided there's a link between these subjects that's of some importance, regardless of whether the creators of those subjects intended either that link or that importance. -Markeer 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the randomness of the collection and the OR required to populate the list. Maybe a category could serve a similar goal? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and because previous nomination was from a banned account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the Five pillars does it mention this "notability to a real-world audience" exactly? I've read them before and just re-read them now, but I don't see any such pillar or even suggestion. Possibly I'm missing something obvious -Markeer 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clearing that up. Now that I understand the Wikipedia guideline that's the basis for your argument, I'll respond that this article does not meet the general notability guidelines as described. Specifically this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there was evidence that there are secondary sources relating to a grouping of reptilian humanoids, I would be willing to listen to an argument of notability, but none is currently cited. My guess is that no such secondary source exists as this article is an unique creation, hence my delete argument above based on original research. -Markeer 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in one year it seems no secondary sources have been added to the article. Personally I don't believe any can be found. Do you have one that would change this from potentially viable to actually viable? Because if not, this isn't a case of a brand new article that just needs work. It's case of an article with a long-standing failure to adhere to Wikipedia's minimum guidelines. A "potential" argument works if one can demonstrate that it's possible for the article to improve. I won't be able to accept that possibility without verifiable evidence. -Markeer 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've seen that happen before. I don't believe it is possible in this case. Please provide multiple non-trivial secondary sources directly about this subject and this conversation can continue. -Markeer 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? what does the banned nature of the previous AFD nominator have to do with this editor in good standing and this AFD? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the previous discussion was tainted and perhaps should have been a keep rather than no consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I'm sorry that makes even less sense to me that the first time. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, anyone looking at the previous discussion will not simply conclude that consensus wasn't really reached last time, rather the previous discussion should have never occurred in the first place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's paranoid. Perhaps you should start earlier and undo all of User:Eyrian's regular article edits -- there might be a taint! --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His specific use of sockpuppetry focused on harassing inclusionists in AfDs and then elsewhere and for making frivolous AfD nominations. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? this is irrelevant to this AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about as relevant as you get as some do look to the previous discussions for precedents and ideas. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the editors who !voted delete (other than Eyrian) in last AfD are still in good standing. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. --Phirazo 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fact that he nominated it, while using alternate accounts to harass editors who disagreed with him elsewhere. We shouldn't humor such editors. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I get this straight - A new unconnected editor AFD one year later is "humoring" a banned editor. Is that really what you are saying? because if you are, it comes pretty high on my list of "silly things I've heard on wikipedia". --Allemandtando (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Killerofcruft, it matters because it gives the appearance of the first discussion being a "no consensus" rather than keep when the first discussion should never have occurred as initiated. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it's a pretty petty trick to keep using a name I changed at the request of the community? It's not something that particular bothers me because it just shows how weak your argument that you are reduced to acting like a child and attempting to poison the well but I expect others watching would expect more from an experienced editor - or then again, maybe they wouldn't. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling arguments "silly" is a weak approach to take and responding to a response you don't like with incivility is just further a way to get the discussion off focus. It is a concern if you do approach Wikipedia with a singular purpose and I hope that the whole "I kill cruft" instead gives way to colloborative editing to improve articles. Now, please, let's focus on the article under discussion instead of each other. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? and how would define the criteria for inclusion on this list without resorting to original research? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Reptilian humanoids Article is an invitation for original research (what is a reptilian humanoid? how much is enough for a mention? Are dinosaurs reptilian? turtles (technically, yes, but w/e)?). Article does not support the claim that the concept "reptilian humanoids in fiction" is notable. Such a claim, and substantiation of that claim is required under WP:GNG. Furthermore, any claim made (including the implicit claim made by the existence of the article) without a corresponding notion from any reliable source represents original research. We've been over this before. Finally, it should be taken as a sign that the cleanup tags from the last AfD remain 12 months on. This article was nominated for deletion, staunchly defended and then ignored. All it takes is one or two reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic in question. In 12 months we haven't seen that. As for the disposition of the user who initiated the original AfD, it doesn't matter at all. This AfD is different from that one, so even if all the previous users were sockpuppets and trolls, this AfD will be debated on the merits. Furthermore it does not expunge the article in question from guilt if an editor who wanted to delete it is found to be a sockpuppet. This article can either be brought into line with WP:GNG and WP:OR with a single source or it should be deleted. I would consider a merge only as an editorial decision if the article in question is greatly reduced in size before merging into a "B" class article (although it should be C class). Protonk (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the argument. None of the four editors !voting delete appear to be blocked: (User:TenPoundHammer, Realkyhick, Haemo, or Corpx). None of the Confirmed sockpuppets of Eyrian appear in the final count for that AfD. Neither the closing admin nor the deletion votes made arguments based strictly on the banned user's nomination. What I see is a no consensus result and a tag for cleanup, one year ago. The primary citation in this afd of that afd has been the citation of that cleanup tag. We could hardly suggest the tag itself is somehow the fruit of a banned user. Furthermore, the ban came 4 months after this AfD. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that this AfD was not mentioned in the ArbCom case. If we have a precedent of rejecting community decisions on the basis of single user malfeasance, please produce it. As it stands, I don't see an argument to do so. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ban came after the AfD, but the problems that led to the ban were going on well before it. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, LeGrand. You've got to think more of me than that. Regardless of the nominator, the previous AfD came to a conclusion that isn't "poisoned" by any guideline I am familiar with. Again, If we have a precedent of rejecting community decisions on the basis of single user malfeasance, please produce it. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea[edit]

Already exists here --Allemandtando (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see then that we have a valid merge and redirect location at Reptilian humanoids#In fiction. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a serious problem with this article that I wouldn't normally mention in an AfD, but it was brought up. If you read this list, there are flat out incorrect listings (almost all unsourced), I have no problem with a merge, but anything that isn't sourced needs to be deep sixed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started along that path. Removed some OR, etc. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know enough to suss out the flat out incorrect ones. If you know that some on the list are wrong, please remove them--that way if we end up merging this we don't merge incorrect content. Preferably if you have a source to add in correction, that would be awesome, but a correction alone would be helpful. :) Protonk (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a worthwhile subject, high in content, although it needs some sourced information to put it in context. It's easy to see why reptilian humanoids are commonly seen in horror and science fiction. From the days of the Garden of Eden and Medusa, reptiles have been the villains in literature; the average reptile looks and feels unpleasant; an intelligent reptile is usually not portrayed as cute and cuddly either. I've seen discussions of why fiction writers like to curdle the blood with the certain images, with reptiles (snakes, lizards, etc.) being one of those things. The bigger problem is identifying sources. I've found one, so far, in Google books. There are others in reference works about themes in science fiction. For those who see promise in the article, don't argue about it, add to it. Mandsford (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and change to weak keep not sure why I didn't see the reptiles in myth or reptiles in fables connection. There is a lot of anthro and culture lit to build this article from. I've basically stubbed it. Hopefully it will become a good article, not a repository for "ZOMG lizards". Protonk (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • followup Possible sources are listed on the talk page. Be careful when using them, specific mention of reptilian humanoids is what we are looking for. There are limits to how much we may extrapolate from "reptilian", which will appear a lot. But I just realized that Medusa is a reptilian humanoid (and there's a source about her on the talk page from JSTOR!). good hunting. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I have the same question that I did on "Doomsday devices in popular culture." Namely, what accounts of reptilian humanoids are not fiction? David Icke seems to believe that they are real, but that sort of delusion is not something Wikipedia needs to indulge. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, that is a good point. I feel sheepish. :) Protonk (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baaa. It's a complaint about the title. We wouldn't delete an article about time travel fiction on the grounds of "what accounts of time travel are not fiction". I don't know David Icke, though I surmise that he and Will Oakland aren't friends; I think it's uncalled for to suggest that any editor is under "some sort of delusion". I think an article that includes sourced observations about the use of a reptile to evoke fear. It doesn't always work that way, of course. If you want to get downright silly, we can observe that millions of children have loved singing along with what would, technically, be a reptilian humanoid. Barney, perhaps, represents a corollary to the rule about reptiles. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I still think we should keep the article. I just think the comment about the title was succinct, accurate and funny. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know who David Icke is, it's not hard to find out before you post nonsense. The comparison to time travel is dubious, as the existing "time travel" article has plenty of referenced material on the scientific aspects. WillOakland (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, some British inside joke. How "humourous". Jolly good old chap. Carry on, carry on. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with reptilian humanoids. No need for a separate article. Lol at Will's comment.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge - I would be careful, there are those among us who think that there are reptilian humanoids among us. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge per this edit. The article is vastly improved without bulleted "I spy" trivia. --Phirazo 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as of the edit Phirazo links, I have no objection to merging it with the main article. Lost all elements of being a dumping ground for fans to talk about their favorite walking lizard. -Markeer 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is certainly enough material, beginning at least with Lovestone and Capek. the main article can then include a discussion of the ideas at least a few people actually think not fictional--I wouldnt want to run any chance of confusing that nonsense with good fiction. DGG (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reptilian humanoid until such time as it is sufficient to be split to a stand-alone list/article. Jim Miller (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading that link, by "determined" you mean "suspected", which is a word that means "undetermined". Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: Stop making straw man arguments on this page. I recommend you remove your comment above (if you do, you have my permission to remove this reply as well) -Markeer 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. A checkuser has determined based on evidence that the account is "likely." We typically point out single-purpose or sock accounts in AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, this is the second straw man argument used here and it's distracting and unnecessary. If you like, I can replace all of those user's comments with identical comments of my own as I am clearly not a sock puppet, but I would prefer not to climb the reichstag simply to make a point. Far as I can see, the only comments made by this user were against the previous straw man argument above, and that irony alone makes me willing to put in the copy and paste effort. Le Grand, you are disrupting this conversation which so far has been productive. I'll repeat that I recommend this exchange be removed (and again you have my permission to remove my remarks along with yours). I'm simply not willing to remove someone else's comments myself (of course). -Markeer 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm far more concerned about a likely ban evading sock disrupting this discussion. And it is of the utmost importance that we don't tolerate such efforts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FlyDubai[edit]

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

looks more like an ad than an article. a Google searched yielded pretty much the whole article as a result item. flydubai has no website of its own...

i dunno... but i guess you can vote to keep if you think its worthwhile. Carbonrodney (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notability [21] - The order is valued at approximated $4bn at today's list prices and marks the biggest single order by a Gulf-based low cost carrier for the Boeing aircraft. With that notable point, even if it will not start to operate, it must remain in wikipedia. --92.113.10.111 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage [22] of their $4bn deal with Boeing. Thats a huge spend and they clearly intend to go big (they are owned by the Dubai Government ching ching). If we delete, chances are we will just have to recreate it in the near future. Of course, if it comes to nothing, if can be AfD'd again. Fribbler (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for now. Because notability is forever, we want to be careful about keeping articles about future events, unless there is considerable coverage to verify. The Business Traveler article was a start, but aside from that, I think this article needs to wait a bit. It is similar to films: notability will not permit an article the moment the film is announced ... you generally need to wait until coverage increases with the start of filming. Especially in the world of aviation today, I am not sure that we can be 100% or 90% or 60% sure this airline is a go. As soon as the sources are there about hte development of the company, I would go with the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of notability? With over 60,000 google hits and over 600 google news hits, the company is more than notable. Россавиа Диалог 05:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The airline now has a website, and I have expanded the article a bit. It is a real airline, that will start operation in 2009. I have also moved the page to flydubai as its official name is all lowercased. Greekboy (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I Like it but it needs a few touches to the page. Thats all. Daxterooney5 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greekboy did a great job expanding it from a stub. More information is sure to come and even if it never gets off the ground, there's still enough about it for it to remain an article. Grk1011 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some more references besides from www.flydubai.com would be better though. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep this page. Its a future airline that will begin flying in less than a year. It already has its own website and has received enough notability in the aviation sector not only in the UAE but in the in the Middle East. Besides the person who expanded the article worked hard on it, so we shouldn't just delete his hard work. (MoHasanie (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Caledonia Mission[edit]

The Caledonia Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a band with extremely questionable notability. A quick g-search shows no independent reliable sources. The only claim to notability is that they have released two albums, but these have been independent releases as they aren't signed by a record label. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above based upon notability or rather the lack thereof. Lovely photo and I wish the band luck but Wikipedia isn't MySpaceMusic and them having an article here at this time is inappropriate. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that adds nothing valuable to the debate half the people I know in my neighborhood have released at least two albums. Doesn't make them noteworthy. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you've made my joke look silly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace Attorney cases[edit]

List of Ace Attorney cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails both WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE; being well familiar with the series, each "case" is basically a level within the game. While very high level overview of each case is useful in context of each game, separate breakout and description of each case is both adding too much plot (we've struck out long case summaries before within the articles), and basically fails WikiProject Video Games's "not a game guide". Also, this now potentially leaves triplication of content on the individual games' pages, the list of AA characters page, and this page. Notability may also be an issue but not the main one: In the games themselves, no case alone is really notable (save perhaps the last one of the first game, only because it was specially recreated for the DS version - however, that's about the game, not the case, really); the total sum of all cases are not notable either, though I will say that one could consider this a spinout of the series article. A possible option is merging the specific cases back to their game articles, though again, these articles tend to edge on an overall plot summary and then one-two sentence descriptions of each case, not the level of detail here (and if you start going into more detail for some of the cases, it's impossible to stop). MASEM 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Textbook examples of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Also ensure that this is transwiki'd to any other appropriate wiki if possible. MuZemike (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all of the above. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion! Articles aren't supposed to be excessive plot summary or a guide on how to play the game. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When it comes to story based games like the Ace Attorney series, a list of cases is like a list of episodes of a TV show, which despite contradicting 'Wikipedia is not a plot summary' would still not be deleted. Furthermore, 'Wikipedia is not GameFAQ's' is invalid. It doesn't tell you how to play the game step by step, it simply gives an overview of the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.63 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (No) Objection! I believe the IP editor is totally wrong. WP has to walk a fine line between cruft (which this article is) and important coverage (the Ace Attorney games all should have their own article). The TV show is notable enough to have an episode list (if the episodes are notable); the game's would just be a plot summary. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sargent[edit]

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

Non-notable apparently self-promoting New Zealand social climber. The article itself is heavy with peacock terms, but in trying to track down whether this youngster is genuinely notable, the NZ Google turns up only 3000 hits ... and looking over them, almost all of them refer to other Sam Sargents. His purportedly more famous father has a good bit many fewer hits, and "Sam Sargent" + "It-Boy" has just this article. It doesn't seem to be a hoax, but the few webpage sources listed in the article mention the subject only in passing. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V  RGTraynor  13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Men may want to be him, and women may want to be with him, but notablity he seems to be lacking in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sourced evidence of any achievements which are actually notable, references inflated by inclusion of generic pages which don't mention subject, and gossip columns which hardly qualify as reliable sources. dramatic (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't make the grade. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll second that. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, his claim to fame appears to be that he's a mate of several famous people. That doesn't make him notable.-gadfium
  • Delete insufficient evidence of notability. The closest thing is That Eye-Bleeding Interview, and it's not exactly significant coverage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a facebook profile and a couple of stuff.co.nz references do not signify notability Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stormie (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punith[edit]

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

Not notable. Half the single-line article is a definition, as well. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD once before. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I really should have done that instead of PROD. No content at all. JuJube (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A1 among others. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GuitarCase[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Appears to massively fail WP:WEB and completely lacks sources. Been deleted once through WP:PROD [23], so bringing to AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The headcount is roughly evenly divided. The "keep" proponents argue that the list is adequately sourced and organised. The "delete" side counters that the list as a whole is original research by synthesis because of the (perceived) lack of an accepted definition of pederasty. Furthermore, in the opinion of the proponents of deletion, assigning the label "pederasty" to all sorts of often poorly documented relationships is also original research.

Although I find the "delete" argument to be more persuasive prima facie, there's really no objective basis for me to say that the "keep" side is wrong with their assertions to the contrary. For that, I'd have to examine every individual item and its source, which is obviously infeasible in this context. In short, I can't determine whose arguments are stronger, and so we've got no consensus.

