Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4's_free_stuff

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, page should be deleted Pmi25 06:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Merge with Free Stuff, I have looked into merging with Free Stuff but this would just end up with a large list of what was won on the show which started on the 4th of June 2007. And that is not information likely to be included in an encyclopedia, thus it is better for the article to be deleted rather than merged. Pmi25 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic keying systems

Unreferenced orphan page, notability not asserted, possible original research, Google returns three hits, all related to an author who is also up for AfD. east.718 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N. No context, no references, no intelligibility. Deor 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Insufficient notability and a lack of verifiability. Adrian M. H. 15:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about disability

List has absolutely no context, while the inclusion criteria is hopelessly vague. Delete. PC78 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, are these films about disability or someone with a disability? Useight 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the worst film lists. There is no "disability" film genre, there is no article called "Films about disability" (or similar). Too broad a topic for a list, so this is a WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Any list that groups together Forrest Gump and Freaks is ridiculous. Masaruemoto 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per precedent set by the repeated deletions of List of songs about foo. Resolute 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep All of the films are notable, but the list is not useful without some explanations about why a film is on there; it's been up here almost a year without any sign that it will be improved. As with the recently deleted List of films with disabled protagonists, I comment that Hollywood generally ignores the disabled, in the sense that persons with any type of disability are not seen at all in most films. Only a weak keep, because it is no better to fail to mention what the disability is... to all lesser-abled persons into a catch-all of "disabled" is patronizing. Mandsford 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a directory of loosely associated terms, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no different than most of the "films about" and suffers from all the ills inherent in such articles: OR, POV, subjectivity, how "about" disability must a film be, etc.... Carlossuarez46 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete lists with no clear, objective, notable inclusion criteria. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the criteria for a film about disability is incredibly vague. Would 50 First Dates fall on the list, too? Who knows? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles and tortoises in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat emptor This is just the first of several nominations for deletion made today by the same person, each about an item with "in popular culture" in the title, and each with the same boilerplate argument that "The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by (citation omitted) this former embedded list], is over the top and is now heading downhill. See...Smilodon in popular culture...Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today." There's an irony in this; in effect, the nominator has made his or her own list of unrelated topics linked only by a common phrase (in this case "...in popular culture") based on his own POV. Some of the nominated articles probably should be deleted, but each should be judged on its own merits, rather than on the blanket "over-the-top-and-is-now-heading-downhill"
In addition, someone pointed out that one of this person's nominations (concerning the painting "Nighthawks" in popular culture) was debated only four days ago, which calls into question the good faith of the project. Mandsford 16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. delete immediately. Kripto 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very little to salvage if anything. Popular culture articles should probably be salted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, maybe little stuff can be transferred to the proper articles but really there isn't a lot.--JForget 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list of loosely related terms. Jay32183 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure trivia, indiscriminate list, and even original research. Useight 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is pointless/unmaintainable to make a list of every time someone mentions an animal. Delete as an unmaintainable list per WP:NOT Corpx 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the above all list perfectly valid reasons for this delete Q ^{T C} 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Popular culture articles are 99.999% of the time non-notable trivia about American television programs and movies. Every time someone cuts a fart it's entered under Farting in popular culture. (Please let that be a redlink.) --Charlene 04:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep.I was leaning towards delete...until I actually read the article. It is well-sourced, well organised, and encyclopedic. Honestly, go take a look. Don't just react automatically to the 'popular culture' in the title. Rhinoracer 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia Bulldog123 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Reality Check...As with Rhino, I would have voted delete on the basis of it being called "______ in popular culture", if I hadn't examined the article. This lone article is intelligent, encylopedic, well organized... from Aesop's fables and Akupara the to Yertle, Franklin and the TMNT. Far more preferable to the hundreds that are on Wikipedia about individual episodes of TMNT; for example, The Big Brawl has its own article. As noted above, this is the first of several nominations made by the same person today, possibly based on the assumption that all such articles are the same. Mandsford 16:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is another directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on this list have nothing in common past the inclusion of a turle or tortoise or, in some instances, the use of the word "turtle" or "tortoise" in a context that otherwise has nothing to do with the creatures. This list tells us nothing about turtles, the fiction which includes mention of them or the real world. Otto4711 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does the fictionalized portrayal of turtles tell us about turtles themselves? Nothing. This effectually is trivia and not meant to be housed here. GassyGuy 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia on an encyclopedia. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sympathize with both points of view expressed so far, it should be a hard call. But I want to say that if you do delete it, someone should transwiki it, like on encyclopedia dramatica. This is some funny stuff. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The fictionalized portrayal of turtles tells us about how humans perceive turtles. I've added a little to the mythology section and some images. If the article title is objectionable, perhaps a name change to something like Anthropomorphism of turtles, Turtles in mythology or Symbolism of turtles would be an improvement. There are plenty of sources out there for children's literature and mythology at least. Plus I'm in mourning for my terrapin :-( Bláthnaid 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentI prefer to assume good faith, but really-- this nom was cut-and-pasted from a dozen similar noms made the same day by the same person. This was highly careless.

From the article, it is apparent that turtles/tortoises are still powerful memes/archetypes. That alone justifies the article. Rhinoracer 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no different than the mass of others. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a largely unreferenced article that fails to assert the notability of turtles and tortoises through the significant coverage of independent, secondary sources. Instead, this is a directory of loosely-associated topics that have been synthesized to create this muddled topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has four reliable sources. The opening paragraph is completely sourced and asserts that the turtle is a universal human symbol. A Dictionary of Symbols and Thematic Guide to World Mythology bring different uses of this symbol together, so I think that Wikipedia can too. A Dictionary of Symbols goes further, even bringing Moreau's Orpheus into the mix.Bláthnaid 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every animal is a symbol of something in some culture, that doesnt mean we should be indexing every mention in a book/show/movie. Corpx 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm against the tide on this, but anyway...Some more books that bring together different uses of this symbol/archetype are Dictionary of Nature Myths: Legends of the Earth, Sea, and Sky ISBN 0195136772 and The Complete Dictionary of Symbols ISBN 0811847675. A journal article [1]. An essay on the turtle's role in art, literature and mythology [2] from ISBN 0894950819. The article doesn't mention every occurrence of a turtle in every book or movie, and context is provided. This article lets you contrast how the same animal is represented in different cultures eg China and Japan, which can't be done in the individual articles on a country's culture. I think it's interesting but YMMV. Bláthnaid 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list just lists a turtle and the tv show/book/comics that it appeared in. It doesnt tie how the appearance in the "popular culture" item have anything to do with what's mentioned in the intro paragraph. Corpx 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true for the first section of the article at the moment, I've been adding rather than taking away material with sources I could find quickly. If it's kept I think "...in culture" would be a better title. Bláthnaid 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is the textbook definition of a "list of loosely assosiated items". The mentions about turtles on that page does not have anything in common except that they're turtles, which comes down to mentioning every time an animal is mentioned in a tv show/book. Corpx 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate list of loosely related topics. Fails WP:NOT Jay32183 00:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little stuff can be merged with the parent article.--JForget 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure trivia, indiscriminate list, and even original research. Useight 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to categorize mentions about a certain creature/mythical creature. This is too trivial. Corpx 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - a category listing should be the only valid list method. Kripto 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Rackabello 06:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the stereotypical "____IPC" article where every recollection of a variable is put on a list. In this case, the sighting of a little Irishman is included here. I see that Punkmorten has chosen Saturday to put up a list of articles ending in the words "...in popular culture", which is not much different than what the average IPC listmaker is doing (in effect, slapping together a group of loosely-related or unrelated topics based on POV. Each of these lists should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Mandsford 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Tells us nothing about leprechauns, the fiction in which they are mentioned or the real world. Otto4711 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh...I don't think there are leprechauns in the real world. And if there are, I don't want to know about it. Mandsford 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yōkai in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main yōkai article only if the video game, manga, and anime fans agree to keep information about their favorite pop culture subject to a minimum. For example, InuYasha does not need its own plot summary and explanation of use of yōkai throughout the series, as was put in during a recent edit. 24.14.198.8 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Chris G.[reply]

Merge some of the info as per the IP said, but otherwise delete most.JForget 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into the main article. Wikipedia is not the place to categorize mentions like this- Too Trivial Corpx 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate listing and directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond happening to mention these spirits. Otto4711 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other "Merge" suggestions. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 03:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yokai may be notable, but every single tiny mention of them is not. --Charlene 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten. Unencyclopedic and unnotable. Eusebeus 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading the article. Some might be merged with a main article, but if this is kept, some type of context needs to be added. It's silly to put up a list, but then to add "For information on yōkai in traditional Japanese culture, please see the main article". Mandsford 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. There is no notability asserted here based on significant coverage by independent, secondary sources -- all the article is is a synthesis of personal observations to establish this muddled, trivial topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobotomy in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have said merge to the parent article, but it is virtually impossible with the amount of details, although some info can be transferred there.--JForget 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure trivia, indiscriminate list, and even original research. Useight 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into the main article. Wikipedia is not the place to categorize mentions like this- Too Trivial Corpx 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as tasteless as it is pointless Kripto 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Useight. None of this is notable. --Charlene 04:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of loosely related terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. There are no independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage to assert this topic's notability, per notability standards. Just about all of these entries are not made famous as a result of a lobotomy mentioned, and is really just indiscriminate trivia of which editors could personally list examples endlessly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ur... durr... UFFH! UFFH! --Perceive 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that's a valid explanation. Corpx 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No-brainer. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and current trend. Unsourced indiscriminate trivia and violates WP:NOT#INFO. María (críticame) 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculous. There are countless movies and TV series that has at least one teacher coming one time or another. TheBlazikenMaster 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with the appropriate articles.--JForget 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Actually, merging to something wouldn't change the fact that teachers are in countless movies and TV series, so what would be the use? TheBlazikenMaster 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list of loosely related terms. Jay32183 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense...This would mean that for every career deserves an article to list every time its mentioned Corpx 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia proposal Bulldog123 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could go on forever. JJL 15:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blaziken and JJL
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the criteria is ridiculously vague and unencyclopedic. Just because films have the protagonists as teachers does not mean that there is a connection worth noting. This article is purely original research that could do a much better example recreated in the future as a prose article using independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage of the prominence of teachers' roles in popular culture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or drastically reduce--the gorgon article is already lengthy enough without this list added on at the end. Also, keeping a separate list reduces the number of pop culture fans who want to add every single instance of gorgons on the main, encyclopedic article. I'd rather not see a huge list bog down a perfectly good article. 24.14.198.8 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Chris G.[reply]
Strong keep - It is absolutely proper to spin off long sections into a separate article. The fictional representations discussed here are certainly notable (though the page itself could use trimming) but not so much on the main article. Nominator sounds like he doesn't personally like "in popular culture articles," which is his preference, but NOT a reason to delete. These are created for a specific, encyclopedic purpose. Frankly, if you delete this, all you'll end up doing is seeing the main article fill up with nonsense and it'll be spun off into a new article again. Don't waste everyone's time. DreamGuy 00:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to itemize mentions of every mythical creature out there. Doing something like this is way too trivial and unmaintainable Corpx 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely indiscriminate list of insignificant references, even a simple mention of the word "gorgon" is enough to be added here. Masaruemoto 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per Masruemoto. For instance, a Star Trek episode where Melvin Belli's character was named "Gorgon" is on here. In a shorter, less inclusive form this might have merit. Mandsford 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to EDIT the article, not to DELETE the article. DreamGuy 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a directory of loosely associated terms, WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So edit it, it's not a reason to delete it. There's nothing about the article title that means it can only be a directory, it's just that that's how it ended up. DreamGuy 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reason to delete. It isn't a formatting problem. The article connects things that aren't connected. It's original research, as is everything that fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep pending a cut-down and cleanup. Nothing wrong with a non-duplicating fork if its content is worthwhile, but this content stretches the definition laid down by the title. It needs to be trimmed down and better sourced. Adrian M. H. 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. No WP:RS to show entry of Gorgons & Medusa into popular culture. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? The fact that Clash of the Titans came out, and other mentions, has plenty of reliable sources. Your argument is that Medusa and Gorgon aren't in popular culture? That makes no sense. And there is no precedent that these types of articles be removed, as many, many ones have survived deletion votes or never got nominated in the first place.DreamGuy 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Gorgon" and "Medusa" are are notable in popular culture, then so are mentions of every greek mythology character in "popular culture". There should be an article for every time Zeus is mentioned in "popular culture". Every time Cyclops is mentioned. We dont need to note everytime a myth characater was mentioned in a tv show/movie. Corpx 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is clearly an indiscriminate list of trivia. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. There is no notability asserted about the presence of Medusa and Gorgons in popular culture, and the criteria apparently ranges from song names to villainous presences in TV episodes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason that Erik just listed above. There are thousands of articles that have ridiculously long trivia and popular culture sections without spinning them off into their own articles. Trusilver 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Erik above said it very well. Ditch as an indiscriminate list of trivia. María (críticame) 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and moratorium on the AfD nomination of this article. Enough is enough. Improve the article, cull it, source it, etc., but this article has survived AfDs in the past for good reason: at least some of the information meets the notability test and the main article is already too large. Jeopardy! topics on Wikipedia comprise a small family of articles tidily held together by a footer template banner, as so many other large topics in the encyclopedia. Robert K S 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, you know... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can change is the proportion of Wikipedians involved in the previous AfDs who don't care to ring in again... and again... and again. AfDing an obviously important featured article enough times will, statistically speaking, guarantee its eventual deletion. Robert K S 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No valid keep argument has ever been presented. The previous closing admins were in error to close as anything but delete. Jay32183 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the valid arguments--significantly, the one given in italics above--have never been challenged. Robert K S 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument to keep because the delete argument has nothing to do with notability. The article is an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms, a clear violation of WP:NOT. There is no way to fix that problem so keep is not an option. Putting the information into another article would create too great a burden, so merge is not an option. Therefore, delete is the only option, and not only has there yet to be a valid argument against that, one cannot be made. Jay32183 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a mischaracterization of the article (it is not a "collection of loosely related terms") that would be easily remedied by reading its lead. We are in agreement that merge is not a desirable option, which is why the article should be kept, and legitimately per not paper and ss. Once this article is gone, the material will accumulate in the main article again. I trust that everyone who here voted delete will spend as much time keeping the main article clean as those who have voted keep. Robert K S 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're argument for keeping is better here than there. The fact that this is a list of things that are unrelated to each other except that they mention Jeopardy! is the very definition of collection of loosely related terms. Nothing, except deletion, can solve that problem. It should have been deleted from the main article instead of being split off on its own. We don't make garbage collection articles so that we don't have to pay attention to our real articles. Jay32183 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a page completely devoted to trivia. When the main article gets too long this stuff is just supposed to be removed, not given its own article. This isn't a notability issue. Jay32183 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is keep, Alex? Unlike the recent spate of "List of..." and "...in popular culture" articles we've seen, this one seems to have substance and notability.--Ispy1981 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete with haste. 'it got mentioned' isn't the same as 'notable' Kripto 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The role of the show in popular culture is definitely important, but each minor instance is not. A general section in the main article summarizing the main impact is all that is needed. It should also be noted that Robert K S canvassed the people that left keep votes in the last two AfDs. TTN 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As AfDs aren't polls, the important thing here is that arguments be addressed, which isn't happening with delete responders, like the one below, which contradictorily asserts notability of some of the information in the nominated article. If any of the information is deemed notable, the article should stand. Suggestions for pruning is not reason for deletion. Robert K S 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think most of these can be summarized as "showing a Jeopardy clip", "parodying the Jeopardy format", and "phrasing a question in the form of an answer", which basically reduces this page to 3 sentences. A few are notable (Airplane 2, Weird Al, and the Cheers episode), but most of the rest can be dropped using more predominate ones as examples (and of course being vigilant about people adding every example under the sun) Doing this can delete this page, and move the others to within the main Jeopardy article without hurting it's length to much. --Masem 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: It's what should be done to this article and all other "Pop culture" articles, as all they do is list vague mentions.