Obviously, WP:BLP must be strictly observed in this article – some of the children involved, at least, might still be alive. Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.  Sandstein  18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pederastic couples[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Historical pederastic couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article began its life as a list, but has over time become the storinghouse for any uncited claim of any person in history whom any editor wants to claim was involved in pederasty. In a number of cases (e.g. Leonardo DaVinci and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein), material appears in this omnibus which has been roundly rejected from the main article, thus turning this list into a de-facto POV content fork. Lastly, the decision for this to be a list, rather than a category (which might be defensible) smacks of original research: the desire to synthesize and publish original commentary on Wikipedia, which violates WP:NOR.

This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. Nandesuka (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Pederast" is a term of law, not nature, and someone attempting to do political graverobbing is either trying to convict a number of people of a crime posthumously or trying to pile up so many corpses as to argue that the act is no crime. Either thing is bad. The "list" cannot be legitimate unless it serves a function as a list that a category wouldn't perform. Finally, this list is only valid if every single biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." If the authors and editors of those articles eject or reject it, then this is a POV fork. For three reasons: delete. Geogre (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is it "a term of law"? Is it even mentioned in the penal code? Please elighten me. Fulcher (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me to be a serious, generally well-referenced article. Pederast is not a legal term, as claimed, but a term that has been used historically in exactly the way it is used in the article. It was prodded a few days ago by someone who obviously had a POV reason to get it deleted and claimed it was an attempt to "legitimise paedophilia" (as Geogre also suggests above), which it is clearly not. I can see no attempt here to legitimise anything, just to document. If the "pederasty" is only an allegation then that should be reliably referenced, and in most cases it is (and if it is not, then of course it should be removed) - if an allegation against a deceased person has been publicly made and is appropriately referenced then it is encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please to find a historical usage of "pederast" that is not an allegation of a crime. Do this first. Second, the list is not documented at all. Having a rumor is having a rumor, and reporting as fact the rumor is foolhardy intellectually, and illegitimate politically. I still await an explanation of what this list does as a list instead of a category that is useful. Geogre (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a pederast is "A man who has or desires sexual relations with a boy." No allegations of crime (note the "desires"!) or description as a legal term. As to documenting rumour: should we not document rumour if that rumour is significant and generally believed? If it appears in a reliable source then of course it should be documented. Should we not document who was "rumoured" to be Jack the Ripper or that King John was "rumoured" to have had his nephew murdered? Of course we should. The rumour is a fact, even though the thing rumoured may not be a fact. As to categories over lists, this is a longstanding debate but there is no WP policy or guideline against lists and a list does what a category cannot: it provides information in one place. I find this to be an interesting list not because I have any desire to legitimise paedophilia (and as I said, I can see no evidence that it has been created for that purpose), but simply because it is an interesting list! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's also no mention in the OED of the way Wikipedia defines pederasty -- as (1) a relationship rather than a desire or "relations" and (2) as particularly with adolescents rather than with boys in general. Wikipedia has chosen an idiosyncratic sub-definition used by a small group of writers, made that definition the primary one, and then generalized it from its culture of origin to the entire world. Dybryd (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove uncited examples even if that's 90% of the content. There's precidence for that. I do understand the nominator's objections and concerns. Lists like this soon degrade into unencyclopedic OR, but we're not allowed to ban them based on that. We are, however, allowed and encouraged to remove uncited content especially if it is whatsoever provocative or controversial. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be 90% or more. Let's put it this way: you find a letter where X says that Y loved him deeply and the two spent all their days together one summer. It was written in 1580. Homosexuality? No. You can find Thomas More and Erasmus speaking that way of each other, and the two were models of probity and heteronormative behavior. In prior ages, it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid) to interpret "love" as more than affection. Discourse changes over time. "Homosexual" as a category did not exist before the 19th century, and therefore something like pedophilia+homosexuality+power (a rough equivalence of "pederasty") is impossible as an application. Unambiguous documentation is so rare as to be unheard of (Oscar Wilde is about as early as anyone may go), so anything about prior ages is speculation or pointed interpretation. Those who read Foucault's History of Sexuality will know that even the ancient Athenian (not "Greek") culture had something where elder men were expected to have younger men, but this very rarely involved sexual intercourse, and these men were also with women (and temple prostitution was rife), so trying to use a contemporary term to limit such lives is inexplicable except to forgive contemporary political and criminal outlaws. Geogre (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish this article and hundred like it were never created but think this one has a right to exist under current guidelines. I thoroughly understand your argument. Really. Really. But saying "it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid)..." adds no weight to your argument and seem unnecessarily uncivil towards editors who might make good faith errors in interpreting references to events of past centuries. To make such errors would indeed be caused by ignorance of specific cultural context. That's very much a different thing from “outright stupid”-ity. More opinions may be added here that differ from yours. Do stay cool. (c :17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Were the distinction and historicism of "love" rare or hard to obtain knowledge, I would be quite tolerant, but I suspect that this list owes existence to bad faith. Again, can someone ignorantly assume and mistakenly state? Of course. Would someone create a list, though, whose purpose is to establish that there are numerous persons from ages prior to the 19th century who were "pederasts?" That's a special term, and I invite anyone to find a lexical definition that treats it as culturally ambiguous or non-criminal. It is a word that from Greek onward is denotative of abuse. To use such a special pleading and then suppose that there is a list that will serve a function? No. That's too many mistakes to attribute to bumbling, too much politics to attribute to pluralism. List articles are special on Wikipedia, because their function is duplicated by categories, so a list has to prove itself as a list. This one does not, because it requires rather than invites or allows assumptions and very prejudiced interpretation. I am, I assure you, quite cold about this matter, but tolerance is not apathy. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, perhaps valid. But might not an argument based on lexonographical conservatism invite someone (not me!) to suggest a rename to "Historical intergenerational all-male couples" or "Teenage/Adult sexual and/or male romatic couples in history" or whatever? Then we'd have the same ugly article with an even uglier name. If some feels there just has to be an article about "Dead chickenhawks and their boy toys" (how's that for a rename suggestion!) it might not be preventable. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove any unsourced material. This page is well written, has a huge number of RS, and otherwise seems to stand up. The only problem is potential BLP issues and the ICK factor. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after thorough scrubbing. This is bound to need regular oversight (in the non-wiki sense of the word) to guard against inappropriate bias, but clearly a proper article can be written and maintained with proper sources. Once the unsourced and poorly sourced material is removed, what remains is appropriate Wikipedia fare. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from the same reasons mentioned by Geogre. --Olahus (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep
  1. Only lightwieght and spurious arguments have been advanced against it. "Pederasty" in academia is different from the term is law, thus that argument is irrelevant here.
  2. Whether the main articles cover this or not is immaterial - the information either is valid or is not, on its own terms.
  3. Most entries are referenced, only the early ones were not because they were compiled before the new standards went into effect. They are the easiest of all to document as most are common knowledge and widely documented. Leave fact tags and I or someone else will get around to it. Haiduc (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For living persons, I think things will need to be removed rather than "fact tagged" immediately per WP:BLP. And given the nature of the subject and the feelings associated with it, I'd go with the same for everyone else too. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we covering up homosexual relationships? Are we doing the same from now on with heterosexual ones as well? Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Haiduc is a major author of this article and a proponent of changing biographical articles that reject these claims as flimsy to state that these persons were "pederasts." "Common knowledge" by his account is frequently, in my assessment, rumor. It is the kind of 'documentation' that would say that Malory was a rapist and Machievelli worshipped Satan. Geogre

(talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would not personalize this, and address the issues, rather than the individuals involved in the conversation. Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally speedy keep

Haiduc's reasons for keeping this article mirror my own. Welland R (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wow! Here I was inventing an article like this over at the Dominionist AfD as an example as to why these lists are bad ideas, and son of a gun if one isn't actually here. Quoting from the article: The nature of the relationships have ranged from overtly sexual to what is now commonly referred to as platonic .... so based on this any adult male who has had any kind of relationship whatsoever with a young unrelated male is a pederast? The problem here is that someone has come up with a loose definition. Fine. There are people who are likely admitted to being a pederast, or have eyewitness evidence that they were engaged in a physical relationship. Again, OK, fine. The problem here is that there are a lot of people on this list who are here because they "fit the definition" (and sourced against that definition). I mean, I am a teacher, and I have non-romantic friendships with former students after they graduate. By this definition, you could add me to this list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Haiduc's arguments were the most convincing ones of this discussion. Fulcher (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Effectively novel synthesis, grabs a whole load of alegations from various sources, and rams them all together.
Note that it is Montgomery's principal modern biographer with full access to his papers who has documented this aspect of his life, and who has further documented the fact that he himself had a relationship with Montgomery when he was a boy, one that was chaste but nevertheless homoerotic. I add this here because David's brief note is easily misread so as to inappropriately cast a dubious light on this legitimate topic. Haiduc (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haiduc's insistence on this point is, I think, the best demonstration of the inevitability of this article being used as a sort of floating POV fork. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is you and your pals, here, who seem insistent, and on a matter where you presume to counter a recognized scholar (Hamilton) with desultory chit-chat. Fine for you to bandy your opinions on each other's talk pages, not fine for you to impose it on the articles. Haiduc (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment concerns about what an article might be "used for" or the negative turns it make take in the future are never valid arguements for deletion. The converse, how an article might be improved, is often put forth as an argument and holds weight in the editorial community. Likewise, editorial agendas (pro and con) are not really relevant. Focus on articles, not editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A nice idea, but when the deletion is over the article being a POV fork, then there is no way to avoid talking about both intention, reception, and use of an article, and that means people. Yes, talk about the article, but you cannot talk about a gun in an insane asylum as if it were the same as a gun in a museum. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Delete any list whose unifying purpose is that listed persons have had certain allegations leveled against them. Unless the facts are broadly agreed-upon, it is an inappropriate way of tying people together. The allegations may or may not be true, but that can be discussed on the subject's own article. The counter-argument that the list might be kept while "removing uncited examples" will not solve the problem. Some of the examples (such as da Vinci) do have citations, but the allegation has been moderated by consensus on the subject's own page. A page like this, which affirms the allegation by its very title, cannot possibly achieve the required subtlety. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not materially different from List of LGBT couples. Plus, your slanted approach is out of place. Would you use the same language about interracial couples, that they "have allegations leveled against them?" The "unifying purpose" of this list is that these people have been in relationship with each other, not that some bigot got on their ass about it! Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your references to racism and bigotry demonstrate your own bias, and I will not respond to them.
I have no problem with the first section of List of LGBT couples, as the facts are clear to everyone. The second section ("Historical couples") is similarly problematic to this page. I firmly believe that WP should not take sides on controversial matters (at least when both sides of the controversy are in the mainstream). If the existence of a relationship is controversial, then it should not appear on a list like this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with Haiduc about this list being essentially the same as the other. And my problem remains the same: if there is very strong documentation (exceptional claims require exceptional evidence), then there shouldn't be a problem. The issue again is that, especially with the more historic persons, I see a lot of "interpretation" of what was written about them. Even some of the sources that I read admitted that many of the allegations got blown out of proportion as part of smear campaigns. That is what I have a problem with. The sad thing: since being homosexual has for so long been illegal and such in so many parts of the world, it means that sources are going to be necessarily difficult to find in many of these cases. To me, that doesn't excuse the sources being used to justify some of the people on this list being as weak as they appear to be. That would go for this list or any other list.
Having said that, and I don't know the history between you two, but I would be really careful about throwing around accusations or implications of being racist/bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of treating a collection of historical homosexual lovers as a bunch of criminals speaks for itself and indicts its author. While I have certainly included criminal acts in this list so as to maintain a balanced approach, it should be evident upon the most cursory analysis that many (if not most) of the relationships would be lawful and legitimate today in their respective countries. It is a fact that most of these individuals were hounded by the church and the state for their love. However, to legitimize that persecution by employing legalistic terminology in discussing the relationships as if were discussing real crimes is an aberration and has no place in civilized discourse. Haiduc (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about me or BlueMoonlet? Who is legitimizing persecution? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your cautioning me not to draw parallels between prejudiced attitudes (not yours) here, and those in other contexts. Haiduc (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in this discussion you chided someone and warned them to not personalize this debate. Please show others the same respect you want them to show you. Nandesuka (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to distinguish between respecting the speaker and respecting the speech. What I am condemning are the words, not the man. Prejudiced speech has no claim to immunity here. Haiduc (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Haiduc doesn't want me to do it, can someone else please refactor this tangent to the discussion page? Commentary on the personal attributes of other editors interferes with this discussion, and is most unhelpful. Nandesuka (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before, what we are discussing here is the way we are talking about the subject, and how the form of speech we use is indicative of our personal points of view. These individual perspectives can skew the discussion and need to be examined and critiqued in order to be able to communicate meaningfully. In this particular instance, we are dealing with an original statement that begs the question. Nandesuka's curious effort to remove the exchange of ideas and to misrepresent it as a series of personal attacks is not helpful. Haiduc (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job here to decide whether or not pederasty is a good thing. Perhaps I should not have used the word "allegation," but my point is that many of the people we are talking about did not want it to be generally thought that their relationship was pederastic. If they did, then they would have been open about it, and the facts would be broadly known and agreed-upon, and by the substance of my argument above I would have no objection to saying so. Can we lay aside for a moment that the hot-button issue of homosexuality is involved here? Regardless of the topic, we do violence to a person's memory if we say things about him that he denied, without a strong evidential basis. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further qualify what you have said by adding that it is not up to us to make pederasty out to be either "good" or "bad." It is far too complex a phenomenon and does not lend itself to simplistic reductions.
In what regards your suggestion that people would have been "open about it" if they had been unashamed about their relationship, I have to disagree. You are discounting the fact that any such relationship - for much of the historical period covered by the article - would have been grounds for imprisonment, torture, and execution, had it been widely known. It is only in the past generation or so that homosexual lovers have been able to come out of the shadows. To support that, I will bring up the Greeks and the Japanese. In those cultures the relationships were not blameworthy and they were conducted out in the open. Not so in premodern Europe and the Islamic countries.
Finally, in what regards the evidential base, historians (as opposed to judges and juries) work from hints, fragments and a preponderance of information adding up to probable conclusions. A good example is Leonardo. Here is a man with a lifelong disinterest in women, a lifelong interest in handsome youths, who was once indicted and jailed for such a relationship, and one of whose lovers revealed that he had been passionately loved. If historians take those bits of evidence to conclude that the man had homosexual tastes and satisfied them (as they have for the past four hundred years) we are entitled - even obligated - to report that. That is the model for the relationships included in the article, though necessarily some entries will be supported by more sources and others by fewer. Not everyone is a Leonardo or a Wilde.
To conclude, I disagree that we do violence to anyone here. It is the other way around - these are people to whom violence has been done and who are here presented, at long last, in a climate free from violence. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the people in question were "ashamed", but simply that they did not want their pederasty (if indeed it existed) to be known. There are a number of reasons why that might be. You, with your language of liberation, are making a judgment on that issue just as much as the persecutors did. Perfectly valid for you to do as a person, but not for WP.
Yes, legitimate historians may have concluded that pederasty existed in some of these cases. Oftentimes, their conclusions have been rebutted by others. WP needs to accommodate both viewpoints. That is best done with a nuanced discussion in the subject's own article, not in a list like this where the conclusion has practically been drawn by the subject's mere inclusion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The historical lovers did not have a choice, they had to remain hidden. In an open society that choice is rare. As for my "language of liberation" (yes, I am glad that these things can finally be openly discussed, even if, lo and behold, there are still some who would like to stifle the discussion) I will not be criticized by someone who a moment ago was using the language of repression.
Polemics aside, I have to agree with you on the need to represent alternative points of view. In some instances that has indeed been done - see the entry on Cocteau and Radiguet. More of the same would certainly enrich the article. Haiduc (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your implication that responding to my points i beneath you. I also reject the idea that it is WP's job to right historical wrongs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - This is a list that can be easily used to list people who really don't belong, and I suspect it already has been. The list needs to be seriously gutted, but deleting it would, in the most positive outcome, lead to its recreation with a proper listing. AfD is not for cleanup though. Having checked some of the sources, there are too many "supposed" relationships that are being labeled here. Given that I see people improperly listed already, I suspect it will be in the future. I'm not sure where to go from there. Certainly, a list of people confirmed in multiple reliable sources, self-admitted persons, and caution to BLP need to be looked at. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

  • Comment I've removed the unsourced claims, though I'm not sure how reliable all of the remaining sources are. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in spite of the resulting editing difficulties. One's feelings about the practice are totally irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for Geogre and Nanudeska:
    • On POV Fork: I read the page this links to, and I'm not sure what you're saying by characterizing this article as a POV fork. The WP:FORK page describes mirror sites, implying the information was lifted from another source. Or am I misunderstanding that? Because the relationship between da Vinci and a younger man is not addressed in da Vinci's article but is highlighted here—is that what you're claiming is the fork? Can you clarify this?
    • On the term "Pederastic couples": Where it is clear (to me, at least) that the well-cited information in the article describes both romantically and sexually intimate relationships between an older man and a younger one, and the best word English has for this is "pederast", would it satisfy the naming conventions and the claims of NPOV to name it "Historic couples of older men who have had relationships with younger men"? (Cumbersome.) Because English does not have an appropriate word to describe these relationships does not justify deleting the article. It is the continued difficulty of WP:LGBT to label a relationship something when the word did not exist when the subject was alive, or that a living person does not call him or herself. Can we call Cristina Aguilera bisexual if she admits in an interview that she is sexually attracted to men and women, yet she did not use the word "bisexual"? What does one label the relationship Eleanor Roosevelt had with her secretary that, proven by letters, was physically intimate, if the term "lesbian" was not in use until the 1950s and 1960s?
    • On the "ick" factor: I read the link to Geogre's talk page supplied by Haiduc, and that conversation is disconcerting. The questions I'm asking here are true problems for any article, and solving these would help the encyclopedia as a whole. However, I think the "ick" factor is discouraging creative solutions to these problems. I think we can do better than that. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "ick factor?" That page has a discussion of why Geogre opposes this article: 1. Not verifiable, 2. Not useful as a list, 3. The biographical articles rejecting claims of being a "pederast" makes this a POV fork, 4.If the purpose of the list is to make pederasty ok, then that's horrible, and then he equates pederasty with rape, because it means that one party is incapable of giving informed consent. Where in all of that do you see "I want it gone because it's icky?" That pederasty is non-consensual, legally, is a priori. It's why you use the term "pederasty" instead of just leaving it at the existing articles on gay couples. Why split these couples off from those, except that you want to highlight that one member of the relationship was a minor? A minor cannot give legal consent in the US. In most European nations, it's the same. So, again, why duplicate material with this list? Why cut these couples off, except because of an implicit point of view that "pederasty" is licit? I think you're imagining things and projecting, if you think the people talking on that page are going "ick." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I don't know who "he" is. And I'm still not sure what a POV fork is. Are you able to clarify that?
I can see where imposing our current Western morals on non-Western and ancient or long-gone relationships is a grey area. I have a great deal of discomfort with pedophilia. However, ancient Asian, Greek, and Roman cultures did not define sexuality into homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual identities as we do, and a rite of passage for a young man was to be paired with an older man in these cultures may make editors now uncomfortable. Where we can set an age of consent at 14, 16, or 18, these ages meant nothing to the cultures and the people in this article. Some may have been unduly manipulative as pedophiles can be to children, but some may have been what was considered at the time and place to be in consensual relationships. Again, these are grey areas. However, this does not mean that deleting the article is a valid response to the misconceptions about pederasty. If concepts need to be clarified, then it needs to be done. If it needs to be cited, then cite it (not you, but the article's contributors). --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORK was indeed the wrong page; I meant to refer to Wikipedia:Content forking, which I believe is self-explanatory. I've adjusted my nomination accordingly. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit of a help, thanks. So the objection is that this article presents information that the subject articles do not? Is that relatively accurate, or am I still misunderstanding the objection of the POV Fork? Should the attempt be made then to integrate all the information from this article into all the notable people it mentions? That will satisfy that objection, right? That will be an excessively uphill climb for sure (you'll help, yes?). But if the sources are reliable, then the articles themselves should be as comprehensive as possible. If the sources are not reliable, then the individuals with no reliable sources should be removed from this article. The article as a whole, still, I do not see the justification for it to be deleted. The only other reasoning from the Wikipedia:Content forking page is that this article only presents one side of an argument, but what that argument is I cannot say. Feel free to point out my mistakes here. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this page is that it presents, as historical fact, that every pair of people listed here was, without a shadow of a doubt, a "pederastic couple." There is no gray area and there is no room for argument. If you're on here, you're part of a pederastic couple. That is, from a cursory glance at a few of these alleged relationships, utterly unsupportable. For many or most, there are sources which make *assertions* and *speculations* and *arguments* that these couples were involved in sexually-attractive relationships, but this article is not called "people who have been asserted to be members of a pederastic relationship." If these arguments can be made without stating as settled fact arguments that are, by nature, generally speculative at best, they should be placed in their respective articles.
It is unfortunate that, because of long-standing sexual taboos (and the resulting illicit nature of these alleged relationships), there is often little available evidence for historians to examine and use to explore the personal lives of many of these figures. I do not argue that they are all lies. But as BlueMoonlet noted above, Wikipedia is not a place to correct historical wrongs. We are here to reflect the modern state of knowledge. If there is not enough evidence today to be historically certain that someone engaged in a sexual relationship (of any nature), then we cannot and should not be listing them as if the bits and pieces which are available constitute historical proof. FCYTravis (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to consider my reply overnight to make sure I still agreed with what I initially thought in reading your reply. (I do.) Your first point goes to my issue above, that could be addressed by renaming the article. However, if English does not have a word or phrase that accurately describes the subject, that is not a reason to delete the article. Again, restructuring the article, being stringent with citations, and adhering to WP:RS and WP:V are more appropriate responses. Your second point regarding Wikipedia correcting historical wrongs I reacted strongly to. Either that means you or BlueMoonlet believe Wikipedia should not correct historical inaccuracies (maintaining that Washington chopped that cherry tree down, regardless of the fiction is was intended to be), or that Wikipedia should not supply information that opposes previous historical schools of thought. Is there another meaning that I did not get? Because I don't know how to disagree with this statement more emphatically. I've written an entire article on the folly of an era of historical thought, and its real effect on the environment and society (I put the point of what people considered to be right in the lead to boot). We as editors can only report on what has been written about our subjects, and we must present these ideas evenly and fairly.
My essential question: Is deletion necessary? What is being used for cause are examples of a poorly written article. If that is the case (and that is disputed), then the material should be amended. Deletion is a drastic measure for this article in particular, and it goes against purpose of the encyclopedia to improve information as a community. Surely articles having claims with no citations aren't up for deletion all the time. It wasn't too long ago that Everglades kind of stunk bad. I'm concerned that a common distaste of the subject (pederasty) and/or its associated issues (pedophilia) are prompting editors to be less creative in reaching solutions to the issues in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, to your second point (if I may). Why deletion and not improvement in this case? 1. We are dealing with people who, while they are not living, may have living relatives, who might find any such allegations offensive and upsetting (as indeed Oscar Wilde's family find the whole 'Wildean' thing an offence to his memory. We have a policy on the biographies of living persons, we should also have a similar respect for the dead, where possible. Unless these assertions in this article are verifiable in the Wikedia WP:OR sense, they should be immediately deleted. 2. The article is essentially propaganda by PPA's to 'normalise' views on paedophilia by linguistic tricks and fallacies such as changing definitions, meanings, selective reading of historical documents and so on. This is original research for own-view promotion, or fringe view, and has not place here. Delete entirely. Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Wikipedia is not censored, and forgive me for pointing that out because it drives me nuts when folks point out policies to me. See the incredible battle over Matt Sanchez's page. If a distant relative of Wilde's is offended by Wilde's well-documented homosexual relationships, does that mean that we remove the content? And as I have stated above, I recognize the grey areas regarding pedophilia, but for the time and culture, some of these relationships were considered normal and natural. We're judging these (and even I am uncomfortable considering these normal and natural) by our western 21st century viewpoints. In the 18th century, girls could get married at 13 and it was a fact of life for women in colonial America. The case of the children who were removed from the Fundamentalist LDS sect in Texas: would the same scrutiny be paid to an article describing polygamous families in these sects where girls are married as young as 14? I don't see this article as attempting to normalize pederastic relationships, but to illustrate that they have existed across many cultures through time. That the information exists does not condone, validate, or reject the behavior. If that is what we're connecting to information, we need to reassess our roles in the encyclopedia. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Wikipedia is censored, don't be silly. What an absurd thing to say. WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED. Taking your points in order. If a relative is offended by a well-documented proposition that has appeared in many authoritative sources, then so be it. If they are offended by some inane speculation and original research published on Wikipedia by some amateur historian, I think not. On your point about how we judge 'such relationships', again, as others have pointed out, not enough is known about 'such relationships' to make a judgement. As Geogre wisely says "In prior ages, it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid) to interpret "love" as more than affection." And your comments about the real purpose of articles such as this are naive in the extreme. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me in fact give you an example that proves my point exactly. Read the article on Erik Moeller. Then Google this and see if any of the material you find on Google overlaps with the material you find in the article. Case proven. Why is there nothing in the article? For the reason we don't want uninformed gossip and speculation in an encyclopedia of this sort, particularly when people may find it personally offensive. Of course Wikipedia is censored, and for good reason. Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. Banjeboi 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia is not censored" is a content disclaimer. It is not a licence for us to publish titillating speculation and innuendo about people, be they living or dead. In fact, really, on its face it's incorrect, because we are censored - anything that violates U.S. or Florida law cannot be published, whether we want to or not. FCYTravis (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think you'll find it's a bit more than that but to stay on point here, if there is some unverifiable "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" then likely it should go. But just because something is "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" in itself is not reason to deleted everything else. And we do include "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" if it's in reliable sources and relevant to the article - for instance, that Clay Aiken has been dogged about rumors of his sexuality. We sourced it and present it encyclopedicly. Banjeboi 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one way to invalidate my opinions is to refer to them as silly and naive. However, as much as I would like to make this about me and my eminence and brilliance, it is not. What remains are very good questions, and I am still certain that this article should not be deleted. Since conversations such as these do tend to go off on tangents, I'd like to sum up the reasons for this AfD. Please feel free to correct my understanding of the facts.
  • It is a POV fork because information in this article is not present in (some? most? all? of) the articles for their individual subjects.
  • The declaration that these people were pederasts is disputed because they did not claim themselves as pederasts.
  • Furthermore, because some of the citations suggest that the relationships were romantic or sexual in nature, that does not warrant their inclusion in this article because they are not presented as solid fact.
Is there more? --Moni3 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is, essentially, a solid summation. The article, by its very title, declares that Wikipedia believes it to be historical truth that every person on this page was part of a pederastic relationship. This is questionable, at best. For example, take John C. Fremont. This article says about him:
The adventurer and politician took on the thirteen year old boy as his page, a role he filled for two years, until 1863. Jesse had been chosen because he was queer, and the two were constantly together.
This claim, stated as unchallenged fact, is sourced to a single book by a single author: Drum Beat: Walt Whitman's Civil War Boy Lovers, by Charley Shively, a history professor and gay rights activist.
I've done repeated Google searches and SpringerLink academic journal searches. I cannot find a single other source that claims this "pederastic" relationship existed.
Now, does this mean Shively's argument is entirely without merit? No. I have not read his book, but it is possible that it makes good arguments based on available sources.
But what this does mean is that we are taking the argument of a single historian and asserting that it is unchallenged fact. That is unacceptable, period. FCYTravis (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