Q: What is delete?

A: That is correct. Pick again, TenPoundHammer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was inclined to say keep. But. This article is grossly undersourced. And I think it's pretty useless. Reintegrate it back into the J! article. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because concerns one of the most noteworthy game shows in television history. Plus, if it already passed two of these things, maybe that should be a clue that a lot of people worked hard and want the article to stay. Kind of excessive to keep trying to kill the article. --24.154.173.243 04:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How hard people worked is meaningless. Jay32183 04:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does this really deserve its own article? I don't think so. While Jeopardy has contributed quite a bit to popular culture without a doubt, it doesn't seem like the sort of subject that has the legs to support a whole article's worth of information without degenerating into a big list of stuff. Maikeru 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is what happens to Wikipedia articles that fail WP:NOT

Q: What is Delete? That's correct, pick again! Rackabello 06:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Care to explain which violation of WP:NOT, even though I think I know what you're referring to? And, please, no more Jeopardy! jokes for deletion. Once is humorous. Twice is insulting. Tinlinkin 06:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per WP:NOT; cultural significance can be better included at the main Jeopardy page. And Tinlinkin - don't tell editors how they may or may not express their vote. It is hardly insulting. Eusebeus 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article used to be much worse off than it is now. I thought my standards as I set in the previous nomination were strong enough to determine notability and define what should be included. Apparently they are not, even as nobody raised objections or clarification then. It's up to other editors to define a stricter standard and implement it.
Most "in popular culture" articles are inevitably going to be lists of some sort, because they have the nature of pointing out examples. If referencing and lack of independent commentary on the subject is the problem, in order to strictly satisfy verifiability, that is a valid problem to be corrected. After that's done, that may be a stronger reason to keep. But I disclose that I am not going to be the person to do that.
If we continue with the current pattern of "in popular culture" articles on AfD, almost everything in Category:In popular culture and its subcategories will eventually be nominated at some point. I do not wish to partake in such debates until consensus is shown: when either WP:NOT is expanded to explicitly include such articles, or Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is adopted as a content guideline. Tinlinkin 06:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia proposal. Bulldog123 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Waayyyy too much information in this (17K bytes) article, probably was more fun to write than it is to read. The references to individual TV episodes do not have to be plot summaries. Yes, I remember the Cheers episode with Cliff Clavin, but if I didn't, I don't need to have it described. Mandsford 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. There's too much non-notable info spread out among the notable. Kolindigo 07:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you either deliberately misrepresent NOT#PAPER and WP:SS or you still truly don't understand what they mean. They are not free passes to keep everything. Articles must still comply with relevant policies and guidelines, and that is true whether Wikipedia is encoded in electrons, printed on paper or carved on rocks on the Moon. WP:SS is a guideline. It is not a policy. If an article fails an actual policy then WP:SS means bugger all. Given the number of times this has been pointed out to you and given the nimber of times you continue to make the fallacious argument, I find it hard to assume that you are making the argument in good faith as opposed to a desire to be obstructionist. Otto4711 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. None of the popular culture references have anything to prove their notability for being mentioned in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if wiki isn't paper, it is not a place for an indiscriminate collection of information. Seraphim Whipp 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent; unlike the few that we've kept, there seems to be no WP:RS to show that the adoption of Jeopardy! into popular culture is notable - the mere lists of cross references doesn't suffice. One could make a list 100 times longer at The word "the" in popular culture by citing any marginally notable thing that used the word "the" from the obvious The The, The Who, The Beatles, to As the World Turns, and every time some routine on some show uses the word "the" - it doesn't mean that there is sufficient notability for such an article. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. The game show does not gain notability for having been referenced in another TV show and the other shows don't become more notable for mentioning the game. The references to the game show tell us nothing about the game show, the source of the reference or the real world. Otto4711 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Just about none of these entries, except for Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live), are made known as a result of Jeopardy! being mentioned. This is clearly a case of indiscriminate trivia that has been synthesized by editors to create a muddled topic. Additionally, there is precedent for these kinds of popular culture articles that are mainly trivial listings of an entity's passing mention in the media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and current trend. It's a list of unencyclopedic and indiscriminate trivia. María (críticame) 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a giant glorified list of trivia. Per nom, and also, it should be pointed out that this was deleted the first time around. Dannycali 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable content, makes sense as a topic. Everyking 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Merge the really important stuff back into the main article and delete. Clearly the mob has won -- and my time just isn't worth it on Wikipedia anymore. Andy Saunders 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Nighthawks. Walton^talk 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawks in popular culture

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was closed as "no consensus" four days ago. I voted to merge, but I don't think your vague "downhill trend" argument is an improvement on the previous rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the trend is not to afd articles 4 days after previous closure. feydey 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a valid reason in this discussion. We need to talk about the article, not "procedure".Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Feydey indicates, that is exactly what has just been done, so there is no need to go over it again hours later. Tyrenius 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms. Fails WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some merge to the parent article.--JForget 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually merge then, not delete. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into the main article. Wikipedia is not the place to itemize mentions of a painting. This would an article for every book/painting/creature that's mentioned in "popular culture" Corpx 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the argument is that this painting is of particular importance. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the 'in popular culture' thing is a bit out of hand Kripto 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a general point. You need to make a specific case for this article. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Re-nominating this only four days after the last AFD seems excessive. I don't like "In popular culture" articles, but seriously... 96 hours between AFDs? Masaruemoto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, it's very soon after the last AFD but, there is no specified time frame before re-nominating an article. The result of the last AFD was no consensus with a strongly implied suggestion that this be merged to the main article and winnowed to the "notable" instances. It takes about 40 seconds to merge an article, so those who argued for a merge could certainly have merged this information by now. The notion of merging the "notable" instances begs the question of which instances are actually notable, and that question remains unanswered. Otto4711 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sincerely doubt that four days is long enough for a valuable consensus, or lack thereof, to change. At the very least I hope not. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For heaven's sake, I had barely gotten started cleaning this up and adding sources after the last AFD. Don't delete it out from under me now! I point again to the sources I presented last time showing that parodies of this painting are indeed notable. —Cel ithemis 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, never mind. Don't keep this on the basis that I will improve it. I had thought I would clean up and source this information, see what was left, and then open a discussion on Talk:Nighthawks and/or Talk:Edward Hopper about where best to present it. But I'm not going to waste time working on an article that's liable to be dragged through AFD again at any moment. I have better things to do than defend this content against editors who know nothing about Hopper and simply treat all popular culture articles the same way. Do whatever you want; I won't be editing it again. —Cel ithemis 13:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The admin's conclusion in the last AfD was "The result was No consensus, default to Keep." It was not "merge". It's unacceptable to launch a new nom 4 days after one has finished. Celithemis is working on it, and at the very least should be allowed time to do so. This is a valuable addition to Nighthawks and shows how a classic piece of Fine Art permeates more widely into society. Tyrenius 06:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 4 days ago, no consensus, and here we go again, Modernist 14:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No consensuses are encouraged to be relisted. Bulldog123 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And where would that be? Not on Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus: "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion." (bold added) Tyrenius 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia proposal Bulldog123 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another editor is currently working on this article - see comment by above - —Cel ithemis, how about a little grace, Modernist 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He could work on it for a year, but that won't fix WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT problems, which is the basis for most of these deletes. Bulldog123 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as improperly quick renomination. Take it to DRV if you don't like it. I did not !vote last time, but will !vote keep on merit in any renomination. Johnbod 16:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Dhartung's note that "This was closed as "no consensus" four days ago." shows that this is abuse of the AfD process. Mandsford 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's not use procedural errors as cope-outs for actually coming up with a good argument for keep. Thanks. Bulldog123 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mandsford's comment implies the argument is contained in the AfD that finished 4 days before this one started. Tyrenius 08:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He probably did mean that, but it wasn't as clear an implication as you make it out to be. It at least "looked" more like what I said it was. Bulldog123 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Procedural errors cannot prevent results from a discussion. As such, every keep here is not a valid argument. Keep arguments are only valid if based on the criteria for inclusion. The article cannot be fixed, so it doesn't matter that some one is working on it. It isn't a source issue, it's an indiscriminate information issue. Even if everything were properly sourced, the article fails WP:NOT and the only acceptable result to this AFD is Delete. Jay32183 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By your argument, the nom is invalid as "over the top and is now heading downhill" is not a valid criterion for deletion. If you mean fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, that is not the case. It is not indiscriminate: it is focused on the appearance of a famous painting in popular culture. I think we can take it that the keeps who are criticising the unseemly haste of this AfD are doing so because they agree with the keep arguments in the last one, which, as we know, finished very recently. Tyrenius 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By definition, what you just described the article as doing is indiscriminate information. The last debate did not have one valid keep either. The previous AFD did close in error, delete is the only acceptable closing. Please also remember that the burden of evidence always falls on those wishing to add or retain material. Making a list of every time a specific thing appears in works of fiction is indiscriminate. It is listed under WP:NOT#DIR. All of the items on the list are loosely associated by having made references to Nighthawks. There will never be a valid keep argument here. Jay32183 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How uninteresting, - a decision for everybody else - what is or isn't valid, no discussion, no differing interpretation, only one misinterpretation opting for disagreement. Every keep here is a very valid argument. Modernist 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every keep is in complete disregard for WP:NOT. Most AFDs turn out not to be discussion, but admins are too afraid to tell people who aren't familiar with the inclusion criteria that their effort is wasted. This is a situation that isn't open to interpretation. WP:NOT#DIR says quite specifically "don't do this". There is no way that you can the present a argument to "do this" and claim that it is not a contradiction of policy. Jay32183 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of WP:NOT#DIR that could apply is the following:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