  • Delete per nom and Geogre. Khoikhoi 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP' A well written article with one hundred references. It's obviously scholarly, and I see no need for this nomination, other than distaste for the subject. When last I checked, Wiki wasn't censored. Until we change that status, the article should remain. And if we change that status, point me towards the exit. Jeffpw (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop repeating this silly myth. WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED. Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia is not censored is a policy. Banjeboi 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the policy doesn't say anything like what you think it does. That policy notifies users that they may see material that offends them. It is not a guarantee of non-censorship. In fact, the policy itself states that we must censor anything that violates U.S. or Florida law. Editorial decisionmaking on what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia is not "censorship." FCYTravis (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not assume what each other thinks and agree to disagree on this. Banjeboi 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP well-cited information. With the usual suggestions that anything uncited should be cited. If it is to remain an article, the list should be changed to text. If that's too much stuff to do, revert it to a list. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haiduc's universalizing use of the out-of-the-way, culturally specific term "pederasty", modeled on a handful of respected but not-exactly-in-the-academic-mainstream writers, is extremely POV -- one that he has successfully made accepted standard usage across Wikipedia. In the world outside Wikipedia, it is no such thing. This is a problem! Dybryd (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that to mean that you feel scholarship has no bearing on Wikipedia. What a startling and anxiety-provoking idea. Perhaps you should edit Simple Wikipedia, where scholarship is not as highly regarded as it is here...or was, as the case may be. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that to mean you are wearing an elk on your head. Startling indeed!
There are many respected scholars with minority viewpoints whose work should not be presented on Wikipedia as representing the consensus of their discipline.
Dybryd (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really prove your idea that the majority of scholars would disagree with Haiduc's view on pederasty? Fulcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you should keep comments on the deletion discussion, and stop taking swipes at each other. Both comments were uncalled for. Dybryd is correct from the standpoint that the sources need to be looked at very carefully. There is the possibility that the sources being cited are not the mainstream viewpoint held in historic studies. I for one am not an expert in that field, and I cannot make that decision. Nonetheless, even assuming that some of the sources fit Jeffpw's description (they represent a minority view within academia, they are flat our unreliable, etc) that is the job of cleanup, and not the job of AfD. Having looked over the article, I suspect that there is enough notability and good sources to support at least most of this list existing, and as such, it has to stay. My suggestion is that if there are learned people in the field that have a problem, start checking sources and go through cleaning up the article. I am changing my disposition to keep, and leave it in the hands of the experts to make sure every single person on this list is supported by credible, mainstream academic sources (which would be my hope for any article dealing with historic figures). LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffpw, the fact that scholarship does not belong on Wikipedia is in fact policy, WP:NOR. Feel free to seek publication in a learned journal, but Wikipedians are neither trusted nor permitted to engage in scholarship here. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? "Scholarship does not belong on Wikipedia"? That's the first time I here that. Fulcher (talk)
Actually NOR states In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. So this would seem to support that scholarship is preferred. Perhaps you meant to indicate that original research is not acceptable? With well over 100 references this would seem to be considered more sourced than original research. Banjeboi 11:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reference does not indicate historical fact - particularly when these references are generally based on subjective analysis of letters, poetry and other indirect sources. At best, a single reference indicates a single historical opinion. It is not enough to say "this professor analyzed the writings of John Doe and determined that his poetry speaks of a sexual relationship, ergo this person is part a historical pederastic couple." No, no, no. What we have is one professor arguing that this is a sexual relationship. That may be a point of contention, and may deserve space in the person's biography if it has sufficient support to be more than a fringe POV, but it does not make it an undisputed historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we fix it not delete it. If a reference doesn't support it then state that upfront, "according to _____, this indicates _____" if another scholar disputes that and it's also considered valid then perhaps cite that as well. Are you disputing every specific and general source used here? We improve articles not simply delete them because it has perceived issues. Banjeboi 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not an article on "historical pederastic couples," then. That's an article on "every person in history who's ever been accused or asserted to be pederastic." That is an impossible-to-maintain, hopelessly-POV list. That's why this article needs to be deleted and relevant information merged into individual biographies, where appropriate. FCYTravis (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Geogre knows of what he speaks, this is a combination of historical revisionism, original research and advancement of an agenda. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Uncomfortable material doesn't disappear just because someone thinks it's "icky", this list is a strong example of working to treat a demonized topic in an encyclopedic fashion. Some cultures encourage forms of pedophilia and pederastic couples can indeed be found throughout history even if their very existence, much like LGBT people in general, have been denied, scrubbed or otherwise neglected. Tighten up the lede and, if needed, add qualifiers to beginning of sections that warrant an additional explanation. Obviously it should adhere to BLP concerns just like every other article on wikipedia. Otherwise this is an obvious keeper and we're lucky to have someone who understands the material and is willing to spend the time to accurately present it. Banjeboi 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can take it as read that the ickiness or non-ickiness of the material doesn't factor in to whether or not the article should be kept. I proposed this for deletion because it is, as a synthesis, primarily original research, and secondly because it has been (and I think inevitably must be) used for POV forking, and thirdly because this is material that -- in the absence of original research -- should be a category, and not a list. "Ickiness" doesn't have anything to do with it. I just want to make that clear. Nandesuka (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "pederastic couples"? Is the younger partner of a pederast himself in some way "pederastic"? If not, what is he?
I'm not simply splitting semantic hairs to be annoying, here. I mean to point out that "pederasty" as a term refers structurally only to the desiring elder partner -- English has no equivalent "eromenos" except perhaps in slang. This makes Wikipedia's definition of pederasty as a form of relationship problematic -- the word normally refers to the desires or actions of one person.
Even granting the definition Haiduc prefers -- that "pederasty" refers to an "erotic relationship" between an adult man and an "adolescent" -- the idea of pederasty still can't be meaningfully universalized "throughout history" because the concept of adolescence cannot be meaningfully universalized throughout history. In order to do so, we must take a classical concept, alter it to fit modern Western understanding, and then shoehorn classical and non-Western practice back into our altered terminology. The whole undertaking is just hopelessly shady and subjective!
What I am arguing here is that this list cannot be sourced because "pederastic couples" is a term that can't be meaningfully defined, so inclusion remains arbitrary no matter how sources are quoted. Dybryd (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dybryd, I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but this time you have gone way out on a limb and I think it is cracking. How is your argument that "pederastic" can only refer to the lover and not the beloved consistent with the reality that Greek pederasty (for example) is considered to have been a pedagogic tradition? If, as per you, the beloved is not included under the rubric of pederasty, then who pray tell is being instructed, the lover?!
As for your denial of the historicity of adolescence, come on! What do you think coming of age customs have to do with?! And they are everywhere. There is nothing more universal than adolescence. The fact that its beginning and end may vary somewhat from culture to culture is a different matter, and not relevant.
And what is this stuff about "my" definition of pederasty? Other than its vernacular use as a vague term of abuse, and its legal sense which may well vary from place to place, its main use in history, anthropology, art, literature and philosophy is as covered here. As you well know from your work on homosexual topics, pederasty forms the core of male homosexual history. If that pederasty is not the pederasty of academic discourse, then exactly which pederasty forms that history?! Haiduc (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to base a definition of "sodomy" on the way the word is used by a prominent writer such as, for example, Proust, and then apply that definition according to my own very inclusive judgment to a broad range of relationships, I could plausibly argue that "sodomy forms the core of male homosexual history." That would not make a list article called sodomitical couples of history any less POV.
Also, coming of age customs mark a boundary between childhood and adulthood. They are the opposite of having a lengthy "in-between" period, which is by no means a cultural universal - it is quite unusual. And no, coming-of-age rituals are not universal either. For example, modern America lacks them, and instead uses specifically academic or legal markers -- which perhaps is why that "in-between" period is of such cultural interest to us. Dybryd (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't commenting to the nom as stating the subject was "icky" but to other comments that have appeared during this discussion. That may be their honest opinion but it's despite that very generalized ick factor that these relationships, frankly many male-male relationships also face, that makes this list particularly useful and helpful. Female-female relationships face a different but similar reaction and frankly all LGBT people are quite used to seeing their history buried and destroyed so i hope we can avoid that here. Deleting to being only a category is pretty useless for those unaware of how categories work - I personally don't make much use of them - and reading an article certainly seems more engaging than reading a category list although I suppose some certainly might derive pleasure there. The article makes a good faith effort of presenting an overview of couples throughout time. There seems to be no end to the efforts to researching and documenting sexual and gender minorities from BLPs to folks who are dead and turned to dust ages ago. The burden is always to show someone wasn't the "normal" gender and sexuality. And now we're faulting those efforts here. Banjeboi 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it hasn't been addressed already I want to respond to Geogre's "Finally, this list is only valid if every single biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." Nonsense. The burden is not on the editors here to amend every other article and then police them, it would be nice if that happened but hardly a requirement. Folks in the LGBT wikiproject have to go through mini-dramas just to have our project tag on the talk page let alone cope with the homophobia of editors who just don't want that kind of information in an article they're protecting. Banjeboi 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Geogre's points above. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Geogre. I note particularly that this article conflates well-documented relationships (Oscar Wilde's, for example) with ones which have virtually no backing and aren't even mentioned in the parent articles (the alleged relationship of John C. Fremont, for example). This article, by its own title, makes the bold claim that every single one of these relationships is proven historic fact, which is utterly untrue. Seems rather unacceptable to me. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your accusation that the entries have no backing is unfounded. All the entries have been compiled on the basis of published sources, though some of the early ones were not cited properly and have to be documented again. Individual entries can certainly be debated (and have been) and dissenting opinions can and should be noted. Haiduc (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, you've rather got it backwards. If there is no historical consensus that a person was part of a sexual relationship, it is unacceptable to list them in an article called "Historical pederastic couples." The very name of the article insists that this list consists of indisputable historical fact. A single source is almost certainly not going to be enough to establish historical fact. It establishes, perhaps, that there is a debate over a person's sexual relationships - that there are people making an academic argument that this person had these sexual relationships. But it does not factually establish that the relationship existed. Ergo, the article is facially broken. FCYTravis (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Travis, the "historical consensus" you are grasping at is a chimera. There are NO indisputable historical facts, that's why there is the discipline of history, to work things out. By that logic we should delete Alexander and Bagoas because not every single historian accepts that they were lovers! Relationships which are accepted by some and contested by others should be presented as such. The rest (the majority) are generally widely accepted. If published sources indicate that X and Y were in a homosexual love relationship, or in a homosexual sexual relationship, and X and Y are of appropriate ages, then it is appropriate to list them here as having been so described. Your "essential" flaw does not exist, it is merely a matter of addressing individual issues. It is as if you were trying to wish historical pederastic relationships out of existence. Haiduc (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haiduc, you note the point of concern: If there is a legitimate dispute among non-fringe historians about some of these couples, than their inclusion on this list is a misrepresentation. It would be more honest to call the list: List of confirmed and/or speculated historic pederastic couples. I stated that the list should stay because I am convinced that there is some non-zero number of these couples to which the speculation is nil to zero in the mainstream academic community. However, if there is a part of non-fringe historic academia that contests this, then you either have to note that side of the argument in relative proportion to the support given from academia, or you need to take those couples out. Otherwise, you could be treading on WP:UNDUE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Relationships which are accepted by some and contested by others should be presented as such." Quite so. Which, as I said, is the essential problem with the article - by its very title, it presents these as undisputed "historic pederastic couples," without hint or question that... well, maybe they weren't. The article treats the question as settled in every single case, when by your own admission, it very often is not.
    The solution is not to create separate lists of people who have been speculated to be this, or thought to be that. The solution is to integrate into biographies, where appropriate, meaningful academic discussion of a person's intimate relationships. See Alexander the Great for a good example of this. FCYTravis (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are quibbling and misstating the issues. The title is a succinct label for a complex topic. It cannot, by definition, be exhaustive. What should we do with the Pederasty in ancient Greece title? After all we are including Macedonia. But some will say that Macedonia was not Greece. And others will say that there was no such thing as ancient Greece, that they were individual city states.
Furthermore, I have said no such thing that "very often it is not." Let's not put words in each other's mouth, shall we? I am simply allowing for the possibility that there may be contrarian voices out there and accepting that they should be included if and when found. I do not have them in a bag under my desk. They need to be looked for, and if found, added to the article. That is part of the development of an article, not a cause for its deletion. As for adding material to individual articles, nothing wrong with having this and that, they serve two very different purposes. Haiduc (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haiduc, is your reply above a reply to FCYTravis, as the indentation suggests? Please explain how it is a reply. FCY has said that the article treats the question as settled in every single case, when it very often is not. You reply that the article is not meant to be exhaustive. Please explain how that is a reply. You then make a point about the geography of Ancient Greece whose logical connection to Travis' point is entirely unclear. And then you go on about bags under your desk. What are you talking about? Peter Damian (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, so we should delete everything because there are problems with some of it. Is there some policy about one bad apple rots the whole bunch I'm missing here? Banjeboi 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whereas I generally admire Haiduc's work and input the one area which I think doesn't serve Wikipedia very well is the use of general sources, which, I believe, is quite common for older articles. Unfortunately a lot of LGBT-related material is regularly contested and vandalized so more rigorous and in-line sourcing is usually the only way to ensure that this content is allowed to exist. I've gotten used to that but it is quite a chore to rework an entire and extensive article and revisit prior work to then add cites, page numbers, etc. If Haiduc confirms that the vast majority of material is covered in sources, personally, it's good for me, however that falls short for almost everyone else and we have to write for a wider audience. As a suggestion, it would be helpful to add refs that at least documented which sources covered which couples. This would also aid others who wanted to either verify or learn more about the subject. Banjeboi 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article is mostly unreferenced, indeed it states clearly that reference is impossible in most cases (it says "In the pre-modern and modern West, their equivocal status has made pederastic relationships difficult to document" and talks of presumed pederastic couples). This makes the whole subject a matter of speculation and presumption and thus an automatic violation of WP:OR. It might make an interesting PhD thesis or a book (if it were sufficiently well-written, but that is another problem, for it is not). It is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is also vulnerable to the fallacy of definition that plagues articles of this sort. Is it about pederastical relationships stricto sensu, i.e. of a proven sexual nature, or is it about homoerotic or platonic relationships? If pederastical relationships can be Platonic (i.e. non-sexual), why does the article say "At present pederastic relationships between unrelated individuals above the local age of consent are legal in most jurisdictions." Fallacy of definition. And it also descends pretty quickly into the dreaded Wikipedian list - should be deleted for that alone. And I agree with Guy and others that scholarship does NOT belong in Wikipedia. Haiduc should take his interesting and thought-provoking speculations elsewhere. Peter Damian (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As has been stated above most of the list is referenced but, as is common in list articles, not every item is sourced. in addition there are general references which should be painstakingly worked to reference individual items instead so other editors and our readers can also verify content. Banjeboi 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is article 'well referenced'? Referencing is not simply slapping the name of a book that somewhere mentions the person. The reference has to support the specific claim that is being made. In this case, the article is about pederastical relationships. Another thing: WP:NOR has stronger requirements than just referencing. It prohibits 'any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position'. The position in this case is Haiduc's thesis that the history of homosxuality is the history of pederasty. It is an interesting thesis. But it is that: it belongs in a book, not in an encyclopedia. Note: it would be a very good thing if Haiduc wrote an article for here about this thesis, which was well-sourced to reference works on the subject, and which contained no OR. But please keep OR out of Wikipedia, it is not for that. Peter Damian (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I vote for the removal of the article but keeping of its content or at least the part that is accurate. If this sounds contradictory what I mean is we can keep the reliable and accurate info on the article pages of the historic people. If they have a pederastry tag at the bottom of the article then you have all the related articles in one place by going to the tag page. Problem solved. This easily makes the hisrtocal pederastic couples page redundant. However even some of the referenced stuff is incorrect, either because of overly free interpretation of the reference, because the reference is just guessing or speculating, because the reference gives a fringe theory, or because there isn't even any mention in the reference. So a lot of sorting out needs to be done first to separate what is reliable and accurately referenced and what is not. We should keep the first and remove the rest.

I have to agree the fuzzy and over lax definition of pederasty needs to be fixed. What are the age cut offs? I don't think being with someone 18 or over should count at all and if the two guys are just separated by a couple years then it shouldn't count either. Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This more than anything is what needs fixing. Haiduc's thesis is that the history of homosexuality = the history of pederasty. What is he claiming here? It all hangs on the definition of 'pederasty'. If pederasty is chaste or Platonic friendships, then the thesis is that the history of homosexuality = the history of chaste friendships between men and boys. Surely not. Is pederasty simply another word for homosexuality? Then the history of homosexuality = the history of homosexuality. Banal and uninteresting. The definition needs to be fixed. I also get impatient, as a logician, with the claim that 'pederasty' meant something different in the past. Irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia and the meanings that are relevant are the meanings of words used know: the sense that readers of this encylopedia will understand when they read the article in question. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article needs to be rescued because it reads more like a list rather than an article. I do not see any compelling reason to delete it but from a purely aesthetic and therefor subjective point of view, the article needs help. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here, as is there a whiff of WP:ILIKEIT. However, deleting lists on such subjects seems to be a bit of overzealous reaction to what could be a legitimate list. Clean it up and remove unsourced material. Also, I don't think speculation on the motives of others is going to be fruitful. Sure, it could be part of the PPA agenda, but that is not a reason to delete it. Also, we should not allow BLP to cover dead people. It is bad enough that the cancer that is WP:BLP has spread to many parts of the encyclopedia without it going there. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The agenda I was talking about was this idiosyncratic thesis of Haiduc's that the history of homosexuality = the history of pederasty. It is an interesting one, I admit. But it is original research. That is why the whole thing should go. What is the list for. Peter Damian (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a particular "wtf?" example[edit]

Of course, a specific example of a problem in an article doesn't speak to deletion at all. But I think this one does get across the general problem of subjective judgment inherent to Haiduc's "pederastic" label and its application to specific cases.

The article's lede defines pederasty as occurring "between adult men and adolescent boys". Well, down in the Eighteenth century section we encounter two couples, both from Europe, occurring sixty years apart. The broad social context -- in terms of how the passage into adulthood would be understood -- is the same.

  • First, an 18-year-old runs off with a 26-year-old (and the 26-year-old gets executed for it!)
  • Second, a 19-year-old reads stories to a 10-year-old (who later grows up to "pursue boys")

Now, were I the one arbitrarily selecting people to be listed in this article, I should exclude both these couples. In my opinion, zero out of the four individuals is "adolescent" - one pair consisted of two adults, the other of an adult and a small child.

But it doesn't really matter how my judgment differs from Haiduc's here, what matters is that the couples can't be included on or excluded from the list without its subjective application. Sources are given for both these stories - but those sources speak to the facts of history, not to the categorization of a late teenager as an adult "pederast" in one case and as the non-adult partner of a "pederast" in the other. To say nothing of the weird way that the apparently non-sexual relationship with the 10-year-old is given an erotic cast by references to the boys future "pursuit" of "boys" -- whether adolescent or pre-, the article doesn't say.

Another note -- most striking about the inclusion of a 10-year-old is that it tends to work against the idea that "pederasty" ought to be considered as something distinct from "pedophilia" -- a distinction that is often and fiercely defended on Wikipedia in discussions of these articles.

I do not think that pederasty is the same thing as pedophilia. I don't think it's anything; I think it is a phantom. It's a category that cannot be objectively defined even for one culture, much less when generalized to every culture. Its use in the culture outside of Wikipedia -- like that of "sodomy" or "natural" or "masculine" -- may be of encyclopedic interest as a subject, but its use as a judgment by Wikipedia editors will always be strongly POV.

Dybryd (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj valentino[edit]

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

Conested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only references provided are myspace and youtube. roleplayer 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not passing WP:MUSIC. No sources or evidence that there would be any. Probably could have been speedied as not asserting notability actually. tomasz. 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sud Ram (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), notabily established. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Lands[edit]

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

Non-notable personal project. The article establishes no notability apart from a single page at About.com; this does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by the WP:N guidelines. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition there's a GameZone interview and this piece from a journo who's work has been in print (according to the writer bio) on a site called Massively.com, a new one on me. It seems we finally have an MMO-focused site which has a stab at passing our reliability standards. Where the frigging hell have these guys been for the past X years? The yawning gap in reliable coverage of MMOs has been there for years. Anyways, I think the substantial piece on Massively clinches the deal. Someoneanother 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Significant coverage is a subjective term in making notability judgments. The two articles mentioned certainly establish the existence of critical responses to the game, and hence established the needed notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — There is certainly no lack of established notability, especially when print reviews are included, such as the one appearing in the Feb. 06 issue of LinuxFormat. As a former contributor I wouldn't have considered it notable in its own right, however, the amount of coverage it receives for native linux games gives it weight above its fanbase of only 1500 to 2000 unique players online daily (which is still 5x that of Planeshift). I am also somewhat confused by the wording of the deletion summary - Eternal Lands is described as a 'personal project', despite the fact that it is listed as having 30 programmers who have made significant contributions to the code base. I won't vote, however, to remain objective despite my bias as a former contributor. 142.177.235.80 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I'm altering my objective note to a vote to keep this article - while I won't comment on notability, it seems due process was not followed, as no notability tag was ever attached to the article before requesting deletion. I'd prefer suitable time was allowed for proof of notability to be established in the article, as suggested by the linked WP:N than to hurriedly collect proof due to the nomination for deletion. 142.177.235.80 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly has established that it is notable. Mathmo Talk 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Buttocks. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buttucks[edit]

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

vandalism
User:RRaunak 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam David Sheppard[edit]

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

advertise
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a tough one and I will explain my rationale as fully as I can. If AfD were a simple vote, this would be Kept and I'd have had no aggravation deciding it, but it isn't. The subject of the article is "MI-5 Persecution". We are establishing the notability of this topic, not an opera or an individual who may have popularised the term. As such, it's an internet meme. These come along frequently and some are deemed notable, some are not. The article itself presents no evidence of notability of this term as a meme. Looking through the AfD contributions below, Michael Bednarek argues for the notability of the opera, not this meme. MMetro argues that deleting this article will create issues in another, but I'm unconvinced that this is valid argument for keeping something. I'm not sure a redirect to List of Usenet personalities is justified. Drutt says he's highly notable, yet we have no evidence of the masses of world correspondents who write on Internet issues making it so. Besides, we're not deciding the notability of the individual - that's already been decided. It was Chris, right at the end, who hit the nail on the head. This is a minor meme term, of dubious notability, but it can usefully point to The Corley Conspiracy, which seems to be able to hold its head up as notable. Dweller (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MI-5 Persecution[edit]

MI-5 Persecution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley. Same subject, same issues. Yes, I was the creator of the Corley article. H2G2 have also deleted this. Corley is either insane (so we should not mock him) or some kind of Turing test experiment. Nobody knows which. Nobody cares any more. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The citations and notability would mean that the material would have to be merged back into Usenet Personalities. The resulting entry would place undue notability by creating an entry for him much larger than the other personalities listed. To his credit, I believe his website discusses sporgery as part of the conspiracy to make him look crazy. He may not be the one creating the postings. This should be noted within the article. WP:BLP should be adhered to. I had previously written the article to reflect that. Revert defamatory edits, but I've been seeing this stuff since the mid-90's. MMetro (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irrelevant nutter. The article is also appallingly named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable internet personality. This nutter has single-handedly wrecked Usenet. Drutt (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a single reliable source there. Just Usenet links, which prove... that he's posted on Usenet. If the opera is encyclopedic, have an article on it. But there's no there, here. Particularly unacceptable are the unsourced allegations that he is mentally ill. FCYTravis (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stripped the article of everything which is unsourced - and that leaves... the opera. Speedy delete now due to a complete lack of anything resembling a reliable secondary source. FCYTravis (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia to describe the subject; interpretive claims, analyses must be referenced to a secondary source.
  2. The phenomenon of Mike Corley, as described in this article, takes place on Usenet; thus, it is clear that sources to describe it will be found there.
  3. Citing Usenet is not categorically verboten on Wikipedia; that's what why there is Template:Cite newsgroup.
  4. During an Afd, editors are encouraged to improve the article, not destroy it by stripping it of any meaningful content.
  5. As for "Particularly unacceptable are the unsourced allegations that he is mentally ill": references can be found by anyone who cares to follow the citations. Corey states on his own website that he repeatedly sought medical help for mental problems; e.g. "Olanzapine worked for many years on my paranoia, and sulpiride also worked for many years at a fraction of the current dose." He also refers to his psychiatrist. Secondary sources call him paranoid and schizophrenic.
I suggest to restore the article to its version of 13 May 2008 22:10 until there is a decision in this matter. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it "takes place on Usenet" is irrelevant. If there are no reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, professionally-edited Web sites) covering something, particularly something involving a living person, we don't report it because we cannot verify it. If the only place for information about this person is Usenet and his own personal Web site then you've just made my case for me. We have no fact-checked, independent reporting on this matter.
Which "secondary sources" call him "paranoid and schizophrenic?" A bunch of newsgroup posts? And these newsgroup posts come from licenced mental health professionals who are qualified to make judgments about people based entirely on what they post on the Internet? Absolute tosh. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a phenomenon he is verifiable and notable. You can't pretend the posts don't exist. The interpretations that he is mentally ill, unless a UK contributor can find police reports, court proceedings, or hospital statements-- are a matter of opinion. The article must not be stripped during this nomination, but the phrases referring to his mental state may be removed due to WP:BLP.
What I strongly disagree with is the deletion of articles on the basis of disageeable subject matter. We can make a better article. We should make a better article. The result should be balanced. We should not be in the habits of censorship.
There used to be books that detailed what you can encounter on the internet, as well as many articles. Better sources are out there. Let the wiki do its work. MMetro (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he is verifiable, then it should be trivial for you to list the reliable sources which we can use to verify the claims to encyclopedicity. Until then, the article must conform to our policies - and we don't have any reliable sources which discuss him right now.
It is not "censorship" to make articles conform to our fundamental content policies. If we do not have proper sources for something, we can't publish it. Right now, all we have is "This person posted on Usenet (link to posts here) and got banned from Google Groups (link to account ban here.) Oh, and someone wrote an opera about him."
How do we even know that the banned account is him? There's no name attached to it. We don't have any sources saying it. We're just supposed to take it on face value, I suppose. But that's unacceptable.
Seriously, if this person is so significant to the history of Usenet, there's got to be *something* published about him. If there is not, then we, in turn, cannot publish anything about him. That's... all there is to it, really. FCYTravis (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move focus and title to the Opera - Nabla (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is your rationale based on the stripped version of the article that FCYTravis has left us with? Rather than flag the points he has found objectionable, he has near blanked the page. I'm sure that it is not what Wikipedia wants when it puts these articles up for debate, but there are more pressing time-sensitive articles that I must attend to right now. If you say delete or move because of a stub, please reconsider. That is not the article up for debate.
My other new comment is that the person nominating the deletion is nominating it because of his article based on Mike Corley himself. My article was based on the crapflooding, of which Corley, or someone wishing to either to discredit his theories or propagate them, is the suspected perpetrator. MMetro (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
@JzG (talk · contribs): Corley is considered insane, he considers himself mentally ill, people have met him; the sources say so (which unseats Nobody knows which). You don't seriously advance Nobody cares anymore as an argument for deletion, do you?
@Necrothesp (talk · contribs): Irrelevant nutter is not a convincing argument in a thread where BLP matters are being discussed.
Frankly, I think it's a very convincing and concise argument. We don't need an article on every paranoid delusional spammer, especially an article as badly named as this one is. The internet sadly allows these people to reach many more people than they could ever have reached before - that doesn't mean we should legitimise their ramblings with an encyclopaedia article. The fact this chap appeared on the internet makes him no more significant than somebody who endlessly wrote to The Times in similar terms in the pre-internet era. Luckily the editors then could choose who they published and so can we. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@FCYTravis (talk · contribs): Your pointy edits have been noted elsewehere and you have now decided (paraphrasing) to take a wikibreak until the community wises up; I suggest to take those items into consideration when assessing your arguments (which to me smell badly of POINT, crusade, chip-on-the-shoulder).
@Nabla (talk · contribs): No argument advanced — nothing to argue with.
Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corley is just a paranoid delusional spammer. He was much discussed back in the day, but these days most people have him in their killfiles. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having an opera written about you is surely enough to establish notability. The name is rubbish though, and it could maybe be cleaned up and moved to The Corley Conspiracy and this page turned into a redirect. Chris (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apparently that already exists and duplicates much of what is here. Don't see the need for two articles. Chris (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that's what Michael was up to. It does more than cover the same ground, so I won't mind a merge or redirect as much, although I think the M-5 Persecution article could be more open to covering possibilities that the opera article would have to bend from its bounds to allow for, namely that it could be debated whether or not Corley himself is actually involved with the posts. MMetro (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kambrathillam[edit]

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

A tomfoolery,Vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7.  Frank  |  talk  11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Quevedo[edit]

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

Danm nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (criteria A1) --Allen3 talk 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpity scrump[edit]

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

total vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Allen3 per CSD G10 as an attack page. WilliamH (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYNNITIS[edit]

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

what do you know about this
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and relist separately without prejudice as to the final outcome. I do not see any value to be gained in leaving this blanket discussion open any longer, given that there is reasonably broad consensus already that the articles have different levels of notability and sources and should be considered separately. Thatcher 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje Shugden[edit]

Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trode Khangsar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Shugden Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (uninvolved admin note: added this from redirecting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination) here due to identical rationale. --slakr\ talk / 12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manjushri Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kelsang Lodrö (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kelsang Khyenrab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samden Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thubten Gyatso (NKT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) [1]

The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.

In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD Dorje Shugden/ Dorje Shugden Controversy and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the Path

Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child

so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful.

If we don't do this, what other options are left? What is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of: Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy Trode Khangsar Western Shugden Society.

The WP community cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years. Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium.

I suggest this with real, legitimate misgivings. The NKT has completely excised the existence of individuals like Thubten Gyatso (NKT) from their records and publications - even though he contributed a huge amount to their movement over many years, and gave initiations to many students. Likewise, they have worked particularly hard to hide some of the less palatable aspects of their movement, and their activities towards the Tibetan Community have been divisive; they have then projected their own faults onto the Dalai Lama. The facts (as seen by the outside world) are not in accordance with the interests of the NKT. But they are intelligent, dedicated, computer-literate and have plenty of time on their hands. Deleting these articles actually helps to reduce the opportunity to air the issues that are well-known and published about the NKT and Dorje Shugden. A possible weakness of WP is that it gives too much opportunity to the minor communities to self-justify their position, and often the sole opponents are jaded, or destroyed ex-members (see eg User:kt66. I consider the NKT-related articles are like a brother to the Scientology-related articles, though they have received less attention from on high. (20040302 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep. If the articles are indeed being used as a battle ground a Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be filed, if that fails a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If the articles can't be well sourced they should be reduced to what can be well sourced and protected. The nomination has shown no attempt to follow the the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process nor where discussion has taken place external of the articles in question. We don't bow to pressure from warring factions, and to carve out two entire subjects because it of it is absurd. BJTalk 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note to nominator-- that's the longest nomination speech I've seen since Bill Clinton got booed off the stage in 1988 for his Dukakis introduction. You're very self-absorbed, and I don't think anyone has the time to figure out this monologue. If anyone cares to explain the reason for the nomination, let me know. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BJ. To Mandsford: the nominator is in despair that this and related articles will ever be neutral. There was an exchange of views on my talk page and his. To nominator: Mandsford has a good point; the nomination was much too long and confusing. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duly Noted. Apologies for the length of the nomination. I have not exercised this process before. (20040302 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - not sure nominator is meant to express an opinion here, or if it is apparent via the submission. I do not believe that as per BJ, the editors are willing or interested in contributing to Wikipedia or using the standard processes that are in place. NKT has already been nominated for deletion before - and nothing changed there, which resulted in a primary editor retiring. As I write, one of the 'warriors' is just removing the AfD template from the articles above. (20040302 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • This isn't the process for that, which is why it did nothing last time. BJTalk 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • BJ, thanks.. So what is the process for that? I sure get lost trying to find the right processes for the job - even though i've been around a while! The nominated articles need a strong and heavy hand, IMO.. But who has the time? (20040302 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • The first step would be to file a WP:RFC to get an outside viewpoint from the wider community. If that fails to solve the problem WP:RfAR is the next step. ArbCom can levy article restrictions and bans that admins alone can not. BJTalk 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD template restored and user warned. BJTalk 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With all due respect toward Jimbo Wales, he's wrong here. I have never read about this topic before, but now that I have it is 100% clear to me that this involves a widespread and extremely notable belief system, which therefore requires an article on wikipedia. A general guideline for AfD is "POV issues are not grounds for deletion, those should be dealt with in the article and on the article's talk page". This article needs work (most specifically it needs an introduction that is more helpful to those unfamiliar with the subject such as myself), but "needs work" does not mean "get rid of it". Keep, keep, keep. -Markeer 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentionaed above, just because an article is POV and perhaps unbalanced does not make the subject irrelevant by sweeping it under the carpet - which is deletion. Rather the opposite as we see with this specific page... Still, how do we take the 'war' out of this edit-war when quite a number of the serious editors have run out of steam?rudy (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, especially per Markeer. I suggest re-writing the articles in a neutral way, and have the involved editors agree to the final version and agree to work together to maintain neutrality. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These topics are just too polarizing. Users such as User:Thegone will never let the edit war die. Please see the edits he just made, with no regard for the talk page. In fact, he just added the same copy-and-pasted material again to the beginning of all the articles up for deletion. Emptymountains (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we continue to have these articles vandalised by users like User:Thegone It's just too much hard work to maintain. I don't believe that a neutral position will ever be achieved because views are too polarised. I apologise for deleting the templates denoting the articles for deletion, I didn't understand the due process involved and thought that a decision had been made --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dorje Shugden protected for a week. BJTalk 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also consider protecting the other related pages up for deletion. Emptymountains (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is true the subject is controversial, to delete it would be to deny people the opportunity to consider the merits of both sides and come to their own conclusions on the subject. If polarized views were the grounds for deletion, then articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would also need to be deleted (as an example). I think the fact that WP requires consensus forces the different factions in this controversy to 'work together' and to 'try find common ground'. Not only is that good for a Wikipedia article, this is good for the overall resolution of the dispute. So I think not only is it is it a legitimate article on a topical subject, the keeping of these pages also accomplishes an important social function of helping reason and dialoge prevail. This is much needed! If users like User:thegone (who himself is posting under different identities, as is evidenced by his recent contributions) engage in abusive behavior then it is the abusive user who should be banned, not the articles themselves. Eliminate the extremists and allow cooler heads to discuss the issue. I was unable to figure out the process of filing a complaint for abusive behavior of a user, but 'thegone' engaged in downright hostile abuse. He repeatedly called me a neo-nazi, Chinese collaborating, devil-worshipping, dishonest, blood-thirsty, murdering cult fanatical liar. Gee, that doesn't seem to me to be Civil. This can be seen in the talk pages of the Rime Movement article. Can one of the WP authorities here please look at these pages and see what kinds of things he is saying. Therefore, I say keep the articles, crack down on abusive behavior and ban the extremists.--Dspak08 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keepclear notability (which to me is what should govern whether we have an article)- controversy surrounds many articles, but if we let that stop us we might as well give up on the whole idea of wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is established. I might add that the nominator's comments are exceedingly wordy and lengthy, and as a result, I did not read all of it. I did take a look at the articles, however. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This poorly considered mass nomination is putting people off. If some of these such as Western Shugden Society were considered in isolation they could be quickly deleted as no sources can easily be found. The nominator is also the only editor of one or more of them so he could delete ones on which he's the only editor per author's request. Some of the WP:BLP ones are not that notable and could go. Some of these could be considered individually in AfDs. But NKT and Dorje Shugden themselves are a clear speedy keep. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i sagreed. While I wish I to assusming wp:agf, i hate it when people group dozens of articles for deleiton even though they have different levels of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V. it seems dishonest to me winsce we inevitably have to send an admin through to dlete the articles that really should be speedied and instate separate AFDs for whatever is left. It is quite afgaravating. Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep --- i think that the fact that this article ha been set upon by POV warmonkers is quite disappointing but that isn and of itself is not a justoifacation to perpetuate the deletionist mentalitiy perpetrated by the original polemicist on an article that is clearly notable (Thought Conntroversial). Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest of Keeps - It's disgusting that the reason to delete would be POV issues. Wikipedia is better than this. Grow up. Beam 01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The phenomena in question clearly exist as part of a religious teaching. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Beamathan; I'd _almost_ say this was a bad-faith nom. The notability (and notoriety) of the subject is indisputable. To suggest deleting the article outright in the face of controversy is pretty distressing. Zero sharp (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate the AFDs - Kelsang Lodrö is an obvious delete as there are no external references of notability. Dorje Shugden is an obviously notable religious tradition. The other articles are somewhere in between. I have posted on ANI at least twice about this article. There are a lot of SPAs working on it. Some of them are trying to turn it into a promo piece and others want it to be an attack piece. But regardless of that, it's an obviously notable religion. --B (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- yeah i have o agree again. while somet of these articles and not in themselfs notable, some of them are and one AFD wil not do justuce to all of them. if anyone can separate these AFDs for each article it would make this tteasier for every of us. Smith Jones (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - information is notable, and admins get some balls and indef block some editors. There is a notable lack of consistancy of administrator action across Wikipedia at the moment and you cry about edit wars, well block the edit warriors and see what happens. Shot info (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable subjects. (edit: OK, Dorje Shugden is, the others might or might not be, but that would need separate AfDs to determine.) Disruption, if any, requires dispute resolution, protection or blocks, not deletion.  Sandstein  07:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge For a start I don't think we need individual articles on Kelsang Lodrö, Kelsang Khyenrab, Samden Gyatso, Thubten Gyatso (NKT), Manjushri Institute etc. IMO These could all be merged with the main New Kadmpa Tradition article - otherwise Wikipedia could eventually end up with hundreds of articles about individual NKT teachers and centers. Similarly the artices on Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, Western Shugden Society &etc. could all be merged (possibly simply called "Shugden" or "Gyalpo Shugden" since the "Dorje" part of the name is loaded. The Dali Lama and his followers call this entity "Dolgyal Shugden" while the NKT and other adherents use "Dorje Shugden"). If the number of articles surrounding the NKT and Shugden issues were reduced they might be somewhat easier to monitor for balance and neutrality. I don't think anyone would suffer from having the number of these articles reduced.
Once merged we could perhaps then ask contributors to try and develop the articles to fairly reflect all sides of the story. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dorje Shugden" is the most commonly used name for DS though, as opposed to the alternative words, and that's what we name articles after. Some other buddhists might not call it that (though I've heard them do so) but that's what outsiders will've heard it called, if they've heard of it [24] [25] [26]. DS is the name of the movement. I don't know if NKT is -just- about DS? They do a lot of 'introduction to buddhism' courses in the UK and stuff too. But if they are 'really' the same thing maybe the articles should be combined. None of this is suitable for AfD though, what we're basically having here is a Request for Comments on this articles.:) Some of the ones on non-notable people could be speedied as having a risk of BLP issues IMHO, as well as being non-notable. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Dorje Shugden with Dorje Shugden Controversy again as we had it in the past. As far as I know the separation of both articles was a result of an organized Wikiepdia-campaign of NKT leadership. But strongly Keep New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso and Dorje Shugden Controversy. If these articles are deleted all the discussions and the trancparency of their development get lost (all discussion pages are deleted as well!). I see no use in this. Moreover the New Kadampa Tradition article was already nominated for deletion on October 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. Of course the articles need balance again and are a battlegound for different views. Researcher Bluck and Mills pointed these out in their researches already. Prof. Bluck shows in his research how to find a balance. In general if the present academical researches are used there is no conflict. Sadly the researches are strongly rejected as WP:reliable source from NKT or Shugden followers and they were step by step removed from the articles. My suggestion to remind them and insert these researches again, and to follow the WP:Guidelines for articles. The NKT article also was nominated as B-class on the quality scale. I suggest to revert it to the date when the NKT article received that quality vote. Then block the article from edition and moderate edition step by step via discussion on the talk page. (Similar as compromises were worked out on Scientology.) Good Luck! --Kt66 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and separate per B above. Some of these are obvious keeps and grouping these together was a bad idea from the start. One AfD should not determine the fate of all of these articles. I have no other opinion until these are separated. Synergy 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or lock until & after compromise I would vote to delete to save everyone a lot of time, but since it looks like that won't happen, I suggest each side, because there seem to be two 'sides' elect a representative, someone who has tried to follow the rules and has not attacked individuals, only positions. These two can work up an entry that fairly presents both positions and then the sites can be locked. The critical ones are New Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and Dorje Shugden. The rest should be eliminated as minor or left out of the controversy. If there is 'controversy' listed on the first two, they should equally be listed on Gelug and Dalai Lama sites, which are the counterparts. Then any mention of this controversy should be disallowed on any other sites so the battle doesn't just resume elsewhere.Eyesofcompassion (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please lock other articles Thank you for locking the Dorje Shugden page. Could these other articles please be locked until after a compromise is reached (which might take longer than July 21)? Thanks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonnotable webcontent, a1 no context, g3 hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T D Ronsfield[edit]