The key point about the prohibited lists is "loosely associated" (and also essentially endless). There is a specific association in this list (and it is finite). You will notice that the example cited as something acceptable per policy, namely Nixon's Enemies List, does itself have a section Nixon Enemies List in popular culture. That is because this practice has widespread acceptance through wiki. If you do not like it, then you should change the policy, rather than claiming what you would like to be policy. That same section also says, "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." This article in essence is composed of micro articles, as "Nighthawks in X", "Nighhawks in Y". The problem resolves itself to proper sourcing, which is exactly what User:Celithemis was attending to. This AfD is a violation of policy per WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change: "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." This is clearly an attempt to do exactly that. The correct procedure at this stage is preliminary discussion, as in "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page" (etc). That shows respect for other editors and the AfD process. I also recommend a little more confidence in the integrity of admins. Tyrenius 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has become widespread, it is not nor will it ever be acceptable. No matter how well sourced it is the article will always be a trivial collection of loosely associated topics. They aren't mini articles. It's pulling small amounts of info out of full articles because of an arbitrary po culture reference. These things are loosely related because there isn't a source that says they are closely related. I have no confidence in the integrity of an admin who does not ignore "Keeps" that contradict policy and guideline without an exceptional reason. No valid reason has been presented that this is any different from any other trivia section that got spun off to circumvent deletion. Jay32183 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a featured article. Johnbod 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)All articles are built out of discrete elements and there is no one source that says they are related. The relationship exists by virtue of the subject they address. There is a very precise association in this case: the elements are derivations of the painting Nighthawks in a wider cultural context. The fact that such sections/articles are widespread shows that there is a wide consensus that they should exist. You think they shouldn't. That is a view that needs to be addressed on a bigger platform than this AfD, and taken to policy pages for community consensus. Your argument is not that this article in itself is bad, but that any such article is has no place by definition - which is not an argument to delete this particular article. I disagree with that and think that these sections/articles do have a place. However, I do have a concern as to how they are constructed, and there needs to be attention given to this per policies and guidelines. I think you should also allow that other people can have a different interpretation to you, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, or that you are wrong - just different. Tyrenius 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Wikipedia. I am right, anyone supproting this article is wrong. The article blantently fails WP:NOT#DIR, and there is not one valid argument to keep it. Jay32183 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand a system of values that classes the influence of a world famous art work on a world famous film (Blade Runner) as trivia. Likewise Banksy is a notable contemporary artist. Such examples help with an understanding of the powerful psychological effect of the artwork. The influence of Nightworks is a notable subject in itself. I know two of the editors advocating keep are very experienced and knowledgeable in arts articles, and I don't think Wikipedia would benefit if they took your advice, so please be civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities. The article needs cleaning up and referencing properly, but that is not a reason to delete it, and I hope, if it is kept, that Celithemis will be willing to continue the good work he started. It may be a case of stubbing and merging back into the main article, but that is an editorial decision, not a deletion one. Tyrenius 03:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on Nighthawks. It is a list of things that reference Nighthawks. To say these things are closely related is original research. Either the article is trivia or original research. The solution for both is delete. Citing the references doesn't matter, the problem is the list makes the assumption that everything that references Nighthawks is related, and there isn't a source for that. The problem is not fixable, deleting is the only thing that can be done. In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy. Jay32183 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with the trivia issue already. It is not original research if verifiable sources demonstrate that these things reference Nighthawks. It is not an assumption that everything that references Nighthawks is related to Nighthawks. That is obvious. There is no need for the individual items to relate to each other: that is not the point of the article. It's irrelevant. Your last remark is a blatant personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors. Tyrenius 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the items on the list are not related to each other, then how does the list not violate WP:NOT#DIR? You just admitted that the items on the list are loosely associated, and that it is the point of the list to be like that. That is exactly what WP:NOT says not to do. Either they are loosely associated and should be deleted for being a directory, or the author is claiming they are closely associated and should be deleted as original research. It is not a personal attack to show you that your argument is meaningless, or that you should avoid particular arguments. Jay32183 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) You are quoting the letter of the law, but have not understood its intent. The discussion is becoming repetitive. I have already said quite clearly that the relationship of the individual items to each other is irrelevant. The point of this article is their relationship to Nighthawks. As has been pointed out above (and you have ignored) your argument would mean that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a featured article, should be deleted, so you have plainly got something wrong in the application of WP:NOT#DIR. This article is on exactly the same basis as the Joan of Arc one. I asked you to be civil. Your response was "users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy", clearly implying it applied to me. That is an attack and was not appreciated. Tyrenius 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't understood anything I've said. You have apparently never read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you think it matters that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc means anything at all. The featured article director has stated that being an FA does not protect articles from deletion. Lists of loosely associated terms are not supposed to be made. By your own admission the items on the list are loosely associated. By your logic, no articles can be deleted if you contradict yourself and insist people are being mean to hide the flaws of your argument. Again, it is not a violation of WP:CIVIL to tell you that you are wrong and that the arguments you present are meaningless and should be avoided. Jay32183 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept you think Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc should be deleted! I am very aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think we have made our points. Tyrenius 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no valid argument to keep this article, and that it blatantly fails WP:NOT. The only point you've made is that you're willing to argue to keep an article that by your own admission is a list of loosely associated topics even though you have read WP:NOT#DIR. You really should retract your "keep" if you don't want it to seem like you're making a bad faith "I like it" argument in disguise. Jay32183 03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These points have already been discussed above. Tyrenius 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why haven't you retracted your "keep". You have no excuse for not knowing that the article fails WP:NOT at this point. Jay32183 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies at this stage of this thread. Tyrenius 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've learned that the argument you've presented is invalid and you should never make it again, then the horse is still alive. You think you've actually made a point, but you haven't. I can't let you go on thinking that your self-contradicting argument means anything. The fact that you could admit to reading WP:NOT#DIR and say the items on the list are not related without crossing out your "Keep" is astonishing. It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong, otherwise you'll present these meaningless arguments in future discussions and waste time and energy, mostly your own. Jay32183 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy." Kind of have to agree with Jay there. Those are usually back-handed personal attacks in disguise anyway. Anyone who makes "Please read _____" suggestions usually fits the bill too. Bulldog123 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The above is just a general statement and not a comment on either Jay or Tyrenius. Bulldog123 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hopper is simply one of the best known and most popular American artists of the 20th century. Nighthawks is one of his best known and most compelling works. It is so well known, and so popular, that it has been parodied, copied, referenced, quoted and reproduced in several forms and formats. This article contains information of value, relative to Edward Hopper (the American painter), Nighthawks the painting and his other work. It should be kept. Modernist 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. María (críticame) 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but your point is irrelevant as it doesn't apply. This is not utilitarian matter such as "a list of all the phone numbers in New York" or "a guide to the best restaurants in Paris" etc. Tyrenius 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the entire definition of WP:USEFUL; utilitarian lists are merely one example listed on the page. I suggest you re-read it for better comprehension, because my point is quite relevant. This is not a valid argument to keep this article. María (críticame) 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary that is a valid argument to keep the article. The material is relevant to at least two other articles and important links can be drawn between all the elements in the Edward Hopper article, the Nighthawks aricle and this article and sourced, obviously. The "I don't like it" argument is all I see. Modernist 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I object to the "pitch til you win" philosophy which leads someone to renominate every four days. Edison 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a valid reason in this discussion. We need to talk about the article, not "procedure". Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've just done that. The objection is to the abuse of procedure, when nothing has changed, nor has there been sufficient time allowed for change to take place. Tyrenius 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, someone could spend a decade improving this article. Everyone's "delete" !vote would still hold because the article in itself isn't worth having. Bulldog123 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, total junk trivia fork, not needed. I don't care how long ago the last afd was, yes, the painting is important, it doesn't mean we need a bunch of crap spin-off articles on it. Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that Ridley Scott's acknowledgement of its influence on the "look and mood" of Blade Runner is "total junk trivia"? Tyrenius 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As numerous users stated above, this article violates WP:NOT#INFO. I do not necessarily agree with the procedure for nominating this article again so quickly, but that is not the issue here -- arguing that it is the issue is not a basis to keep the article. It should be deleted or kept according to guideline and policy, and so far no ...in popular culture AfD has yielded a compelling reason based on guideline/policy to keep such an article. María (críticame) 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see in a long-standing writing guide Wikipedia:The perfect article, "a perfect article ... acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject." The widespread influence of this work, with its derivations and parodies, is a valid and significant aspect of its place in culture, demonstrating its importance. Tyrenius 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cite a lot of quotations from wikipedia and that's great but whether an article is notable usually comes down to editor disgression. A portion of the NightHawks article that writes two or three sentences saying that the artwork is parodied and often shown in popular culture is ok. A listing of its appearances in a Simpsons episode isn't. Bulldog123 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I detect an objection to the Simpsons episode inclusion, that can be discussed. But doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are valuable inclusions here that deepen the cultural impact of Hopper's painting, and merit inclusion and render this AFD erroneous, and pointless. Modernist 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not saying everything there is trivia, but the grand majority is. For whatever isn't, I don't see why it can't be merged to the main article for the painting/painter. But: "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation features the diner in its picture giving clues about the final two episodes of its 2006 season.", "A 2006 TV commercial for the sleeping pill, Rozerem, includes several scenes of insomniacs at night. One is of patrons in a green-fronted, all-night diner, obviously inspired by the Hopper painting." Come on. This latter itself is completely OR-like. Bulldog123 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like maybe we can work something out, if it stays, we'll cut out as much of the none essential fluff as possible. Modernist 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the possibility of merging valid content as the main article is not that long at the moment. However, a deletion would veto this. Tyrenius 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not an option at all. A directory of loosely associated terms is a directory of loosely associated terms regardless of its location. Tyrenius, you have said the items on the list are not related and that you have read WP:NOT#DIR. For you to say anything other than "This article should be deleted because it is an indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics and fails WP:NOT#DIR" is incredibly disruptive. This is not a personal attack, but a reminder that you are aware of policy and aware that you are attempting to violate it. Continuing to do so may result in blocking. Jay32183 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay32183 is correct. Again, there are absolutely no guidelines or policies that support keeping such an article. María (críticame) 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you've already been blocked twice for attacking users who differed with you on points of policy. Is threatening Tyrenius with a block for disagreeing with you really the road you want to go down? Even if you are 100% right about WP:NOT, Tyrenius is arguing in good faith for a course of action that he believes will result in a better encyclopedia; this is in no way "disruptive". If you really believe otherwise, I urge you to take it to the administrators' noticeboard to get the attention of uninvolved admins. I will post there myself if you don't change your approach to this debate. —Cel ithemis 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no chance that Tyrenius' argument is being made in good faith. Tyrenius said the items on the list are not related. Tyrenius admitted to reading WP:NOT#DIR. Tyrenius is intentionally being disruptive by continuing to argue that the list should be kept after making claims that logically conclude with "Delete this article". Informing users that disruptive behavior can result in blocking is not a threat, it is not a personal attack, and it is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jay32183 02:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly can be merged, or improved. The article is pertinent to Edward Hopper, one of the most widely known American painters of the 20th century. To argue the article is a disconnected list of loosely associated items is plain wrong, not correct, erroneous, ill conceived, with what appears to be some form of - willful stubbornness that I don't understand. The article needs work, and contains useful information, and relates to an important painting by an important painter. I agree with Tyrenius. Modernist 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no commentary about either Edward Hopper or Nighthawks. This article is a list of works that made reference to Nighthawks. Either the items on the list are loosely associated and it fails WP:NOT#DIR or you are making the claim that referencing Nighthawks makes them closely associated, which makes it original research. In either case, deletion is the only way to solve the problem. Jay32183 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm This article and everything in it wouldn't exist if not for Edward Hopper and his painting Nighthawks, Common Sense... tells us that the article needs improvement and can be improved on the basis of its close relationship to Edward Hopper, American scene painting, American film, the Whitney Museum, American regionalism, American culture, Western painting, - original research doesn't apply to this well documented issue, not original research when placed in context. Certainly some of this article needs to go, I agree with you partially, but the whole article should stay. Modernist 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources indicating that all of the references did in fact happen. The conclusion that those references are somehow meaningful and connected is what is original research. Here's what common sense gets you: 1 - WP:NOT#DIR says Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. 2 - The items on this list are not related in a meaningful way, therefore it is a directory of loosely associated topics. 3 - Given 1 and 2, it must follow that this article should be deleted for being a directory of loosely associated topics according to WP:NOT#DIR. Logic is a wonderful thing. Jay32183 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I am saying that the connections can and will be drawn, after all —Cel ithemis was in the process of working on the article at the time. I see no logic in the argument that fails to see the potential value in these various related items to Hoppers painting, while another editor was in the process of tying them together. Modernist 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to time them together, they are completely unrelated. Claiming The Simpsons and Blade Runner are related because of Nighthawks is quite a stretch. Until you provide the source for that, which I doubt you'll be able to, you argument is meaningless. Jay32183 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument isn't meaningless, the various elements will be weeded out correctly, maybe the connection to TV goes, maybe the connection to film and Film noir stays. Anyway its late, tomorrow - Modernist 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources for the connectivity, everything goes. And there are no sources for the connectivity. It doesn't matter how meaningful any particular pop culture reference is, the assumption that any two products are related because of a pop culture reference is absurd. Jay32183 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF and remain CIVIL. It is not appropriate to threaten editors with being blocked because they disagree with you. This is a debate and editors are free to express their views and what they see as valid interpretion of policy, even if it's not your interpretation. You have quoted the words of WP:NOT#DIR but fail to understand the spirit of it. Items are not "loosely associated" in the meaning of the policy, when they are based around "a core topic", as this one is. Tyrenius 08:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not based around a core topic. Two works of fiction referencing Nighthawks does not make an inherit relation, and you already know that, in fact you said that earlier on this page. You need to stop. The arguments you have been making contradict themselves and you are only being disruptive. I did not threaten you with a block for disagreeing with me. I reminded you that disruptive users get blocked. I'd remind you that you could get blocked if you said the article should be deleted and then only spouted nonsense like "I don't like it" or "this isn't academic enough", because that would also be disruptive. Jay32183 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The reasons for deletion are pretty insubstantial, in fact I can't see one compelling reason to delete this article -- it just appears to be "I don't like it". Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. Matthew 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your reasons are for keeping? ~~You failed to mention them.~~ (struck by myself, as I was mistaken.) María (críticame) 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, you just failed to acknowledge them. I cited official policy (WP:NOT#PAPER). Matthew 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. I believed your comment a rebuttal to the delete votes and not a clear reason for why the article should be kept. I see now I was mistaken. In response, however, many users above have utilized policies regarding content in order to support their reasons for deletion because "there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done." See WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. María (críticame) 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, or, preferably, Merge into a section of the main article (a notable topic). Infininite land doesn't mean we issue infinite acres to everyone due to the organizational/managarial issues, as well as the common sense purpose of an encyclopedia (a tertiary source that requires both primary and secondary sources). Wikipedia covers things in proportion to their notability; more secondary sources have documented Bill Gate's life than, say, Jimmy Wales — thus, Gates has a lot more coverage. Both are around the same age and can probably churn out equally lengthy biographies, but it all boils down to coverage in sources and similar criteria. I see one source. What makes Nighthawks in popular culture significant? What sources have covered this topic so that it merits its own article and sprawling lists? How can this be justified as not being an indiscriminite list? Answers to these questions need to be either directly answered by sourcing and rewriting, or by showing obvious potential that answers exist. Otherwise, as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit that has already suffered from significant criticism due to a lack of prioritization, how do we know if it's worth mentioning? Why not have a "list of notable men Paris Hilton has stimulated to ejaculation"? Paris Hilton is notable, so by most of the logic being mentioned on this page, such an article would be fine. I think not. Instead, we have maybe a paragraph on her sex life. Put things into perspective, and you can see why these pages — unless they take schoarly article (not indiscriminite list) format and establish notability — are just unencyclopedic text. I'm not a deletionist, so I'd rather see this merged or transwikied to maybe the Wikipedia Annex once it's established, but these points need to be driven home. — Deckill er 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—somebody mentioned Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. The article features several secondary (and primary) sources, so it's clearly notable. The format it takes is also different. However, we can't just assume notability; we have to show it. Just like we have to verify content, we have to show that something needs extra coverage/a subarticle for an encyclopedic overview. Such a notability hasn't been proven here: have books and/or articles about Nighthawks and their cultural influence been published? — Deckill er 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search brings up straight away (screened at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston):[3] "A fifteen minute film-narrated by award-winning actor, writer, and Hopper art collector Steve Martin and produced by the National Gallery of Art-presents current views on Hopper's work, his influence on other artists ... and the influence of Hopper's work on the set designs of filmmakers, including Alfred Hitchcock."
The new edition of Edward Hopper by Gail Levin now has a section on "Hopper's international influence on culture, especially on contemporary art."[4]
"a film like "Little Caesar" (1930), with its dramatically lighted scene of thugs in a diner, reverberates years later in Hopper's "Nighthawks" (1942). And in turn, the desolate landscape we are now quick to call Hopperesque has had a profound influence on the movies. "Days of Heaven" and "Psycho" wouldn't be the same without him." New York Times ("Film makers who learned of desolation and lighting").[5]
BBC review of Dime Store Novels Volume 1 by Tom Waits: "This is an Edward Hopper painting set to music: drunks, waitresses, sailors and truck drivers all crop up."[6]
Tate Gallery show on Hopper previewed in The Guardian [7]: "given the significance of film to Hopper, and his influence on the look of American cinema, the museum is also showing a season of related films."
From the Daily Telegraph:[8] "Tom Waits named an album after Hopper's diner painting, Nighthawks"