T D Ronsfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

hoax not in google
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g2, test page. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antti pussinen[edit]

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

vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gssehh[edit]

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

nonsense article
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Delhi Musicians Network[edit]

The New Delhi Musicians Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

advert /Orkut community eh...Who goes to orkut
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Teys[edit]

The Great Teys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable band. No sources, tho talk page message claims press mentions; Google is less certain (plus i have to snigger a little at the idea of an Indiana local newspaper explaining the 'hilarious' story behind the band name). Prod removed by IP. tomasz. 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was G12 as copyvio by PeaceNT , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bok Fu Do[edit]

Bok Fu Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced, 559 google hits for "Bok Fu Do" -wikipedia drops to 134 if you navigate to later pages. Make big claims (name dropping)with not even a primary source or site to start from, full clean up would remove ~50% of the article. Nate1481(t/c) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(t/c) 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a badly written, pompously bragging promo for a non-notable martial art. Pundit|utter 16:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recommend the article creator pick up his coats. JuJube (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe the art is sufficiently well-known and sufficiently widespread to be notable, even though the article is a mess. JJL (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, blatant copyright infringement from this link. I already requested the speedy deletion. If this is not the best thing do in this specific case, please let me know so I won't do it again. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric John Ogg[edit]

Eric John Ogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE - baseball player who has not competed professionally. Majorclanger (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Planewalker Dave (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cage (film)[edit]

Luke Cage (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost a year ago it was proposed that this article should be merged and deleted and yet nothing happened. On July 8th I proposed this article be deleted using the proposed deletion tag as it is clearly breaking the WP:FUTFILMS policy. We have no evidence that this film is still in development, let alone "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". On the 12th an anonymous IP address user removed the deletion proposal tag and provided no reason.

Almost all important and reliable information in this article is at the end of the Luke Cage article, so no merging really take place. I really think this article should be deleted so in the interests of fairness and obeying the Wikipedia deletion policy I'm proposing it for deletion in this manner. Planewalker Dave (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect; more favorable to preserve the page history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'd forgotten about that option. A redirect would be better than deletion. Planewalker Dave (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you could withdraw the AFD, and we could go ahead and redirect? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's seems reasonable. As a lot of people are posting their opinions, I'll leave this be until, say, tomorrow lunchtime and assuming the majority opinion is still a redirect (which I imagine it will be) I'll go ahead and do that and withdraw the AFD. That sound alright? Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to review the notability guidelines for future films; the stance is that without actually being filmed, there is no plot section, no cast section, no production section, and no reception section. Thus, it does not and is not guaranteed to qualify as a full-fledged film article. Such projects are notable because of some previously notable element, whether it be the source material or the director at the helm. This is based on a Marvel character, so per WP:FUTFILM#Process, it can find a comfortable home in a "Film" section at the main article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the guidelines you mention but don't feel they disqualify this article, especially given the press coverage the tie-up has received. However, I have changed my initial "Keep" opinion to "Keep or Redirect" as my concern is for keeping the compiled information available on Wikipedia. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Erik has already merged the content of this article into Luke Cage, and that seems perfectly acceptable to me. Consequently this article should be turned into a redirect in order to preserve the page history. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With the content moved, and given there's little to zero chance of anyone continuing to search for this would-be film, just delete it and be done. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the good arguments above. Keeping the redlink might encourage its recreation, and the history is kept for the day when (if) this goes into production. Steve T • C 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, CSD A7 (non-notable bio). --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

,dnh[edit]

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

nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, CSD G1 (nonsense). tomasz. 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/dev/full[edit]

/dev/full (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

a known tomfoolery
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good its gone before
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will now boldly implement a solution that seems good to me; this is independent from my role as closer. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masters Of Rock[edit]

Masters Of Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no reference
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You decide to reorganise the whole corporation.what are some of the steps you might take?[edit]

You decide to reorganise the whole corporation.what are some of the steps you might take? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A1 A one sentence article with no context or notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per consensus. Keeper ǀ 76 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Champions 2001[edit]

Rock Champions 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's not nonsense, it's a compilation album by a notable band. The article's title is no good though. It will need to be moved to Rock Champions (The Quireboys album). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bongwarrior. tomasz. 10:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Quireboys - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to redirect when the title isn't even right. No reason to have a whole article just for a track listing, and no other information seems available about this album. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage per Mangojuice. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I tried Google and found no media coverage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion. WP:MUSIC#Albums offers a solution: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Perhaps the tracklisting could be merged into The Quireboys in the compilation ablums section of that page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sodmg.com[edit]

Sodmg.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

bad bords
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#A1.  Frank  |  talk  11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISUM2008 course[edit]

ISUM2008 course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke green[edit]

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

Bad words
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy)[edit]

Moonrise (Snowfall Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable novel that fails the five notability criteria in WP:BK. The series itself isn't even notable enough to have an article and the author is little more than a stub. A quick Google search found not a single reliable source that wasn't a store site, official site, or personal, self-published site for this book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's just call this what it is, an attempt at revenge for pointing out that you don't, nor never did, have consenus for deleting large portions of, nor merging, the Dragonball articles. The debate over both issues had come and gone before you came along and had been settled. As for the matter at hand, I just did a google search and I'm seeing dozens of sites you apparently missed. Also, lack of or existance of articles on Wikipeida can not be used for determining notability. Though, perhaps limiting the trilogy to a single article would be the better option. Xyex (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A revenge attack it may be, I don't know, having neither ever been involved or any interest in Dragonball Z at all, but the book certainly fails every criteria at WP:BK as far as I can see. I'm not sure what these other sites you've mentioned are; I certainly can't find them using Google. A search for moonrise snowfall yields the article and it's deltion page as the top two reults for me (see here) and a search on the ISBN shows listings at a few online sites, including Amazon, which does not guarantee notability. If you could provide other sources, that would be great but right now, I see no notability for this article. ChaoticReality 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, the Tor books website doesn't even list this book. See: Mitchell Smith's page and The snowfall series page, neither of which mention this book. Furthermore, searching for Moonrise on the website returns one result, which is completely unrelated to this book. ChaoticReality 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think what you like. I don't do revenge attacks, nor will I stoop to doing the personal attacks you keep doing. The book fails notability, as did one other article for the trilogy (which has already been CSDed). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the trilogy as a whole, not a single book from it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the author,and the books that make up the trilogy, plus there is the Dallas News. So that's good enough to be a keep in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there may be a better way to organize the info about the author and the trilogy, but deleting this wont' be a good start to that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retitle and repurpose as an article on the trilogy as a whole. This particular volume is in about 400 US libraries , and, together with the reviews, that's enough. DGG (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. More references needed. I came within a whisker of speedying the author's article (again) on A7. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Alexf. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Nitemare[edit]

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

This song is only a leaked demo intended for the new album of Beyonce Knowles. --Efe (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A redirect also exist: "Beautiful Nightmare". --Efe (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaks generally don't get coverage in reliable sources, so they can't achieve notability. This one seems to be no exception.
Kww (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Speedy Delete. Previously deleted here.
Kww (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete One link says it will be on the album and the other link says it's just a possibility
  • No Delete First there has been made a cdcover, made by BMG, with the name of Beyoncé and the name of the song "Beautiful Nightmare". Second, a few people sad that the album will be "Huger than Life", this song confirms that. Third, only of the demo "Beautiful Nightmare" Beyoncé Knowles said that it was a demo. By the other songs that have leaked onto the internet as "Kick Him Out" Beyoncé didn't say anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.144.206 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's just a demo, there no need to have it here. What's the point, there should already be information about it on the Beyoncé Knowles third album page. They also need to confirm how it's spelled "Nightmare" or "Nitemare". Usercreate (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cover is reportedly fake, it is fanmade, using Beyoncé's B'day preformat and style over its font, generally artists change styles between projects, and the photo is not promotional, it is used for a magazine, making it not trustable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire premise of the article violates policy, not to mention no confirmation from reliable third-party sources. Winger84 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this page still here. Usercreate (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but was merged by apparent consensus.  Sandstein  17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human primate[edit]

Non-human primate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

dicdef, whose definition is better met at primate. UtherSRG (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps at the moment (I just created it), the term is a dictionary definition, but I am working on populating it. I believe this term is not adequately met by the Primate article because the term non-human primate has specific meaning in scientific/medical research and as a general term for a category of pets. In fact, there is US Federal regulation that specifically address non-human primates as research subjects. Surely that information doesn't belong in the general Primate article. Additionally, there is a section in the Primate article that discusses "Legal Status". I feel that is out of place in an article that is discussing the order Primates. That section should be moved to the non-human primate article, because that is indeed where it more appropriately belongs. Chaldor (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need. The primate article should cover all aspects of primates, from taxonomy to legal status. Build up the existing article first, then if there is a need, fork off later. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we can put in a section within primates that discusses the term/concept of non-human primates? Chaldor (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, precisely. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why should there be an article on this that forks from Primate? From reading that article, there does not seem to be a lot of undue weight on Homo sapiens. I need a lot of convincing. Also, and I am not trying to make an accusation or implication, but hearing the animal testing issue addressed so quickly makes me wonder if there is some kind of a POV fork here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not at all. I'm not trying to make a POV fork. My apologies if it appeared that way. That topic was just one of the things I had been recently going over on the wiki. I created the non-human primate page after reading through the primate page, the exotic pets page, and the animal research/primate research pages. In these articles, there are many references to primates/non-human primates (some of which I felt should be directly linking to a dedicated NHP page because of the specifics they were addressing). In all of these articles, none of the "primates" being addressed were referring to humans, they were only referring to NHPs. I have found NHP to be a well-established term and it is used and referenced very often (usda.gov, pubmed.gov, etc). Additionally, as mentioned before, I felt that the legal status section was a bit out of place in the general primate page (no one is questioning the legal status of primates in general, they are simply questioning the legal status of NHPs). I think it's just another very useful way of categorizing the primate order. On one side, there are humans. On the other side, there are NHPs, which, as a group, are the subjects of research, used as pets, subject to NHP legislation, are the subject of personhood debates, etc. Chaldor (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not merge it to Animal testing on non-human primates? That is where essentially all the data given in the current version of the article appears to belong. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Chaldor, thank you very much for that explanation. Especially after this explanation, I see where you are coming from, and the term "non-human primate" is certainly legit as you have described it. I am still wondering if there is enough to write a separate article vs. improve an already existing one. Nsk92 has made a possible suggestion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks LonelyBeacon for your comment and understanding. I think I'm beginning to understand the general consensus point of view on this. It didn't occur to me to create the NHP section within the primate article. Given that currently, there is not enough material to warrant a separate article for it, would it be acceptable to merge this page in as a section in the primate article? The "legal status" section would far more appropriately fit under an NHP section within the primate article. It's of no importance to me whether NHPs have their own article or not (the distinction between an article versus a section within another article is just an arbitrary organizational technicality). I simply want the term/phrase to have a definable reference point because it is an important concept. Regarding Nsk92's comment, I'd rather not have NHPs defined within the animal testing article because there is a clear distinction between the concept of an NHP, and the idea of NHPs used in research (as there are other uses of NHPs as well, such as pets). For this reason, I feel that the definition of the NHP term would be more appropriate in the primate article than in the NHP research article. Naturally, there should be a small discussion and a link to the NHP research page in the NHP section of the primate article (as there is now in the legal status section). The idea of merging this page into the primate page makes sense to me. The concept is important, but the quantity of material isn't enough to warrant it's own page per the general wiki guidlines (this makes sense to me). Thoughts? Chaldor (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, merge it into primate. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a great idea. The day may come when that section grows too large and demands and article, but I think that merging that section will improve the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged and all redirects corrected. I like how this turned out. Thanks for showing a newbie how it's done. :) Chaldor (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to challenge the above consensus for now, but I think there is enough material--the term is used in a quite specific way,and I would strongly encourage re-expansion of the section into an article. (I did think we had a rule to wait until the closing to make major changes of this sort. ) DGG (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no idea, there's only three paragraphs right now. Is that enough to warrant it's own article? Chaldor (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete all delete votes. --JForget 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ratchet & Clank Wiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Ratchet & Clank Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wiki. There is a link to it from the Ratchet & Clank article. That is sufficient. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adding wikia links to articles is understandable but having a separate article to promote the links is wrong. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Article written as an advertisement. This can be better served as an external link to one or more of the Ratchet & Clank articles; it doesn't need an article of its own. MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor and Non-notable site at present. Its not in the class of Citizendium or Brittanica. Artene50 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a single source.--Otterathome (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret History of Star Wars[edit]