Tyrenius 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main article and based on the potential for notability that you have shown, I think a merge is the best option. A nice, meaty section on the legacy of this work will help to round out the article and give it a better chance of reaching GA or FA status; there is no need to keep this info separate, listy subarticle. Based on what you found, there is potential for notability, but for organizational purposes, I highly recommend a merge and a reconstruction so the legacy is in paragraph form in the main Nighthawks article. Not only will it serve as an excellent compromise, but it will actually improve coverage (since the meat of the topic will no longer be isolated on a listy subarticle). — Deckill er 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deckiller'S idea of merge sounds good to me Modernist 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds bad to me, because writing that section from scratch is actually easier than trying to preserve the list. A well sourced section in the main article would be great, but the material here is not at all beneficial. With the list editors picked their own examples. Start from scratch and only use examples explicitly used by the critics and other writers in the works being used as references. Jay32183 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Are you going to write the section from scratch? If not, then leave it up to the editors that do, to choose what they find easier. There are cited/citable examples in the list already. Tyrenius 01:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's all a matter of compromising. — Deckill er 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Compromising to avoid an argument is a bad idea. As is compromising to make sure no one is upset. Merging should only be performed when there is good content that cannot stand on its own. The issue here isn't that the content can't stand on its own, it's that the content is bad. Good content of a similar spirit could be created, but not from using this as a base. Jay32183 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a complete volte-face, as you have argued all along that it is the very spirit of Nighthawks (or anything else for that matter) in popular culture that is not acceptable. Now you accept the principle that it is acceptable, and the issue is over exactly what content should be included, which is an editorial matter, not an AfD one. Creating "content of a similar spirit" but vetoing the current content even as a starting point is nonsensical. Tyrenius 01:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not say that at all. I said this article is an indiscriminate list of loosely associated terms. I also said making the assumption that two works referencing Nighthawks makes them related is original research. If you were to write about the cultural impact of Nighthawks based on works that explain that it is different. This article does not discuss the cultural impact of Nighthawks. This article is a list of unrelated things that happen to refer to Nighthawks. The existing article has nothing to do with the section that should be written, so merging is useless because you'll just have to scrap it anyway. The main thing I've been trying to say about your arguments is that you aren't really paying attention, and you've shown that yet again. To simplify things for you: well sourced article on cultural impact of Nighthawks = good, indiscriminate list of things that happen to refer to Nighthawks = bad. The first does not fail WP:NOT#DIR, the second does fail it. Remember to use reliable secondary sources and to avoid synthesis of new material based on those sources. Jay32183 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't show the cultural impact of Nighthawks without showing the things Nighthawks has culturally impacted upon. Tyrenius 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But if we choose the examples, it's original research. Only use the examples given in the secondary sources, that would not be indiscriminate. What this list does is indiscriminate. Jay32183 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm thinking beyond the AfD, since this AfD is likely to end in no consensus. — Deckill er 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this closes as anything other than delete then the closing admin will have done a terrible job. Not one valid argument to keep this material has been made. Jay32183 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably, but I think it's a good idea to set things on a possible merging footing should the closing admin do a "terrible job", so that we could all be saved another DRV. (Yes, "compromising to avoid an argument", which is a rather bold statement to begin with, but this is an obvious case where a lengthy DRV would, in the grand scheme of things, be over something that is not productive.) It's often a lot easier to remove unsourced content and semi-original research from an article than to AfD something. — Deckill er 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of material to work with there, either keep it or merge it, either is ok, per Tyrenius. Modernist 01:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, merge useful content. Deltabeignet 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If material is merged, the article is redirected, not deleted. — Deckill er 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Relevant material covered elsewhere so no merge necessary. No redirect necessary either as simple search will show the proper article. Stop the pop culture insanity. --Tbeatty 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where it is covered, as the influence of the painting in culture does not currently appear in the main article Nighthawks. Tyrenius 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every line in the article has a blue link. At best this is a category. --Tbeatty 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point. However, it does mean the information is scattered, and therefore a problem to find. The category idea is another solution, but not, I think, as viable as having the information in one place related to the core topic, namely the painting. As regards "pop culture insanity", I'm afraid pop culture is here to stay as a major, if not the major, cultural force in society, whether we like it or not. Tyrenius 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand a request for clarification such as your first response, but if you simply want to discuss my view, there is a discussion page. Your viewpoint is noteworthy but not as a comment under every Delete vote. --Tbeatty 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought up some points not mentioned before which merit consideration and a response. This is a discussion, not a vote. You exaggerate somewhat about "a comment under every Delete vote". There are 12 deletes. I have commented on 7. 1 was to point out a technicality (later also pointed out by Deckiller); 2 were to ask for specific arguments applying to this article rather than generalised arguments (which would have strengthened the delete view, except there was no response); 1 delete was a result was changed to merge. This leaves 3 other deletes I have commented on. I comment where I think it will be useful, and it has also motivated the provision of useful sources. You should be prepared your view to be developed further, but there is no obligation to respond. Tyrenius 04:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is about a painting that has taken on a life of its own apart from the original. The article is about the form that life has taken in culture. One need not have sources that tie together the areas in popular culture where the painting has impact because it is logically understood that the same point of origin exists in every case, and that ultimately is the original painting. Bus stop 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nighthawks. --JJay 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejo Parella

Completing unfinished nom; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd diff - other article was prodded. No additional information indicates why this article needs to be deleted. However, there is a limited assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing I can see here screams notability to me. Lack of sources. I'm really, really unimpressed with pages that link to myspace pages. No page about him in Spanish, means to me that his native Argentina hasn't discovered his genius either, thus not notable at home. So, I guess update to show an amount of previosuly undemonstrated notability beyond just having done some things, and bring the wording up to standard, or delete. Kripto 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't quite cut it against WP:MUSIC. If any of the entirely unreferenced text is accurate, he is a bit more than just another MySpace nobody, but I'm not sure that there is enough here to save it. Adrian M. H. 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the twelve criterias in WP:Music is met. Delete.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLSA

Listed for discussion after overturn at deletion review. Anas ^talk? 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this looks like an ad. Kripto 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. As author of the article, I understand it's my responsibility to find online sources to document this company's notability. I will do that, as someone else kindly did for the article on CLSA's recently deceased co-founder, Gary Coull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnome84 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 June 2007
- Was it really "someone else" who added those sources? (Or created that article?) —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article asserts notability and appears to be sourced. It now needs severe cleanup. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable as a subsidiary of Credit Agricole.(Pls note that I work for one of their competitors in Hong Kong). --JuntungWu 10:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs clean-up and not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Andre (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Peacent 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hijo de la Luna

The article is not about the actual song, is more about the urban legend the song is related to. An article must be created for both or deleted. The article is written in an unclear language and with bad links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapmt (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. It's already tagged with {{cleanup}}; being poorly written is not a reason for deletion. Also, don't forget to sign your posts, especially Deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notability as a #1 hit in Germany is sufficient. Being "more about" the wrong thing is a content dispute better suited for the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as a page about ~~German~~ folklore turned into a song, it's worth a keep. The language needs cleanup. Kripto 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm from Germany, sorry for my bad english. If it's too bad, use the human resources to clean it up and not for this discussion. Just my 50 cents. And - it's about a spanish story, not a german. Hybscher 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Hijo de la Luna is a Spanish song about an old Spanish legend, not German. The song was written by Jose María Cano and performed by Mecano, a famous band in Spanish-speaking countries. The reason I propose deletion is because I take care of the article about the musical called Hoy No Me Puedo Levantar (I Can't Wake Up Today), where the hits of Mecano are performed and where this song belongs (Act II). If you want to keep this article, please use information to talk about the actual song and create another article about the myth; or specify in this article the origins of the song but concentrate in Mecano, because that is the main core of the article.

The article doesn't say it's a German song. It says it was a hit in Germany. There's a difference. Nerwen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article hasn't been up that long. I'd say give it a chance. Nerwen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above comments. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Redirect or merge are possibilities but should be discussed on the talk page and consensus achieved if this is to happen. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I understand that when the page was protected, it was a redirect. However, the edit warring is over whether or not this page should be a redirect or an article. The article in question is contained in this revision link. The people involved in this argument should present their views; I'm just offering this as a compromise. No vote. (messedrocker • talk) 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't intend to work on the article myself, as it's not my speciality or area of interest, but the topic is clearly notable and well-documented by numerous reliable sources. The article is a spinoff of House demolition, which was originally focused entirely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I completely rewrote the House demolition article on 17 June, giving it a much wider scope and perspective (while still briefly mentioning the I-P aspect). The rewrite was broadly welcomed (I intend to nominate it for FA status in the near future at the suggestion of Raul654). However, my actions in refocusing and expanding the article away from the I-P issue were challenged by another user on the talk page. In response, I suggested creating a spinoff article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a way of covering this particular issue (per Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). The topic is both notable and well-documented - the volume of documentation on house demolition in I-P actually caused me problems when researching House demolition, in that there was so much that it swamped my efforts to find other examples. (Google Books, for instance, returns over 600 separate works discussing the topic in relation to the I-P conflict; there are over 800,000 Google web hits and nearly 9,000 Google News hits on the same search terms.) I purposefully avoided adding this huge mass of content to House demolition, as it would have grossly imbalanced the article. The spinoff was duly created by Abu ali on 23 June. On 29 June Jayjg and SlimVirgin began repeatedly tag-teaming to blank the article and redirect it to House demolition, without consensus or prior discussion and declining to take it to AfD as policy requires. I have therefore requested an AfD on the article so that the wider community can discuss whether it should exist in the first place and if so, what form it should take. -- ChrisO 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never seen this article before now, and the last version before redirection seems to be well-referenced and generally NPOV. Even if it could stand some improvement, I think the topic is notable and it should be possible to get an even better article from the references provided as well as ongoing media coverage and attention by activist groups. As an aside, excellent work, ChrisO; house demolition probably has the wrong title (something including punitive might be more appropriate), but it's a very good article right now. There's room for two. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks like a WP:POINT on ChrisO's behalf. He has written: "I've had the article AfD'd as a means of stimulating input from the wider community ..." [9] and " ... I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... I've brought the matter to the attention of the wider community" (emphasis added). [10] First, that's not what AfD is for. What we discuss here is whether to delete the title, and no one has suggested it be deleted. What is being disputed is whether the material about Israel belongs on the main page about house demolition, or on a subpage. Several editors (on both sides of the political divide) believe it belongs on the main page, because hiving off material to a subpage looks both like the creation of an attack page about Israel, and an attempt to hide the material in a corner of its own. If the pages get too large to accommodate everything, then subpages are fine, but that's not the case at the moment. Secondly, Messedrocker, can you say how you came to protect a page and then file an AfD on it that ChrisO is telling people he arranged? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested, not arranged. Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked fellow admins for views on this situation; Messedrocker proposed an AfD as a solution. It's a better way forward than having someone unilaterally impose their own solution without consensus. We're supposed to be a community, you know. This AfD will hopefully give the wider community the chance to form a consensus on the article. Wikipedia:Consensus should be our guide here. -- ChrisO 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put words in your mouth, Chris; I quoted you. "I've had the article AfD'd." Messedrocker doesn't say you requested it either. I wonder why you didn't do it yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He gets the credit for bringing it to my attention? I dunno... (messedrocker • talk) 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Basically he came on IRC and talked about this, and then I told him he should bring it to AFD as a compromise. Then I said I could do it. Now we're here. Let's hope something constructive comes of this. (messedrocker • talk) 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope this important discussion is not buried under a blizzard of personal attack. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, contingent on having the content restored to House demolition where it originally was. Keep. I am changing my vote to keep as it looks like that will be the best insurance that the material does not get suppressed. I agree with User:Dhartung that the last version before redirection looks OK. Marvin Diode 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I purposefully did not incorporate the original content into the rewritten House demolition because (1) it didn't deal adequately with the Israeli-Palestinian dimension and (2) incorporating a version that was adequate would grossly distort the article. It would end up 75% Israel-Palestine and 25% everything else. The topic is simply too big to be dealt with in one article. -- ChrisO 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article currently redirect to house demolition, but should be redirected to the conflict article instead.--JForget 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add the content to House demolition. Otherwise the content is both hidden and turns into yet another attack page, neither of which is encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the crux of the issue. Why do you consider it an "attack page"? You seem to dislike the subject, rather than the content. -- ChrisO 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I disliked it; on the contrary, it's important and shouldn't be hidden away on yet another demonization page. What I do dislike, Chris, is your seeming inability to paraphrase comments accurately. I also dislike people who challenge every comment in AfDs, and people who go on IRC to manipulate opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"demonization page"? Please ease up on the hyperbole. "manipulate opinion"? Oh, the irony. --Timeshifter 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your likes and dislikes of other editors out of this discussion, and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per ChrisO. The subject of House demolitions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clearly notable. Merging the material back into House demolition would make that article unwieldly. I would like to request that an admin restore a non-empty version of the page (which is now protected) so that people participating in this debate can see the article without trawling through the page history. The suggestion that this is an attack article is false. The article can not be descibed as one sided and contain the Israli authorities arguments justifying house demolitions. The article is actually an unusal example of cooperation between Israelis and Arabs pro and anti Zionists. But yesterday the editors who have been adding the pro-demolishion view have decided to blank and redirect the article. Before this artcle was created, some of these editors were actully removing content on the Israeli Palestinian conflict from House demolition with comments suggesting that this article is created and the content is moved there. Now that the article has been created and a fair amount of work done on it, they have started blanking the article and replacing it with a redirect back to the main article! This was done without even bringing the question of redirect up on the article's talk page. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this deletion debate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No one actually believes the content on the page should be deleted outright. The nom was just procedural in order to get discussion going. The question of whether to merge and redirect or keep separate is determined through talk page discussion and an RfC if needed, not through AfD. nadav (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic! I don't know what policy is on these matters, but I've created an alternative version of this page here and would welcome comments. PalestineRemembered 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SlimVirgin. Beit Or 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and name too long to be a useful redirect. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about as POV as these things get (which is saying something when it comes to Israel/Palestine). Anything neutral and usable can go into House demolition or articles about the conflict in general. IronDuke 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not redirect. The last version before redirecting provides a sound basis for an article. There is nothing inherently POV in the article title and while the article requires more information on why and when Israel has implemented the policy to provide balance to the article this is not grounds for deletion even under the guise of a redirect. There is far too much material to be just within the main House demolition article. Davewild 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject and well referenced. Well worthy of it's own article as agreed upon earlier. // Liftarn
Strong keep A POV fork is an article specifically written to discuss one point of view on an issue. An article on "Palestinian views of house demolition" or "International condemnation of Israeli demolitions" would be a POV fork.Eleland 18:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep House demolition is a significant issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and deserves its own article. It needn't be POV provided extensive weight is given to the Israeli perspective.Nwe 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House demolition which includes all the information that was present in the original article. The legal debates or means of execution in the Israeli case are not different than the other cases mentioned (for example, the Soviet-Afghan War). --Gabi S. 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to correct you there. When I rewrote House demolition I removed all of the content that was later re-used by another editor to create House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. House demolition does not include all the information that was present in the original article. Restoring that content to House demolition would greatly unbalance the article, giving undue weight to one particular instance of house demolition. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant but definite keep and do not redirect. Reluctant because the early versions of this article were a nauseating apology for an immoral and unacceptable practice, one of the worst examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The current (pre-redirect) version is much better, but still has a nasty flavour of justifying the indefensible. However that is not a reason for deleting the article, as the POV can be corrected in the course of time. It should remain a separate article, as otherwise it is likely to overwhelm the House demolition article. No doubt in time Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc will have their own "House demolitions in ..." sub-articles. --NSH001 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Operation Murambatsvina, which is the de facto equivalent for Zimbabwe. -- ChrisO 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gabi S. Jaakobou 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Jaakobou, why did you say only three days ago that you think that the subject is worth its own article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you "father of ali" for wikistalking me (you really want to reopen "the old fude"?), you can read my reply here, enjoy the read. Jaakobou 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Jaakabou recreated this article with the comment "i figure it's worth it's own article." just 2 days ago. Maybe he did this without thinking. PalestineRemembered 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gabi S. --Shuki 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect another attack page dedicated to Israel. Can be easily integrated into the main House demolition article. Noon 23:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost everybody agrees that the content should be kept. The suggestion that this should be merged into general House demolition is not viable, as this section would dominate the article, overwhelm any other examples or issues, and almost certainly lead ro proposals to reduce this aspect. Let's keep the existing structure, and work to produce a good article on this issue. RolandR 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is too long to put back in House demolition. It is a typical spinout article. Spinout articles are covered by Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Here is a link to the last full version of the article. In my opinion the calls for redirects are mostly attempts to censor the issue. Mostly by many of the same people I have seen doing similar things elsewhere. See this quote from w:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism policy (emphasis added): "Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." There are some caveats, of course. But most of those calling for redirects are basically trying to bury the material in another article, and thus make it less relevant and useful. They can dress it up, and try to say the article is not NPOV. But I see it as NPOV now. If they really think it is not NPOV enough, then the correct thing to do is make it more NPOV, not bury it. Why is it an attack article? Then are articles about Palestinian suicide bombers attack articles? Is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an attack article on Palestinians? No, it is not. --Timeshifter 23:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content before the recent deletion and protection was well souced, and an adequate separate topic. Though it has occurred elsewhere, its use in this conflict is certainly notable &Y madeheavy use of in political argumentation Those who think it in fact justified should just make sure that sources from all viewpoints are used. DGG 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yet another fork of this subject matter. I don't see why this deserves such a higher level of detail than the rest of the project, which is after all called "Wikipedia", and not "Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia". Tewfik^Talk 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli-Palestinian conflictpedia"? More hyperbole from Tewfik.--Timeshifter 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is what its called. Tewfik^Talk 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. We should include as many details as we can find in reliable sources on any topic. We have featured articles on obscure figures from thousands of years ago. Surely we can allow this topic to be covered in depth as well. nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with in-depth coverage, au-contraire, that is exactly what we are here for. Rather I don't like what seems to me to be the creation of a separate hierarchy that consistently focuses on discussing one part of a specific conflict. While their creators may be well-intentioned and talk about how the same detail can be dedicated to other aspects or other subjects, they usually aren't. Even if every entry is kept neutral (something that gets difficult when so many articles are involved and more are constantly created), the sum is still problematic, if not nonneutral. Tewfik^Talk 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to have articles that focus on specific parts of specific things? Isn't that what an encyclopaedia is for? —Ashley Y 05:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no reason why it would focus on a country by country basis, is there? The article certainly doesn't, which is why it is so upsetting to certain editors. This WP:POVFORK is not an expansion on any specific section in the article; rather, it is a re-framing of the content to promote a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many spinout (WP:SPINOUT) articles created for the Iraq War. Why should the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be any different? It seems to me that you are seeking special treatment of that conflict in an attempt to bury aspects of it that you don't want discussed in WP:NPOV, encyclopedic detail. You have been part of similar blank/merge/redirect attempts concerning this conflict. --Timeshifter 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things are spun out from an article when the article or section gets too large; the article wasn't large, and which section was this "spun out" from? Name the section, and explain how it was "spun out". In fact, it was simply a copy of the article from a week before, as I have shown before; a clear WP:POVFORK. As for your argument, it's quite obvious you simply do not want actions taken by Israel to be placed in any larger context, but which to have a narrowly focussed POV instead. That's also the reason you ~~recruited votes~~ added this discussion to the Palestine board, but not the Israel one. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the main point farther down. Posting a notice about a deletion review in project pages and their notice boards is normal. There are many WP:NPOV members who have joined both projects. So it is not canvassing. Tewfik is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. I am a member of it and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. And in any case WP:CANVAS allows telling a few people. --Timeshifter 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all members of Project:Palestine edit from a pro-Palestinian POV, as you well know. Prevarication is unhelpful, please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I edit from a neutral POV. It is called WP:NPOV. From watching your edits over time, I believe you have a strong POV. So maybe you are projecting onto others. In other words, because you may have a strong POV, you assume most others do, too. "Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility. --Timeshifter 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you claim to edit from a neutral POV. That's amusing at best, or perhaps a sign of a deeper issue. Regardless, Wikipedia isn't therapy. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it sometime. WP:NPOV is very therapeutic. --Timeshifter 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article per ChrisO. It's a sensible spinout article and too large for house demolition. —Ashley Y 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. POV-fork. If delete fails, then keep as a Re-direct; all material must be kept in context. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively accepted the idea of having an article explore this much discussed topic in depth. Can you explain why you see the very idea of having such an article as a POV fork? nadav (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why the material could not be integrated into the proper section in the House demolition article. The article was initially turned into an article discussing only House demolitions in Israel: [11] On June 17 editors broadened the article so that it dealt with the whole topic of House demolition in a comprehensive way, eventually ending up with this version. User:Abu ali got upset that it no longer focussed solely on Israel, so he created a POV fork [12] that only talked about Israel - it is, in fact, the version of the article from June 16, before the article was broadened to deal with all house demolitions. Taking an old version of an article you prefer, and re-creating it under a new title, is the very definition of a WP:POVFORK. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an obvious, legitimate "spinout" article. See WP:SPINOUT: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a 'spinout' or 'spinoff' of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the 'spinning out' is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." --Timeshifter 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Did you even read the comments you were responding to? The article was hardly lengthy, and which section was it "spun out" from? Show me which one. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Here is the June 23, 2007 House demolition article just before Abu Ali spunout the other article. Here is the spinout article when Abu Ali created and tweaked it on June 23, 2007. All the info in the expanded spinout article was too much to put in House demolition. --Timeshifter 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of the House demolition article did he take that from? Name it please. Which material did he remove from the House demolition article to put in that fork? Show me the diff please. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point. He had so much material that he did not have room for it in the first article. --Timeshifter 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would he know, if it was never in there in the first place? In fact, his "spin out" article was simply a copy of the version of the article from June 16, under a different name. Your prevarication is unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prevarication"? I don't appreciate your incivility, O great admin, Jayjg. I looked at the article at the point that it was spun off. All else you wrote of is your reading and interpretation of tea leaves in the history revisions. --Timeshifter 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article created on the 23rd was identical to the House demolition article of the 16th. No material was removed from the House demolition article on the 23rd to create the WP:POVFORK. You still fail to address that, and it's not a violation of WP:CIVIL to point out that your many statements are at odds with the truth. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what happened before. His decision to create a spinout article on June 23 was correct. Because on June 23 he had too much material to put it into, or back into, the article that existed on June 23. --Timeshifter 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The main reason I agreed with spinning it off was to prevent the general "House demolitions" page from placing undue weight on Israel's particular use of house demolitions, a relatively recent thing in the ancient history of the subject. Even fringe topics (which this is not) get their own articles if they are sufficiently notable, but should not receive undue weight in the main article. The example in the undue weight policy is Flat Earth theory, which is barely mentioned in Earth (and most certainly does not have its own section), but for which there are enough sources to justify having a free-standing article. Whatever Abu Ali said when originally supporting the article is not too relevant. We can all work together on ensuring the article is NPOV, just like we do on other controversial topics. nadav (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. It's certainly big enough and notable enough to stand on its own as a separate article. —Ashley Y 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no convincing claim made that the House demolition article is long enough to require a WP:POVFORK, and certainly not one that serves to promote a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple math. Add the length of the 2 articles in their current form, and you see that putting them together would create a much longer article with undue weight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The spinout article seems WP:NPOV to me. If it does not seem that way to you, then add more sourced material to make it so.--Timeshifter 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it "spun out" from? Please give the specific diff which shows the material being removed by Abu ali from House demolition. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been spun out from the original article, his head, his friends, his muse, his guardian angels, etc.. Who knows. It doesn't matter where it came from. If it was too much to add to the original article, then it needed to be spun off. --Timeshifter 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, could you please explain this edit [[13], particulaly the comment? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's edit summary is interesting: "too detailed and specific for here; perhaps it belongs in House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." So in that June 27, 2007 diff Jayjg removes info from the House demolition article, and recommends putting it in the spinout article. Then on June 29 Jayjg helps blank and redirect the spinout article. This is not the first time that Jayjg has tried to inappropriately delete an article. This time he used blanking and a redirect in order to inappropriately delete an article without going through an AFD. Concerning an AFD for another article, Israel-United States military relations, Jayjg interfered with a closing admin in an attempt to inappropriately delete the article. See this and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26.

Let's stay on topic. Jayjg's past editing history is not germane. I am curious maybe about why he changed his mind about this particular article, but everything else is irrelevant. nadav (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it does show the good faith or rather the lack of good faith of some of those who support the redirect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, I was subsequently convinced that the article was an unhelpful POV-fork, based on argumentation from others, and a review of the article history. Now, please listen to Nadav1, follow policy, and focus on issues germane to this AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, it might perhaps have been better if I'd moved the original House demolition article to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the content was entirely focused on that issue, and then created a brand new article on house demolition. In any case, what we have here is an overview article describing the general use of house demolition, and a spinout article describing the specific use of the tactic in a particular conflict, comparable to how Eastern Front (World War II) deals in depth with a topic summarised in World War II. -- ChrisO 09:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at the many spinoff articles linked from the Iraq War, and many more found here: Category:Years in Iraq. Click the plus (+) signs to see the many subcategories. See also: Template:Iraq War. Many angles are covered by many spinout articles. WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter 09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - another attempt to turn WP into a battleground. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There is an attempt to keep this material out of Wikipedia altogether by saying it's too specific for House demolition but a POV-fork if spun out into its own article. This is all the more astonishing when one takes into account that the preponderance of RS-material on house demolitions focuses on Israel-Palestine. As I wrote on the talk page of the first House demolition article:
A search on Google Books [3] for all books containing the phrase "house demolitions" yielded 299 results. I went through the first 50 by hand, so to speak. 48 of these 50 sources focused on Israel-Palestine. Of the two exceptions, one was a passage in Pragmatic Women and Body Politics which mentioned house demolition as one of various punitive measures the goverment of China has used against families who don't comply with the one-child policy; the other was a passage in a book on urban planning (Planning and the Heritage: policy and procedures) which lamented the loss of "stately country homes" in the aftermath of World War II. In other words, 48 of 50 sources checked dealt with house demolition by this article's definition, as a counter-insurgency tactic, and all 48 focused exclusively on the tactic as a component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fully expected that most RS material on the tactic of house demolitions would focus on Israel-Palestine, but I was surprised to discover that the phrase itself seems to be almost exclusively associated with that conflict.