The Secret History of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK. A search on Google Books and the Google News archive yielded no positive result. The book itself may be a great source about Star Wars, but it doesn't merit an article about itself. user:Everyme 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:BK. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't really believe in the notability guidelines; I'm much more of an inclusivist. WP:IAR. I figured that the main Star Wars pages cites this book as a source, so it must have some importance. But of course, I understand that I'll probably be overruled, what with WP:BK being an established guideline and all. Sonicsuns (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article consists of one sentence, no sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A possible source, bu to indication of notability for the book itself.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Follet[edit]

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

Non-notable person, only 29 results on Google. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looking over the article I'm not seeing a good case for notability either.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems notable as a businessman as former CEO of Anchor Foods and current connection to Relevant Radio but in-depth sources are so far difficult to find online. Note: Also searching on "Mark C. Follet" (as per his bio) yields another few dozen ghits. - Dravecky (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Anchor Foods notable enough as a corporation? If not, I don't see why its former CEO would be. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It certainly seems so on it's face. Before the company was purchased and split in 2001, it had "sales of $503m (Euro551m) in 2000"[27] and there is substantial coverage in Google News [28] (although some of those are about unrelated UK or AU companies with the same name). Yes, the company is now split up but notability is not temporary. That nobody has written an article on it yet does not obviate its impact or notability in the real world. - Dravecky (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His company may be notable that that doesn't imply Mark Follet is. The only source that talks about him in any depth at all is of dubious reliability / significance. There are about 2 dozen Ghits for Mark Follet but only 1 that also includes "Anchor": [29] which implies to me we've seen all we're going to. In any case, we shouldn't be cutting so close to the line on WP:BLP cases. Mangojuicetalk 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not come close to passing WP:N. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) A very notable piece of malware. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolWebSearch[edit]

Spyware. Does Wikipedia need an article on every piece of shit spyware out there? There are millions of them. --Index

  • Speedy keep. User's only edits are the nomination of this article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 347,000 results on Google for "CoolWebSearch". On the first page, I see a mention by The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/29/cws_shredder/ and even Wired: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2004/04/63280 which both make this a notable software entry. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't keep all spyware articles, but we should keep those whose notability can be established by independent secondary sources. Plenty of people have written about CoolWebSearch, given its reputation as one of the most insidious pieces of spyware of the early 2000s. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Still creating chaos to this day, it's one of the messiest pieces of spyware out there. The nominator should keep the G-hits and the software's notability in mind and I see this article as one of the examples as WP as a public service. Nate • (chatter) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achik[edit]

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

Can not find a single mention of this newsletter anywhere. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Achik seems to be a rebel group or indigenous tribe in Bangladesh based on this search here, not a newsletter/newspaper. Artene50 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. Moontowandi (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as hoax.  Sandstein  17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalist Workers' Tendency[edit]

Internationalist Workers' Tendency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article reads like an ad. No references at all (the two ref tags lead to no info about the organisation). I put a multiple issues tag on the article in April, since then no improvement. Not only does it seem that this don't pass notabilit criteria, a google search gives no indication to the existance of the organisation. Its website [30] does not contain any contact address or phone numbers, no records of any activity of the organisation. It might thus be a hoax altogether or a one-man internet stunt. Soman (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jalat Khan[edit]

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

WP:Cricket has developed criteria to indicate what WP:Athlete means in the context of cricket at WP:CRIN. For a modern-era player they should have played in a first-class, List A or official Twenty20 match. Whilst this player has played for a national side, he has not played any of those forms of cricket, hence fails the notability criteria as agreed by consensus at WP:Cricket and therefore fails WP:Athlete. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons mentioned in my nomination. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Andrew nixon (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that I would like to have this article kept if the notability criteria were changed. My opinion is that anyone who has played for a national side at any level should be notable, but WP:Athlete does not mention anything about national sides, so under current criteria, this should go. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that excluding members of national teams was probably an error on the part of WP:Cricket participants, and there is enough discretion in the notability rules to allow us to consider this player notable. --Eastmain (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the terms of WP:CRIN are sufficient and so an international player must have been involved in major cricket at first-class, ListA or official Twenty20 level. Not all ICC associate members meet the criteria yet. Affiliate and non-affiliate members fall well short of the required standard. Whereas all international teams are notable in that they represent their countries, their team members are not notable per se unless they are notable in their own right. In WP:NM, this is made clear thus: Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band. BlackJack | talk page 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree with User:BlackJack: individuals are notable if they've played at the highest level; national teams are notable per se; individuals who have played for national teams are notable if the team has competed at the highest level. Johnlp (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What match did he play for Afghanistan ? His name doesn't appear in Cricketarchive. CA has a list of 85 matches of all sorts that Afghans played. I went through the list of players in all tournaments but couldn't find his name, or anything very similar. His name appears in some news articles like this, but if you go to the tournament page, there are fifteen players who appeared for Afghanistan, but Jalat (and a couple of others) are not there. Tintin 05:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably this guy as he was born in 1980 and the name Naseer is similar to the Naseri stated in the article. Very confusing. BlackJack | talk page 05:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But CI has Jalat Khan as left-arm fast and WK. This guy is RMF. Tintin 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled. I think it fails verification and I wonder if CI has got the name wrong again, as with Sukumaran? BlackJack | talk page 05:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left-arm fast and WK is a pretty odd combination of talents! Johnlp (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he can do both simultaneously, he'll be notable in no time at all. Now that's what I call an all-rounder. --Dweller (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Just for comparison, a couple of folks from the Uganda team ran away and came to Australia as refugees while they were in Australia for a tournament (Patrick Ochan and Jimmy Okello). They played in B-grade cricket in Adelaide, so they were in the 2nd tier of local suburban cricket. Now Uganda won the 3rd division in world cricket in 2007 and were promoted to second division. Afghanistan has only just been promoted from 5th to 4th division in world cricket, two levels below Uganda. So Afghanistan cricket is below 2nd tier suburban cricket and would probably be 3rd or 4th division, which is about the same level as a high school player. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Anyone participating here should be aware that agreement was recently made reaffirming the message on the WP:BIO page that should any person meet the WP:N criteria, i.e. independent sourcing etc. and fail any subcategory of a Wikiproject. A person's notability cannot be removed by means of the wikiproject declaring their level of competition too low. SHould the two references on this player's page establish his notability then this article cannot be deleted per the WP:CRIN criteria. BigHairRef | Talk 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I have an issue about your statement that the two references might establish the player's notability. I would point out that the second reference in the article is re "the other Jalat Khan", so it is irrelevant and should be edited out if the article is kept. The first reference is verifiable, true enough, but its credibility has to be called into question when it describes Afghanistan as a "major team", which it most certainly is not, and given the comments above about the accuracy of the source in terms of this particular player. Are you suggesting that the mere fact of this page establishes his notability when it is clear to people who are knowledgeable about the subject that he fails WP:ATHLETE completely, let alone WP:CRIN? If Jalat Khan is notable on the strength of this dubious CricInfo entry, then anyone whose name is on the internet must be notable.
There are two conditions in WP:ATHLETE as follows:
  • Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
  • Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.
Jalat Khan has NOT competed in a fully professional league. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt by allowing that there are no fully professional leagues in Afghanistan, neither has he taken part in "any competition of equivalent standing" because there is no first-class or List A cricket in Afghanistan. He is an amateur player, which does not exclude him from cricket's professional competitions, but he has not competed at the highest levels which are summarised in Major cricket. Afghanistan may be a national team but it is only an affiliate (i.e., minor or developing) member of the ICC and does not compete at the highest levels.
Finally, I do not see how WP:CRIN can be ignored in practice. The notability of a cricketer can only be established by reference to members of WP:CRIC and they will invariably refer to WP:CRIN when forming a view. If cricket project members had not taken part in this discussion, then people who are ignorant of the sport would probably have waved Jalat Khan through on the basis of the CricInfo page without reference to the actual status of himself or the Afghan team. BlackJack | talk page 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I neither said WP:CRIN should be ignored nor that I thought him to be notable (and indeed nor do I think him non notable) and to be honest you're adding meanings in to my statement which weren't there.
I will reiterate what I said which was that WP:ATHLETE and any WP:CRIN criteria are additional criteria to WP:N and if they do not meet either criteria but do pass WP:N then they should not be deleted. NOtbaility does not depend on any sinlge WP which can assist with knowledge of certain areas lacked by others, but if there are various independant sources to establish notability then an article should not be deleted by failing to meet another additional criteria such as WP:ATHLETE as it says at the top of WP:BIO. BigHairRef | Talk 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the issue. Although you have no firm view on this person's notability, could you please indicate what there is in the article that may infer notability? BlackJack | talk page 06:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not my point makes it harder to make a decision is not the issue. The nom mentioned it failed WP:ATHLETE and at least one other person gave a failure to pass the same guideline as being their reasons for deletion. Both are not valid reasons on their own.
He may well be non-notable due to his level of international competition, however if the two sources are sufficently verifiable and relevant to establish notability, failure to pass any additional guideline on WP:BIO is not a valid policy reason to delete. BigHairRef | Talk 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per unanimous vote --JForget 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.C. (rapper)[edit]

R.O.C. (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've brought this here because it has been WP:PRODded and de-prodded several times in the past few weeks. I couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability. Time for it to be discussed here. Michig (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is established by the mentioned sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Minin[edit]

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

Of marginal notability. No assertions of notability is given. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I had originally tagged this for speedy, but that tagged was removed. No signs of notability... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 126 Gnews hits, 50 -200+ gbook hits This book says he has many aliases. among them Leon Minin, Wulf Breslav, Leonid Bluvshtein, Leonid Bluvstein, Igor Osols, Vladimir Abramovich Kerler, Igor Limar according to this book, a page or so bio, and which looks like a fine ref on such topics. Lots of good sources. John Z (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Among other sources, a Frontline piece on arms trafficking gives him his own profile page. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as per the coverage shown. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per [33] which is already found within the article. Also, [34] and [35]. Meets WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Ostap 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete, it is often the case that a non-notable persona would inspire a notable story, in such a case I would create a list something like Ukrainian Mafiosi and keep it in there in a condensed version. I have heavy doubt it will ever grow beyond its current size. --Kuban Cossack 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually items aren't deleted once merged unless the resulting redirect causes some sort of problem. I can't imagine how keeping this a redirect after merge would be harmful in any way, so if it were to be merged, it would probably not be deleted. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Clark (Candidate)[edit]

Fred Clark (Candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted on this contested prod. Might be speedy eligible. Non-notable person except if he wins the election. See WP:FUTURE for the policy on predicting the future. Royalbroil 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was obvious delete Shii (tock) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High five for diction[edit]

High five for diction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More neologism shenanigans. This one seems limited to a single college campus. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phaal[edit]

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

unreferenced food stub whose notability cannot be verified. Tavix (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now referenced. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there are quite a few g-hits for 'Phaal', but I'm not sure if it deserves it's own article. Maybe a merge with Curry (or a subpage thereof)... Looking at Curry just now, it seems that there are quite a few dishes with their own articles, but those articles seem a little more in-depth. So maybe a merge until a more comprehensive article can be written? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) - Keep - Well referenced and written now, thanks to Wheelchair Epidemic... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. JIP | Talk 05:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to keep now that it has references. JIP | Talk 09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added some references and there will be a lot more, phall is famous in the UK (and seemingly also the US now) as the "try it if you dare" curry speciality. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources to establish notabilty and encyclopedicity is not in dispute. --Stlemur (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a famous (more accurately notorious) dish in the UK - Wheelchair Epidemic's edits mean that the article is now reasonable, and I'm sure it can be improved further. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But surely now it's been sourced etc the tag can be removed? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - fails WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Tan ǀ 39 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Skilly[edit]

This artist fails WP:MUSIC. There was an earlier dispute regarding whether this meets CSD A7, but nonetheless it still fails the general biographical and verification policies. JBsupreme (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 'up and coming artist' with no mention of charts, no albums released, no mention of concert tours, has won no competitions or awards... seems to me like someone riding Akon's coat-tails, with one 'hit' song. Fails WP:MUSIC blazingly... maybe one day will be notable, but not now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero notability, as per WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my nomination for speedy deletion was declined and I can see why, as there are some borderline sources provided. But this guy just isn't notable yet and fails WP:MUSIC. -- roleplayer 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to give the (redlink) author a chance to assert notability and to improve the article. Unfortunately the author isn't doing this. Many of the author's other articles have been deleted, unfortunately. The subject of this AfD is probably speediable due to WP:SNOW now, regardless of CSD#A7. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At least now we have G4 as a CSD criteria if/when this comes up again. Tan ǀ 39 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "up and coming" is another way of saying "not notable". JuJube (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FANBOYS[edit]

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

I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this is is a mnemonic device to remember a set of conjunctions. I don't see any encyclopedic value here. Powers T 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to Fanboy. Dicdef of NN mnemonic. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Worth mentioning there but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 05:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember this from elementary school, but I do see any encyclopedic value for this teaching method. This is probably better for Wiktionary. Lehoiberri (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque Shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, couldn't find any reliable sources on this at all. Wizardman 02:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless good reliable sources materialize. Given that it's been a month, doubt it'll happen. RayAYang (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Nothing has referenced to verify the article's notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Spinoff of a notable Japanese game series Baroque. The one link referenced is the official website for the game, operated by Sting itself! mattiator (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources, official is the opposite of what is required. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Leivick (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Hours in My Lai (2006 Movie)[edit]

Four Hours in My Lai (2006 Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MOVIE. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) *Looks notable: [reply]

Hobit (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Delete Agree on the hoax. There was a much earlier documentary with this name. Not sure what the second link is discussing (perhaps the earlier documentary?) Hobit (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hobit's first link is to a lecture on My Lai itself, not the movie. The second is behind a paywall, so no way to tell if it's advertising or what have you. Adding to the complication, this is also the name of a documentary (not a movie), and a book, which complicates Google searching enormously. So I go by what the article provides us, which is no significant coverage in secondary sources (adding to the insult, it doesn't show up in IMDB as of this writing). RayAYang (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the first one. The second looks real but not sure. Hobit (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the big name stars and director, it should have shown up at imdb.com. It didn't. Sounds like it might even be WP:HOAX. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is a 4 hour made-for-TV movie. Never seen it, but there are a number of RS that say it was aired. Hobit (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francie Conway[edit]

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

Only link site is the subject's web page. No independent reliable sources to establish subject's individual notability. Artene50 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Close based more on strength of arguments, than numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Janet Jackson B-sides, bonus tracks and unreleased songs[edit]

List of Janet Jackson B-sides, bonus tracks and unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per precedent, lists of B-sides, unreleased songs, etc. are almost always trivial and therefore unnecessary. This has been tagged for refs since a year ago with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nom.'s rationale. There are many other appropriate places for this info. to be placed if it is needed. JJL (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & JJL. Merge and thing useful into her disco page, and bowl the rest.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Madonna and Mariah Carey have unreleased song pages, and this page deserves equal treatment as theirs. Jjmcspooh (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason, IMO, to keep an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Add the information into the pages for the respective albums. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why can everyone else have one and not Janet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetj (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) — Joetj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It is necessary, and other artist have one 72.199.192.87 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they're going to delete Janet's page then they should delete Mariah's & Madonna but instead of deleting all that, I say keep it like it is.--Nh3plusjanet (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that but they're all variations of What about X? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Janet deserves this page more than Mariah or Madonna do. Stopitplease92 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per arguments above. Non-notable, uncited, and largely trivial. I could hypothetically imagine a list of this scope being worthy of keeping, but as this list stands it fails nearly all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Drewcifer (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page and the List of Unreleased Spice Girls Songs page both NEED to be kept. Ofelixdacat (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, let me add something else. I simply mentioned Mariah Carey's because this article is almost identical to hers in format, maybe just a little bit shorter. Anyway, never mind that; here's another reason. This page can be very informative which I believe is the main goal of what an encyclopedia should be. For example, if a person is just discovering her song "One More Chance," they would not know to look up janet. to see which era it was released. However with this page, the information is right in front of them, and they don't have to go on a wild goose chase looking up each of her albums so that's why I say it be kept. Jjmcspooh (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, allow me to play devil's advocate here. Fist, if someone did just discover "One more chance", how would they know to look here, especially with such a long title? Second how would they most likely "discover" the song? Most likely through the single release of "If". In fact, I would assume someone would be more inclined to go to If rather than List of Janet Jackson B-sides, bonus tracks and unreleased songs. So it seems much more intuitive to relocate info about the B-side to the single's page, rather than here. Drewcifer (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Per nom. B-sides and bonus tracks are dealt with in respective albums and singles. Unreleased songs are highly non-notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mason webb[edit]