I also did two Lexis-Nexis searches, one for "house demolitions" + terrorism, and one for "house demolitions" + insurgency. The latter produced 49 citations, 47 of which focused exclusively on Israel-Palestine. The former produced 248 citations; again I hand-checked the first 50. Of these 50, only two discussed anything other than Israel-Palestine. Because the pattern was so overwhelmingly clear, I did not see the need to hand-check the remainder, or to try other search permutations. I realize however that not everyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, and I'll gladly perform other relevant searches at the request of other editors.

It should be emphasized that all of the book sources, and almost all of the newspaper sources, addressed house demolitions as a highly controversial practice.

Following some serious and impressive research, ChrisO has found enough scholarly and historical material to create an article on the general phenomenon of House demolition through time. The result is superb and we should all be grateful for it. That article in its present state would be overwhelmed by adding the material on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue for which the literature is independently massive. There are three compelling reasons to treat this topic separately: 1) The RS's that write about it treat it separately, not comparatively or historically. 2) Demolitions in the I/P conflict are sui generis insofar as they comprise both military demolitions citing security and punitive reasons, and "civil" demolitions citing lack of permit. The preponderance of RS's treat these collectively as a single phenomenon within the Israel-Palestine conflict (where security and demography are so inextricably intertwined). In most (if not all) other contexts, on the other hand, civil and military demolitions are widely perceived and treated by RS's as separate and unrelated phenomena, and revising the mandate of House demolition to include both would make it truly enormous, a shapeless and baggy monster covering everything from eminent domain to counterinsurgency. 3) Because so very much has been written about demolitions in the I/P conflict, adding it to House demolition would overwhelm that article. Separate articles, each cross-linked, makes eminent sense and has all the RS precedent anyone could ask for. --G-Dett 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per ChrisO and G-Dett. There is no reason we cannot have both an article on the general subject of home demolitions and an article on their use specifically in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is more than enough material from reliable sources on the latter to justify an article. And there is no reason the article could not be neutral. Editors who believe the material is not presented in a neutral way should make an attempt to fix the article rather than blank or delete it. Analogous articles exist which focus on specific Israeli grievances, one example is Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanguinalis 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and a good example. I'm seeing a lot of "makes Israel look bad, therefore POV/attack page" arguments. —Ashley Y 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per ChrisO, G-Dett, and others. Interesting point by Sanguinalis about Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- some of the same people who are opposing the existence of this article have edited the other and appear to be quite comfortable with its existence. Anyway, no need for me to repeat arguments eloquently stated above. Organ123 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per others. Though the article needs some improvements.Bless sins 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and Keep. I think PalestineRemembered said it best: "We've been repeatedly told by all parties that we need more sub-pages of this topic, not less. Zimbabwe in particular, Darfur/Sudan, Chechnya and perhaps Tibet. It would be ludicrous to delete the first sub-page on such an important topic!" I am making no comment on the validity or neutrality of the content represented in any particular version, but I fully support the notion that a separate article should exist to describe this important topic, as it specifically applies to the Israeli-Palestinian case, along with the controversy that surrounds it. There is too much to this topic to simply merge it into the main House demolition article, and the remainder that isn't covered by that summary is by no means unimportant or irrelevant, nor should it be excluded from Wikipedia for any reason. LordAmeth 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an article devoted to the Zimababwe government's house demolitions, and one on British "dehousing" in WWII, so this would not be the first. nadav (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much of the information kept out of the main entry was on content grounds, not length, and it is just as challenged on the subarticle. I believe everyone would agree that a subarticle is necessary if/when the material becomes too long, but that is not currently the case. Tewfik^Talk 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tewfik that length is not the issue, not yet anyway. The issue is that these are organically separate topics. Wikipedians may want to situate house demolition in the I/P conflict comparatively and historically, but the reliable sources by and large have not done this. There seems to be some confusion here about what a POV-fork is. Slavery in the United States is not a POV-fork of Slavery, because the independently voluminous literature on the former does not, by and large, treat it as a sub-topic of the latter; it does not talk about America's "peculiar institution" in the context of ancient Babylonia or the contemporary sex trade. Now, by contrast, if I start making copious and tendentious additions to the "Jefferson and Slavery" subsection of William Jefferson, and editors object on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE grounds, and I respond by creating a new article William Jefferson and Slavery, so that my hobby horse may graze and gallop with solipsistic abandon, that's a POV-fork. The dead giveaway and sine qua non of a POV-fork is that it treats as a discrete topic that which reliable sources treat as an inseparable component of something larger. If there is a larger topic for reliable sources in the present case, that larger topic is very clearly the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hence the entirely appropriate title of this entirely appropriate article.--G-Dett 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yes, house demolition has become a hot issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it can be argued that it deserves its own section in the house demolition article. However, the topic simply isn't broad or encyclopedic enough to merit its own article and I fear that its own article will be turn into nothing more than an attack page: every house demolition will be cited by Israel's enemies and Israel's arguments for house demolitions will either become redundant or be cited once at the bottom of the page. --GHcool 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's justifications of House Demolitions was given prominent coverage in every version of this article. So GHcool's argument for removing the content of the article is based on speculation as to how the article may develop in the future. This is certainly a novel agrument for a deletion debate. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without commenting on the content of the article itself, it makes sense to me that there is a general article on house demolition as a military tactic and then separate articles on each important conflict where it is used. I would suggest reducing the information on this particular conflict in the main article once it is spun off. --Peter cohen 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a sensible suggestion. There's already too much prominence given to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the main article - it has more coverage than World War II, which is crazily disproportionate. -- ChrisO 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect obviously a POV fork of House demolition that is poorly sourced. Topic isn't notable enough to have its own article, and only presents one viewpoint.--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't notable? You do realise that one of the major Israeli anti-occupation groups is named "Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions"? I think that's a clue that this is fairly important issue in the conflict... —Ashley Y 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the article poorly sourced? It contains 15 references. And the statement that the article "only presents one viewpoint" is also false, it quotes Israeli propogandist Shmuel Katz and Yaacov Lozowick who justify house demolitions, the Israeli army's own justifications, the Israeli high court decsions as well as the views of groups such as Amnesty International and the Israeli committee against house demolition which oppose demolitions. Have you actually read the article? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before the spinout it was discussed and agreed upon at Talk:House demolition#Deletion of Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. // Liftarn
Strong keep Deleting this notable article would be like deleting Lynching in Ramallah and hundreds of other Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related articles. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the entry that was forked from, al Aqsa Intifada, is quite long, while this forking from the short House demolition was not on grounds of length, but content. Tewfik^Talk 04:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, that's not so - I specifically removed the detailed Israeli-Palestinian content from House demolition on the grounds of length, because it would have given disproportionate coverage to one particular conflict within what's supposed to be an overview article. -- ChrisO 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wandalstouring 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject. Everyking 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of [14] W.marsh 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Shepherd

Also nominating Harvest Fields. Probable WP:COI here, creator removed CSD A7 tag. east.718 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I'm begining to think that there is an unhealthy bias to the articles I posted since they were some how nom. for del. even before I finished submitting them. Rhabdo Sidera 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are the only thing with an unhealthy bias, what with phrases like "On the best of days, one could find the this enigmatic wayfarer prayerfully charting the little known courses of the biblical languages, or ardently perusing the country lanes of Jutland". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhabdo, every article should include references to show notability. If you can produce same over the next few days, good. If you can't, then I suggest you do give more thought to the topics you write about. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Rubbish!!! I just queried Dan Brown and there is a rather huge bigraphy on him. Rhabdo Sidera 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(No !voting twice) Is this author as successful or well-known as Dan Brown? — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until I see any evidence of reliably sourced notability to meet WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per major failure of ~~WP:BK~~ WP:BIO. The On Your Mark book is self-published (see here, from which page this article is a straight copy-and-paste). The other two apparently exist only as e-books. No evidence of significant third-party coverage. Deor 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability shown by attribution to reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio per Deor. --Charlene 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no proven notability, article way, way substandard. delete Kripto 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by David Fuchs with reason "was deleted previously, still short and nocontest" (presumably G7). Tevildo 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Fields

Very little context, not notable. Probably belongs in CSD. east.718 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-nocontext; also does not assert notability. Google provides no evidence that this "project" even exists except for one statement by Keith Shepherd, its "initiator and maintainer," whose article is also the subject of an AfD. Deor 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Someone needs to take a look at Linguistic keying systems, created by the same author, too. I'd judge it to be borderline nonsense, at best. Deor 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Got it. east.718 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no context and it doesn't seem to be notable anyways.--JForget 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloly Blog

Very little context. Google returns no notable hits except for sites that index freeware. east.718

I do not undarstand why you remore it? Why other blog system descriptions can be published, but bloly blog - can not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bposter (talk • contribs)

Delete; no assertion of notability. Clicking on the link at the bottom of the project home page gives me a message describing the page as "still under construction", so I'll take it at its word. (As a side note to the author, obfuscating the source code to an open-source PHP script is exceedingly silly.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to see how it works? Here are a lot of examples. Honestly, I do not understand what you are talking about. As for obfuscating - let author decide how to write scripts, Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bposter (talk • contribs) — Bposter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, no independent and reliable sources attesting to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, article is essentially an advertisement.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unverified advertorial. I urge the creating editor to not take this nomination to heart, but to read the key guidelines and policies instead. Adrian M. H. 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laragh mc cann

Not notable, seems like an advertisement. east.718 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, looks like it was written by a fan or something--JForget 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or improve the notability assertion within the article. I've also tagged another article by the same author for cleanup/references. --Sigma 7 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Kripto 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes in Ukraine

One more POV pushing essay of an extremely angry Commie-hater who cannot be convinced by many people in similar votes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, ..in Georgia and ..in Estonia that this is a wrong way to write encyclopedia. `'Miikka 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why you placed this article not in a historical but science chapter for deleting starting from my article [about red bandits crimes in Lithuania placing in HISTORY chapter? Are you trying to hide systematic attack on category Red Army crimes?Ttturbo 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and a warning to the user who keeps creating them. If not, we'll soon see Red Army crimes in the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely useless, as some of it may be mentionned in the Red Army article anyways--JForget 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree article is useless, this kind of information can be in Red Army article and possibly in a general spin off if necessary, but definitely not individual articles on Ukraine, Estonia, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this needs to go per Acroterion. Excellent example of POV and possibly original research as well. Rackabello 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Acroterion, though I would have used "Red Army Crimes in Reichskommissariat Moskowien". After all, he is accusing the Red Army of the heinous crime of putting actually Ukrainians in charge of Chernobyl. The way the author has responded to the first AfD by creating comparable articles and categories is disruptive, whether or not he does this to make deletion of his brainchilren difficult by creating links between them(="wiki bomb"?).--Pan Gerwazy 17:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not place for amateurish history of such poor quality. Pavel Vozenilek 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork and disruption article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had PROD'ed it (for POV/OR problems) when I saw it in New-Articles...without knowing the whole "Red Army crimes in *" or creator's situation. The page itself seems by its very framing of the topic as a hopelessly POV content fork or spin on existing topics. Anything encyclopediac that has reliable sources should be in the pages about the specific groups/places/history. Until and unless there is enough material specific to Red Army crimes in a certain place, actual content more than just a chronological list, no need for that specific an article...even lists need justification and actual content in order to stand as their own article. DMacks 05:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tyler-Lewis

This article is being listed per the request of the subject - see OTRS ticket # 2007062910015362. Kelly wrote a book and won an Emmy for a documentary she directed. Other then that there is nothing to be said in the article. Right now it's a stub and there isn't any way to expand it past that point. Given that I think we should honor her request to delete the article outright (I've already stubbed to resolve privacy issues). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning the Emmy makes her notable Corpx 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what her privacy concerns were, but all I see in the Google cached version are universities and institutions where she got degrees and funding, nothing intrusive. And an Emmy winner, even for documentaries, is notable. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Groggy, I see nothing here that could spark a privacy concern -- birth year (not date)? education? research-related travel? Obviously we're not here to discuss that as they've already been deemed out of bounds, and I'm sure that the content of the OTRS request is similarly private so we can't even know the concern. I have to express that this is exactly what has worried me about the new "on request" deletion policy. Skin out an article until it's pointless, then say there's no point to keeping, for someone who would normally be notable. There was a recent similar AFD for someone who is clearly dismissible as a crank. This subject doesn't come with any such baggage, just a polite "I don't want to be on Wikipedia", and I suppose that some will want to honor that request. But every time I see one of these I feel the bar being ratcheted upwards a nudge. Would Google honor a request not to turn up results? --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google has procedures to allow websites to be excluded from indexing... so in a manner of speaking, yes.

Anyway, we get these requests all the time we tell them no. Sometimes, they are truely non-notable and the article qualifies for a speedy. Sometimes it doesn't fit speedy and the article is borderline - so we let the community decide. Feel free to dismiss the fact that the subject has personally asked for the article to be deleted if thats how you feel. I just think in a borderline case we should give it at least a bit of consideration. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits of the Emmy. If it must be a stub, then let it be a stub. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: having nothing to write is logically grounds for not having an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that what stubs are for? Corpx 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are placeholders for articles that can be expanded, not for articles that will always be 3 sentences. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being nominated for 2 Emmys in one year is notable. Being part of a working group in Antarctica, while not notable in itself, adds to her notability. Also, if you Goggle her and get rid of the books, there is material to add to the article. So it can be expanded by editors. Vegaswikian 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Shows For Kids

Arbitrary list, original research Gilliam 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely original research. And what are "kids" in this definition anyway? Two-year-olds? Ten-year-olds? "Kids at heart" (like me)? Young goats? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix or Delete. If the article is renamed as List of Animated Television Shows most of those could stay or List of Sitcoms on Disney Channel, but it needs to be more objective. "For Kids" is completely subjective, I'm 23 and I watch half of those. But perhaps a List of Animated TV shows already exists on Wikipedia and the list is redundant and should be deleted. I'd take a longer look into this before deleting. Useight 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)deleteBold text[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list with no known target audience. As TPH said, what are "kids" in this case, anyway? AND they don't even have LazyTown. Bastards.--Ispy1981 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the Cosby Show is on this list! That makes it less a list of programmes made for children and more a list of things that children are capable of watching. Anyone who wasn't bred in a laboratory knows that's a big, big list. It's a subjective list of recommended viewing. And condescending too. Kripto 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, WP:NOT Rackabello 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oregongirl0407 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of East High Episodes

Unverified and incomplete list. Gilliam 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it an incomplete list, I can't verify that this show exists. No ghits, no IMDB entry. Nothing to assert notability.--Ispy1981 01:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems to be unverifiable. Definitely not notable. Adrian M. H. 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was piledrive. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestlers Dead From Non-Natural Causes

Originally tagged as a speedy deletion candidate, I removed the tag because it doesn't technically fit any of the CSD's. May have some merit, but we need to develop a consensus on this article. Rackabello 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no it's not necessary. Pure WP:TRIVIA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely trivial. Piledrive it and pin it with a 3-count. Wildthing61476 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme fire, why not Carpenters Dead From Non-Natural Causes, Wrestlers Dead From Natural Causes? Corvus cornix 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete The information can be sufficiently listed on their individual articles and on their respective wrestling organizations' articles. It also isn't a topic likely to have a heading in a regular encyclopedia -Barkeep 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what to where? How do you merge one article into several others, and what is there to merge here? Corvus cornix 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are also no sources cited, so that doesn't help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a three-axis list. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and propose WP:SNOWBALL. Seems to be we're all in agreement. No citations + three axis = POOF. This article is the answer to a question that nobody even asked. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this information can be already be found elsewhere Crazy4metallica 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balti wine

The article is dangerously close to being an advertisement. At the least it is promoting the product and or brand and is subject to WP:NPOV. Emana 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete "So far, the wine has proved popular with Indian restaurants. Over 700,000 bottles have been sold, at a price of £10 to £15 per bottle" this isn't dangerously close to being an advertisement, this definitely IS an advertisement. Also CSD A7 for no assertion of notability. Rampant POV issues Rackabello 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a speedy candidate. CSD G11 is reserved for truly blatant corporate spam, that sentence just strikes me as someone running out of things to put in the article. Furthermore, a cursory check via google hints that this article could be salvaged. —Xezbeth 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably IS salvageable but would probably end up being very bland. -- Emana 22:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I must be going soft or something, but this is probably worth keeping, pending a minor cleanup. The non-corporate, vaguely scientific involvement is one saving factor. Adrian M. H. 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a member of the Wine Project, I am right now neutral about the article because, to be quite frank, I've never heard of it before and I have sold my fair share of Indian wines. I agree that it currently speaks like an advertisement and I will work on that as I do a little more research. All I ask is that this AfD not be "speedily" close to give some time to see if this is truly worth saving or is a candidate to be merged in the still needing to be created Indian wine. If it needs to be merged, I'll at least start a stub of that article for the merging. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading more about the subject, I realize it wouldn't be appropriate to merge into a new Indian wine article since the grapes are Argentinian. I also see distinct notability in the wine with the distribution deals with a major airline and cruise line. The recent establishment of a distribution chain to the US will also substantially increase its notability in a short time frame. I have cleaned up the article a bit, replacing its weak sourcing with a more reliable major news source and also brought the language in line with a more NPOV, non-advert tone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edit. Still I tagged it with an {{orphan}} tag. I don't think having wide distribution makes it more notable. Has the sales of Balti wine have effects on anything else but the guy's wallet? I'd like to see facts like, "The first $1,000,000 in revenue of ABCD wine was used to erect a new chemistry lab at EDU University, which became the birth place of Penicillin". -- Emana 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole "pencillin" scenario is thankfully beyond the scope of the pertinent guideline of WP:CORP. In the wine world, distribution is notable because the more likely people are going to be exposed to the wine, the more likely they will want to read a wikipedia article about it. Unlike directly commercial products, like the Flowbee or Big Mac, wine also has a cultural component that extends far beyond just being a product to sell. Wine and food matching is popular topic and Balti wine is notable in being one of the few of wines to fill a niche in a popular area of ethnic cuisine. So while new "wonder drugs" might not be discovered because of this wine, in the world of "food and wine", this wine is an important first step in wine and food matching of Indian cuisine. It is a tad bit of systematic bias to chide the importance of that.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have nothing against Balti wine. I am just curious to know more about it and how it could become a more interesting article. The "penicillin" example was an extreme "good example" where there would be no questions to notability. I think we need more serious expertise from a contributor in the wine category. I've made comments about Balti not being Indian on its talk page. -- Emana 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so you know, Agne is easily one of the most prolific and knowledgeable wine contributers on Wikipedia. I have no doubt that she's capable of giving "serious expertise" in any wine related discussion. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 00:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the article, as it has a bit of notability in that it's a unique case, ie no other type of wine has been created specifically to be drunk with curry. Also, it seems widespread given the US disribution and airline deals. Having said that though, I don't think there's much more that can be said about it, without risk of turning the article into an advert for the product! --BodegasAmbite 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until there's been enough time to assess the impact it has as a product, and hence its notability. Uniqueness is naturally going to make any product-based article appear promotional. Until there is a generic article for food-specific wines (or whatever), it should stay. One major point in its favour is that it apprears to have been written by a long-standing contributor here, so corporate spam it ain't. mikaul^talk 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not notable by typical Wikipedia standards IMHO. -Splitpeasoup 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agne and mikaul. I think the article has a good deal of potential for expansion as interesting wine subject. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 00:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocropus

Non-notable pre-alpha software. —Psychonaut 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Rackabello 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but best wishes for the developer (a colleague of mine)—let's hope Ocropus is one day notable enough to be encyclopedic! :) —Psychonaut 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable software; crystal balling. -- Mikeblas 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google and the German University of Kaiserslautern are sponsoring its development. It's usable software right now; I run it on Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (Linux). 128.158.145.51 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's received coverage from Slashdot [15], Linux.com [16], and Ars Technica [17] among others. OCRopus is part of Google's Book scanning project. 128.158.145.51 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling "OCRopus OCR" gets 165,000 hits and there's a Digg story on it. The article could use some rewording in places, but it's a good article about a real software product. I don't see anything wrong with it. TMC1221 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's no crystal balling - it's already useable. And it's the best free software solution of it's kind, I think. The only thing that is useful for me on Linux. --Speck-Made 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things:

The codebase is actually quite mature as is; it's called "pre-alpha" because (1) there are going to be significant (specific, known) API changes over the next 3-6 months, and (2) the project wants developers and contributors right now, not a lot of end users. Additionally, keep in mind that the code is for high-volume document conversion, where the requirements are a lot tougher than for desktop OCR libraries, so the releases are named more conservatively.
When we tested it, OCRopus performed better than all other open source OCR systems on standard datasets. It's probably the best open source OCR system you can get for English right now.
While Wikipedia is no crystal ball, the project plan is a kind of crystal ball and can be found at http://www.ocropus.org/ ; the beta release is expected Q1 2008, and the project is on schedule.

So, the project is working, and it's here to stay. People will probably want information on it, and it seems to me that it's something Wikipedia should cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarnelian (talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 July 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and merge where nessecary) to Bill Simmons. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Simmons

I'm a big fan of Bill Simmons' columns (on a tangentially related note, his article is severe need of a cleanup) and I got a few laughs out of his wife beating him in NFL picks, but is she really that notable? Aside from the aformentioned NFL picks, reviewing The Bachelor DVDs doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO and the article is lacking in reliable sources. I'd say merge, but any relevant info is probably already in her husband's article anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to her husband's article. Semi-notable but not really important enough for an article, and doing a bio verges on WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging content as necessary. Adrian M. H. 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should stay. She was a big hit with her articles and had lots of fans. (Viewport 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Yeah, but "popularity" isn't an indicator of notabilty - where are the reliable sources written about her? And no, her husband's columns do not count. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to her husband's article. As the article's original author, I think this is the best course of action right now. I created the article when ABC (National TV Network) hired her for The Bachelor reviews (not the DVDs, though. She reviewed the shows the day after they aired), as it seemed she was gaining wider recognition, possibly beyond the internet-space; but if she indeed won't be writing anymore, it is unlikely that her notability would grow. Some info may be able to be used on her husband's page though. NeWDaC 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join The 10,000

Prod dropped with no comment. This is a drive for the Red Cross to recruit in Tennessee. While I'm sure this is a very good campaign, it is also non notable as I can find only one (borderline) reliable source - an online news paper. I have added it to the article. If this succeeds and this becomes a notable campaign, then the article can be recreated. That would be good for the RedCross of Tennesse. Until then, Wikipedia is not the place to publicise good causes. Also the logo is only used on this page, it can go if this goes.Obina 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rackabello 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and unencyclopedic. The TN Red Cross falls under WP:ORG, and even a national campaign should almost always be covered by the national charity's article instead of separately. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, with promotional bias (albeit for more altruistic reasons than usual). Adrian M. H. 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garin Burbank

The subject is a professor who has no particular importance. I don't think this article could be expanded and is a stub of a rather obscure and unimportant individual. JGGardiner 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability... also a borderline CSD G11 for being a vanity page . Being a professor in it of itself is not notable Rackabello 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Unless some of these claims can be verified. Shouldn't have listed this as a speedy, I initially got the impression that this was a vanity page Rackabello 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails academics test.Obina 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete , see below. ~~Weak Keep,~~ certainly not a speedy-- saying someone is a professor at a major university is a clear assertion of notability--I've declined the speedy. As for actual notability, I need to check on publications etc.--can the nom. tell me where he looked to conclude he was of no particular importance so I don't duplicate? If there was ever a non-vanity page, this is it--it doesn't even list all the publications!! Vanity pages for faculty typically list everything down to minor conference presentations, and awards back to their high school days. If it turns out that the book mentioned is the only book, then it would be non-notable. DGG 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I pretty looked hard (for an internet search) but could only find the one book and relatively little else actually. He has no page at the university. A search of his university's library catalogue is here[18] It only shows the one book. A few articles, commentaries and speeches as well. I checked Library of Congress and it just turns up the one book. Praeger, which published that book has only it listed in their catalogue online. I checked JSTOR, booksellers. I'm not sure where else I'd look. --JGGardiner 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, he does have a page at the university, here[19]. It mentions only the one book. --JGGardiner 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources for notability are found. Google News Archive has some results ... apparently, for his high-school baseball career. Nothing on his book(s), though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added what I could find on the web, except for several book reviews he wrote and i don't think there will be much else, except for citations of his major book. He's the previous generation that doesn't have a web page, but I am not sure how much more would be on it. The University of Winnipeg is not a research university in any sense. Judging from the wikipedia entry, it's an urban undergraduate commuter college, greatly overshadowed by the University of Manitoba, of which it was once a part. Even full professors at such colleges are not necessarily notable.