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

Mason webb is a non-notable person. Tagged with the general notability tag since January. Tavix (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails all 3 guidelines of WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant role, no cult following, no unique contributions to the world of entertainment... A google search only brings up imdb and basic cast listings from Zoolander... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article itself makes an assertion of non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No assertion of subject's notability is given--even in the article itself. Artene50 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Artene50. JuJube (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.B.C[edit]

V.B.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in a day. Its a shame there is not an applicable speedy that could deal with this article. Creator contested prod. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrkskog[edit]

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

This article would questionably stand up to a Speedy Delete A7 (for failing to state why the band is important) and a prod (for notability) was contested. The article only stands up to band notability guidelines for having two albums released on Candlelight records and nothing more. The article does not cite any references despite being tagged as such since March 2008. The content of the article serves primarily to provide information regarding the side projects of non-notable band members. Based on these reasons (primarily the lack of any citations), it is easy to come to the conclusion that this article exists in Wikipedia primarily for vanity. —  X  S  G  01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I did find this, this, and a few non-English hits that I can't read. They might pass muster but I'll leave it to someone else who is multi lingual. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tags per TenPoundHammer. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability established per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes WP:MUSIC, as in fact stated in the nomination! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. "The article only stands up to band notability guidelines for having two albums released on Candlelight records and nothing more". Good job that's all it needs, then! Crumbs, that was easy. tomasz. 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's easy only if Candlelight Records is truly considered a notable label. In this case, it probably is, but my point is that nothing is usually as easy as it appears... —  X  S  G  23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, WP:MUSIC stipulates "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). I can't see how Candlelight couldn't be considered notable, given its longevity and releases from the likes of Emperor, Opeth, Zyklon, Obituary, 1349, Blut Aus Nord etc. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Candlelight seems to be a notable label. Between that and the sources I found, I think they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; content previously transwikied to Wikia/merged into other articles at a misplaced title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meizu Naruto[edit]

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

Non notable character, I tried to find him in the main Naruto and Naruto character articles to see if there was a place to redirect this, but I couldn't find anyplace on Wikipedia to point it, there is a soft redirect at Meizu (Naruto) to a naruto wiki. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication(Mixtape)[edit]

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

Mixtapes fail WP:MUSIC LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sanoussi[edit]

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

Contested prod on the basis that more than one rape ! However per WP:ONEEVENT which is policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. We have an article on the event for which this person is notable - ie Sydney gang rapes and he is listed in that article. I think listing there is sufficient with a paragraph or so of mention and this separate article is unwarranted. More than one rape may have been involved but I think for the purpose of scope the gang rapes in Sydney as covered by the article are one event. Matilda talk 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly fall within WP:ONEEVENT for the same series of attacks already covered by an article on that event:

Mohammed Ghanem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H (gang rapist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammed Skaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The following articles have not had proposed deletion contested but are listed here in case that is the case so that they are part of the same discussion:

Belal Hajeid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahmoud Sanoussi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahmoud Chami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tayyab Sheikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Matilda talk 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once this discussion is concluded I propose that these articles be salted - assuming the discussion agrees that deletion is appropriate. --Matilda talk 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does look like a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, this is a textbook application of WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    But no objection to a redirect if judged appropriate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all, and confirm the deletion of the prodded articles. See WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It feels wrong to be deleting information on such a serious event, but I've had a look at the articles (both deleted and yet to be deleted), and it doesn't look like there'll be much information lost (see this AFD's talk page for the ones that haven't been deleted). Normally I'd suggest a merge rather than a deletion, but the articles are pretty mediocre and are about living people. Without violating the GFDL, it is probably worthwhile mentioning H's mental impairment in the main article. Andjam (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't think this is a classic textbook WP:ONEEVENT situation. These people are the subject of multiple reporting over a long period of time. As the consensus appears to be that WP:ONEEVENT applies, the proper course is a redirect or a merge under that policy. I also oppose salting as that only applies where there is persistent page recreation after deletion. If somebody can find more indepth information on these people to justify a proper biography, then they should be allowed to do so. Assize (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the level of reporting, there is still only one event (the series of rapes) in question and the only notable information worth including in a biographical article is their crimes. The article on the event covers that in detail so there is no need at all for an biographical article. Most criminals, even rapists and murderers, are not notable enough for inclusion in a biographical article. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Putting aside the issue of treating several crimes as one event, there are still several events. The actual crimes, the trial event, the sentencing event, the appeals event, the rehashing of the events in the media with it being compared to other similar crimes. Surely WP:ONEEVENT is only really targeted at something like a shop stealing offence which gets a 1 minute mention and is never heard of again. Assize (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that would fail WP:N directly. ONEEVENT is specifically for 'biographies' like this, where someone made the news for an event, (I believe a series of proximate, related crimes and their associated consequences count as one event) and has nothing else about their lives that would merit encyclopedic inclusion. Unless the media coverage of each individual rises to the level of Central Park Jogger, I don't see the need or justification for an article on them. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the extended media interest in the Central Park Jogger made it more than a single event, which brought it outside ONEEVENT. Exactly what I am arguing. Assize (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are indeed. However, I'd point out to you that if you look at Central Park Jogger, roughly half the sources documented in the article are from 10+ years after the event. That's a pretty high bar to meet, even for an horrific crime that shocks a city. Oh, and four of the five articles on the convicted rapists have since been deleted, so that's not a particularly favourable precedent, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, the deletion of other articles doesn't cause precidents, particularly as they were PROD-ed. Central Park Jogger is still only one event because "crimes and their associated consequences count as one event". So how does it really fall outside of ONEEVENT except for the sustained media coverage? Assize (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'crimes and their associated consequences count as one event'. If that is the case then why does Ivan Milat qualify for an article? WWGB (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - firstly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rationale for keeping. Secondly the Central Park Jogger now redirects to the victim's name. She has written a book about the attack. That probably (I am not evaluating that article here) gives her notability sufficient to meet the WP:Bio threshhold of notability. It may be that the article would be better about the event than the person but there seems no article about the event and it was certainly notable enough making world wide news repeatedly. In this case we have an article about the event and are proposing to delete the addional articles about the attackers. The rationale is that there is nothing additionally notable about the attackers. When it comes to Ivan Milat, I would say that there could be justification for saying that the article about the Backpacker murders is sufficient, but I think the rationale for keeping the article on Milat is similar to the rationale for keeping the article on Bilal Skaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the leader of the attackers in this case. Bilal Skaf's article was a contested prod and has not been nominated for deletion here. There is a distinction being made here between Bilal Skaf and the other attackers in this event as to notability. --Matilda talk 06:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All are notable under WP:N for secondary coverage. What you are saying under ONEEVENT is that they shouldn't be covered even though they are notable. The distinction can't be writing a book, because that is self-promotion under WP:BIO. It can't be because he was the ring leader because Ivan Milat wasn't. It can only be the extensive media coverage over a long period of time. A criminal who is in headlines for a day or two is excluded under ONEEVENT, not "infamous" criminals who come up all the time. Assize (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could say that it would be helpful if you read the policies as well, but that wouldn't be relevant to this discussion or helpful. Perhaps you might wish to look at note 5 on WP:BIO about "Autobiography". Also, separate biographies in ONEEVENT "might not be warranted", the keyword being might so separate biographies are permissible. My argument is that ONEEVENT does not exclude people who are "infamous". We seem to agree on that. But why are they "infamous" or "notorious" to use your own words. Because they continue to receive coverage in the media or have became the subject of an independent book, which is an objective standard and which Wikipedia strives to be. It is not because Wikipedians consider the crime as unimportant. Can you explain what objective criteria have been used to decide that Ivan Milat is "infamous" but this person is not? Assize (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to change people's minds on this, you'd be better off adding RS information not involving the crime to subjects' respective articles. Absent any such coverage, ONEEVENT clearly applies in my mind, and I find your nuanced interpretations of ONEEVENT unpersuasive. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought my argument was as nuanced as a sledgehammer ie. ONEEVENT doesn't apply because they aren't "low profile" as they have receive sustained media coverage. Remember, I'm not arguing keep. The "nuanced" arguments trying to justify why multiple rapes, subsequent consequences of the crimes, and comparisons to other similar crimes are all considered "one event", when they plainly are not, is simply illogical and laden with NPOV. There is no point updating an article that will be deleted or redirected at the end of this AfD, so let's move on. Assize (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFDL warning some content has recently been moved from the biographical articles to the event article in a cut and paste manner. This may mean we can only redirect rather than delete outright. Andjam (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree that the addition of one or at most two sentences from each of 4 articles to the main article breaches GFDL - see [36] --Matilda talk 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There's no useful information about him that hasn't been included in the main article about his gang. The references don't highlight the actions of Sanoussi above the gang as a whole, because he hasn't done anything notable away from his gang as a whole. The references only mention Sanoussi's name in passing, as a member of the gang. It should be salted because this gang member will be in gaol for decades, thus is unlikely to ever achieve notability.--Lester 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was nominator withdrawal[37]. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 104 NB[edit]

Chak 104 NB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverified and not-notable. Article doesn't make any attempt to verify that this place actually exists. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand this article about a verifiable village in Pakistan. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This village is fairly easy to find in Google and it is verifiably real.[38] • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 05:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all geographical locations are notable. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, having already declined a speedy request and a prod on this. Long-standing convention is that named towns are always notable. Quite aside from anything else, if it's deleted it will just be re-added once WP:GEOBOT reaches Pakistan on its list. – iridescent 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea there was a bot creating articles like this anyway. If that's the case there is no point this AFD continuing arbitrarily. As well as with the consensus here it will probably be snowed anyway. I Withdraw this AFD. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Olejar[edit]

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

There is a clear conflict of interest happening here. The article was speedy deleted and then recreated. The original editor removed the speedy delete tag and was warned. He then switched to an anonymous IP address to remove the tag. I thought it was best to bring it to AfD. This is unsourced and the subject is of limited notability. His claims to notability are unreferenced. Although I'm loath to bring in vanity, this is clearly a self-promotional article by a subject of questionable notability freshacconcispeaktome 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I note a number of Keep opinions that contradict policy / deletion protcol - Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not a policy page, but contains much useful advice. We do have some precedent that major releases announced by movie studios or, for that matter, record labels, can be regarded as de facto and overcoming WP:CRYSTAL, but this article presents no RS recording such an announcement. Anyone finding RS (not a single mention on Amazon) for the launch can let me know and I'll recreate the article for them to add the RS to, and I'll !vote Keep if there's a subsequent second AfD. Dweller (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King[edit]

Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability or significant coverage established, or likely to be (without breaching WP:CRYSTAL territory, anyway). PROD was rejected on claim that "All films, whether theatrical or otherwise, have wikipedia articles." The very existence of inclusion criteria for films, as well as more obvious factors, rather strongly dispute this assertion. Vianello (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, even if I'm not sure if it fulfills WP:MOVIE yet. What should be considered though is to merge all twelve direct-to-dvd movies into one article. --Amalthea (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I don't think such a merge would be uncalled for. - Vianello (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I. I've looked at several of these articles, and it's all just plot summary with no sources and very little (if any) real world information. If notability cannot be established for these film individually, then I think a single merged article for the film series would be the way to go. PC78 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF, specifically "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". No reliable third party sources appear to exist that might indicate notability; the only google hits appear to be commericial websites (such as Amazon) or forums. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep about to be released, notable series. JJL (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when it is released, it will have the same information as the other films. And there is no reason to merge, all the films are separate, they are just about the same subject matter. Rhino131 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've no objection to the proposed merge other than losing the not free media. But looks notable. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film exists - it will be available shortly, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Scooby Doo fan in my junior years, I guess I have a conflict of interest here. But the film will be coming out soon so its not quite a crystal ball issue and the Scooby Doo franchise is inherently notable to young Wikipedia editors. This search reveals 856 hits alone for this film. Artene50 (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Something being posted for sale on a site like Amazon.com is a bit of a feeble argument for notability. I think the number cited is quite deceptively high. Not nearly as many of the hits generated are sincere external "coverage" rather than pre-order pages, or redundant extra links to the same site/page. And the majority of those few that aren't just DVD sale pages that are nearly blank placeholder pages. I think an assertion of meeting WP:MOVIE criteria would be more called for. Has no more than one site given actual coverage to this film? If not, the assertion it is notable by any WP:MOVIE standard is speculation. - Vianello (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Officially announced films, especially ones as part of a major franchise, are notable. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Additional coverage will probably be available within the next month as reviews are printed, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Seriously, I have no particular interest in the fate of this article one way or another, but I'm really struggling with the mass of "Keep votes" above. "Looks notable"? "The film exists"? "Additional coverage will probably be available"? Are these really the best arguments to be made for retaining the article? Of course the franchise is notable, but on the other hand, notability is not inherited. Also, the belief that all officially announced films are inherantly notable is contrary to the basic principles of WP:N. Sorry, and I'm certainly not looking to pick a fight here, but I can't agree with the opinion that Anything Scooby Doo = Notable. With the utmost respect. PC78 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until meaningful content exists. "It will take place on Halloween and appears to be loosely based of the classic A Pup Named Scooby-Doo episode Ghost Who's Coming To Dinnner. The film will most likely be dedicated to Joseph Barbera, who died during production of the previous film, Chill Out, Scooby-Doo! " - People are seriously voting to keep this? No meaningful content could possibly exist right now. JohnnyMrNinja 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the url since it doesn't specifically mention Joseph Barbera. But seriously, are you going to delete this upcoming episode of Scooby Doo which has 856 hits on Google. This isn't really crystal ball territory. A bit of leeway and common sense is required. Artene50 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. See my previous comment on a similar argument. How many of those 'hits' are actually of any relevance or consequence? I'm not sure how this doesn't involve the crystal ball issue, since its notability is purely a future assumption. - Vianello (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero Google News, Books or Scholar hits, and ""Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King" -wikipedia -blog -forum" gets 181 Google hits even when the omitted results are included. Wikipedia is not Amazon anyway. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article does establish notability as reliable sources have been found. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidedia[edit]

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

Non-notable web site, does not pass WP:WEB requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Stupidedia where the author says just that in response to the CSD, and lists wikilinks to some of the reliable sources, among them the german newspapers with the highest circulations. --Amalthea (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a listing on the German side of Wikipedia, which does provide references as to its notability. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidedia Is there a reason for a German-languange site to be listed seperately on the English-language side of wikipedia?Khanaris (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Featured in a Bild article titled Knowledge the world doesn't need ([39]). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, a lot of the coverage provided by the article's author is extremely brief. These are minor mentions, not significant coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that a lot of them are very brief or mention the site only as a "reference" themselves, but I'm convinced that there's enough to make it notable by far: There are at least two with significant coverages, [40] (Bild) and [41] (Rheinische_Post), and a number of "web tips": [42] on de:GIGA Digital Television, a German genre TV channel, [43] [44] on Bild, [45] on Oberösterreichische Rundschau, [46] on de:PC Games, a german PC games magazine, and [47] on CHIP (magazine).
--Amalthea (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. In Germany, Stupipedia is well-known. --Olahus (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (At least weak) Keep I also found a mention in Die Welt [48], but with all the other minor mentions, I don't know if this establishes sufficient notability. – sgeureka t•c 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems to be notable enough. Ostap 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Even if the article has little or no context, it may be expanded, cleaned up, and be nominated into an A or B-class article by a great editor who's bold. --Ωfrogger3140Ω (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_14&oldid=1116722215"