In this case, he has written one important book, and little else. That's probably not enough, though the book might be separately notable. I cannot document later right-wing political activity as presented in the article--that is a little odd. Perhaps something will turn up as the Afd continues it's full time.DGG 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has significant publications in his field. Dogru144 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the WP:PROF test. semper fictilis 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He does fail the WP:PROF test. GreenJoe 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Needs a bit of work but consensus... Non admin closure. Qst 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dres

Article apparently created to disparage an entire group of people, no sources. Corvus cornix 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G10, as an attack page, also even if this is a subculture, no assertion of notability or sources Rackabello 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if further sources found to show it is not a neologism. If there is POV, the article can be edited.DGG 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term is simular to the terms Spide (NI), Chav(UK), Ned (Scotland) etc.. In fact there is a list of them all on Scanger (ROI) including many other nationalities. Admittedly the article is not well referenced, but it should not be deleted just yet.--Greatestrowerever 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Redneck. Sometimes dresiarz means ochraniacz - a bodyguard wearing suit. greg park avenue 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending further sources to demonstrate notability and verify the claims. If none can be found, it might still be worth merging it into a parent article about such terms unless it is clearly a neologism. It cannot be classed as an attack page. Adrian M. H. 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subculture in Poland, article needs improvement but its no reason for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE JodyB_talk 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (cereal)

Limited time promotional cereal from a few years ago, not much more than a sentence on it, no assertion of notability, fails WP:STUB. Maybe merging to General Mills might be appropriate, but I'm not sure Rackabello 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at best worth a mention in Monopoly game#Spinoffs. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's wait until Gilliganfanactic has his or her say on this. I note that the list went up at 20:24 and Rackabello tagged it for deletion at 20:26. Faster than the Kentucky Derby! Although Racky is a little bit fast on the trigger, I would tend to agree that an article about a cereal that's well past its expiration date (came out in 4/03) does fail WP:N or however you say "not notable". However, I have incorporated the information into another article on Wikipedia... one whose name I dare not write, as part of the Wikipedianess Protection Program. Mandsford 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to General Mills, maybe Monopoly as well.--JForget 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monopoly, mention on General Mills. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinnamon Toast Crunch. The primary author of article claims it is essentially similar to Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but with the "edition of marshmellows" (sic). I'll have to take that on faith - never tried the stuff. If the Cinnamon Toast Crunch article keepers can tolerate adding mention of a variation of their beloved cereal with marshmallows added, then they can blend it in. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock Hall

NN college residence hall Rackabello 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This college dormitory isn't more notable than any other dorm. Darkspots 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, precedent demands that dormitories have some notability separate from the institution, e.g. historic structure designation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now if it was "Dot Comstock" Hall, that would have been a good pun, but it's a dorm on a branch campus of the University of (read the article if you actually care). Mandsford 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The building isn't all that notable within the University of Minnesota Minneapolis East Bank campus. It isn't notable architecturally, and it isn't notable for any significant events that happened there. Coffman Memorial Union is notable for its function and its use of the Moderne style, while the nearby Weisman Art Museum is notable for being a Frank Gehry-designed building that really caused a stir among Twin Cities architecture critics. Northrop Mall, Northrop Auditorium, and University of Minnesota Old Campus Historic District are also notable buildings on the campus. The residence halls aren't. (Neither is Jackson Hall, either.) I'll stop being long-winded and put in a delete opinion. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest that it gets to notability is being commandeered for a while by the armed forces, but I imagine that this happened to plenty of otherwise non-notable buildings in the U.S. (as it did in Britain). Adrian M. H. 20:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the building might not have had a major historical event occur it in the entry itself appears to be beneficial to those who would inquire about it. Remember that Wikipedia is not meant to be limited in ways such as size that other paper-based encyclopedias might be. It does no harm in keeping it. Notability is opinion-based; Dick Clark for example is just and man that had a TV show in the past to some. There isn't any need to delete that entry.--128.101.166.6 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Anas ^talk? 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Kristian Løvdal

Both these articles' subjects fail WP:BIO and aren't notable. The company they founded is possibly non-notable too. All these articles have one creator (WP:COI). Anas ^talk? 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second article was just speedy deleted. —Anas ^talk? 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article already tagged for being incredibly NN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you delte this article, its ok, im only writed it after i`ve had read about the company and him. Tubheiaboy 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (edit conflict) I notified the creator about issues with WP:N and possible WP:COI. He then blanked the two related bios, so I nominated all of them as CSD A7. Malc82 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G7). Anas ^talk? 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agdersoft

This company fails and does not meet any of the notability criteria of WP:CORP. Its creator has few contributions other than to this article and other related articles (founders of the company); I smell a COI. Anas ^talk? 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has 721 ghits, which is much too few for an internet-related company. Maybe a Speedy, but it may be better if a more experienced nn-corp nominator made that decision. Malc82 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you delte this article, its ok, im only writed it after i`ve had read about the company and him. Tubheiaboy 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so should I delete this per CSD G7 (author requests deletion)? —Anas ^talk? 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes its ok that you delete itTubheiaboy 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. —Anas ^talk? 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson Cereal

I'm not sure this would be considered a notable product, or at least notable enough to warrant its own article. Anas ^talk? 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kellogg Company. It seems to be in the same boat as three other articles that were just recently put up for merge discussion under Kellogg discontinued cereals: interesting enough to list, but not notable enough for a separate article. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, though "Bart Simpson's Peanut Butter Chocolate Crunch" got enough press (including from Entertainment Weekly) when it came out to satisfy notability.--Ispy1981 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense and non notable. Anlace 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles written about cereals the same evening? We need to get Cheeky and Gilligan together for a breakfast date. Mandsford 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with mention of it as per Shadowlynk--JForget 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It sounds pretty yuck too. Kripto 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kellogg's Bart Simpson Cereal is not part of this complete Wikipedia breakfast Delete not notable Rackabello 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodos in popular culture

Laundry-list of trivial references. The only significant ones (Carroll) are already covered in the main article. --Eyrian 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make extinct. I'd not mind these "pop culture" articles if they actually attempted to explain the significance of whatever in pop culture rather than simply try to document instances thereof. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "In Soul Calibur IV there's a dodo in one stage". That, from the article, is a perfect example of the kind of detritus these "... in popular culture" articles accrue. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gotta agree with the posters above that this article could use a lot of cleanup-- Arkyan and Echuck are right about what needs to be edited. However, dinosaurs are a part of popular culture and there's room for the dodo as well... apparently, the second most popular extinct animal, because kids can't spell "passenger pigeon". Hunt the detritus to extinction, put some signs next to the exhibit, make it work. Mandsford 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlie. Punkmorten 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some merge to Dodos.--JForget 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a completely unreferenced article that fails to assert the notability of this topic apart from any other animal that has appeared repeatedly in popular culture. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. This is a synthesized list of firsthand observations, with no significant coverage from independent, secondary sources about the bird in popular culture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE program

Contested prod. This is a school program, one that doesn't assert any notability. At best, it might warrant a mention on the UW-Madison page... but I don't think it's notable enough to even show up there. — PyTom 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every school/university has something like this and there is nothing unique about this that grants notability Corpx 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comment sums it up; there is nothing to mark this out. A quick check for online sources showed primary sources, advertorial-style references, and little else, which roughly indicates that this is unlikely to meet WP:V any time soon. Adrian M. H. 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game controller adapters

Laundry list of non-notable products. Potential spam magnet. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of commercial products (and links that violate WP:SPAM). Corpx 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to adapter. Nifboy 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Rackabello 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows the concept to be notable. Someguy1221 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep despite some sound arguments by Anetode. I wish people would spend more time writing the article and less time talking about whether it should or should not exist. Three of the actors have WP articles, and several reviews have been cited in the discussion here. I'll add those reviews as references. Non-admin closure (even though technically I'm acting outside of policy in closing this, I did take the time to review it carefully). Shalom ^Hello 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Bud

Unremarkable straight-to-video movie. Article contains virtually no content and was previously deleted as an uncontested prod. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the reviews found here. Corpx 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Did those reviews somehow discuss the film's significance? Do they lend notability to the film? Films that enjoy wide releases often have upward of hundreds of reviews linked on Rotten Tomatoes, this film has five: four perfunctory DVD reviews by entertainment websites and only one "quick rating" from a dead-tree format newspaper. Looking over these reviews (only two are still archived), there is no discussion of the notability of this film aside from the following quote: "there are movies that have no redeemable qualities and no business being made; Killer Bud belongs to this last category of movies." So, again, huh? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a lot more reviews to be found on a google search. If all these independent sources went to the trouble of reviewing the movie, I think it shows notability. As long as these mentions are not trivial mentions, I think it does give notability Corpx 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the problem - all mentions are hopelessly trivial. If you plug in "film title" review into Google and come back with a list of entertainment databases which are only meant to create exhaustive catalogs of all DVD releases and have absolutely no relevant, novel information on the movie, you can safely say that no non-trivial coverage exists. There's also the logic that four actual reviews from internet-only publications do not create notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mention like this guide is not trivial - it is about the film and the stars and what they were in before. Trivial is a listing or a phone book. The only question is are they WP:RS or just blogs in disguise? I judge reliable.Obina 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that even this mention deprecates any purported importance of the film (see quote in above exchange), the Apollo Guide has an alexa ranking of 344,225. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently the only print review was the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. That's not exactly notability. I don't consider Apollo Guide or whatnot WP:RS, at least not in terms of proving notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable director (ish), notable cast. Film articles are also painfully easy to expand, and I might do it myself tomorrow if I have a spare 5 minutes. —Xezbeth 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blockbuster carries it.. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does Amazon.com, and..? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Blockbuster would seem to indicate wide release. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates that this film was indeed released on DVD. This film has never had any sort of theatrical release and there are no available DVD sales/rentals figures to substantiate any claims of notability (the only figure I could find was an Amazon.com sales rank of #46,235 in their DVD sales, this doesn't indicate even a "cult following"). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commercially released and has moderately notable actors, not no-names. --Groggy Dice T | C 11:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I'd like to make it a redirect to G-Unit to aid in move any small amount of sourced content over there, the vast majority of this article is not only unsourced original research by serious WP:BLP problems since they refer to all sorts of criminal accusations, death threats etc. When I went through the sources only a small fraction of them were actually reliable and even if all the sources were reliable the vast majority of the article is still unsourced or original research. I suggest that a few of the major feuds be mentioned in the main article. JoshuaZ 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit feuds

Surely this is an un-encyclopedic article that has no place here?! Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Lugnuts 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations, very poorly written. I'd recommend cleanup, but it seems that the noteworthy portions of the article are already covered in the G-Unit article. Calgary 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 31 references in this article, which easily passes WP:V. However, clean-up I agree is needed, especially the Master P section.--JForget 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those references are from forums/rumor sites/youtube clips/lyrcs Corpx 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not, If you read the article and references properly you will notice that they are from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the prior AFD of dis songs and the fact that the encyclopedic info is included elsewhere. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article must be kept because the problems that are listed here have been identified recently and many editors including myself have been continually working to try and improve this article. A lot of work has gone into this article and it would be very unfair and a huge loss of information if it was to be deleted. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that feuds between rapper x and rapper a/b/c/d are not notable Corpx 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that people put effort into the article doesn't justify keeping it. Otto4711 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G unit is involved in some of the most well known beefs out there, it would be dumb to delete, The-G-Unit-Boss has done a great job of cleaning it up, and me (if I decide not to leave Wikipedia, which I am contemplating leaving) and him can do a lot of cleanup to make it better--Yankees10 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
- Comment - Threatening us that you will leave if the article won't be kept will not make a difference. --- Realest4Life 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- If you read his statement properly you will notice that he was not threatening to leave because of this articles nomination but because he was considering it anyway.--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Why else whould he mention it here? --- Realest4Life 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article should not be deleted as it has alot of gooodinfo about numerous G-Unit beefs and there has been alot of work been put into this article and this article is used as a main link on other g-unit artists as a main link.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is low-priority, which means it is interesting for specific people, it should be kept because it gives some knowledge. Daniil Maslyuk 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-G-G-G-G-G-G-UNOT ALLOWED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE (per nom) Will ^(talk) 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have 31 references. —Pengo 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those references are from forums/rumor sites/youtube clips/lyrcs Corpx 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not, If you read the article and references properly you will notice that they are from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. References are fine, but I don't feel the content is encyclopaedic. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is well reference, it adds up to G-Unit article. However, I don't think it is necessary to have the full letter on the Master P section, this part should be cleaned a bit, keep only the essential of it.--JForget 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The prose of this article could sure use some improvement. Sure, there are YouTube links, but that does not mean that information hasn't been published by multiple, reputable sources. At the moment, a very weak keep would best describe my position. Spellcast 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind to delete. Richfife made a good point that much of these feuds blur the line between fact and fiction, which an encyclopedia should never do. I don't even consider some of the entries in this article a genuine "feud". This information is more suited towards Wikinews and I doubt that ten, twenty years down the line, this will serve an encyclopedic purpose. If a dispute is worthy of inclusion, it should be merged to the G-Unit article or their respective artists. We do not need a "rogue gallery" of every single indiscriminate argument a band has. Spellcast 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the strongest fueds recently was between Rosie and Donald Trump. It doesnt matter if a "fued" gets news coverage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy. If anywhere, feuds like this belong at wikinews, not in an encyclopedia. Corpx 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from the fact that there are zero reliable sources on this article, most of these feuds are trivial, and the few that aren't are better documented (and sourced) on the articles about the artists themselves. A lot of WP:BLP concerns as well. Resolute 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are many references from reliable sources--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace and Youtube don't count. Try again. Lugnuts 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and many of the references are from other sites, only a small portion of them are from youtube. The-G-Unit-Boss 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--G-Unit are probably the most most well known rap group in the industry for their feuds. This page has all the information, sure it need cleaning up but not deleting. 84.71.186.170 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page does need to be cleaned thats why the tags are on it. But it has too much information just to be deleted.

--The-G-Unit-Boss 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having "too much information" on it doesn't justify an encyclopedia entry though. A fansite, yes, but not here. Lugnuts 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The important information is already housed in the main G Unit article. The rest is poorly sourced (yes, I've seen the list of references, and they're not reliable, except the ones that reference the information already housed in the main article) and excessive coverage. GassyGuy 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Some of the informationis house din the G-Unit article--But not all of it. If this page was to be deleted all of the information in it would be transferred into the G-Unit article by me or oother users anyway. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. --- Realest4Life 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I crossed out "The-G-Unit-Boss'" above vote, as he has voted twice. --- Realest4Life 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I un-crossded it because this is not a vote- it is a disscussion, I was just putting forward another reason to keep --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, saying "Keep" twice will confuse everyone, so say "Comment". I changed it for you. --- Realest4Life 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --- Realest4Life 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Another reason to keep is because there have been no prior warning that this articles sources need to be checked or changed and so the regular editors have not noticed. There have, however been notices to notify us of a need to be cleaned up and for the grammar to be fixed and this is being worked on. If we were given another chance, we could get this article fixed and up to Wikipedias standards. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't even think that's a good reason to keep, but even if it was, there were three templates at the top that said the article is unreferenced, it needs to be wikified, and it has problems with "copy editing". --- Realest4Life 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-Hi, I know but it said 'unreferenced' and so I was adding new references. It didnt say anything to do with 'bad references' and also I have addressed the other notices. We were fixing them. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just don't say you did not have a warning, also, as I said, that is probably not a good reason to keep, and although the references are OK I guess, the article itself simply should not be in an encyclopedia. --- Realest4Life 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-If this should not be in an encyclopedia then neither should the below articles.

All of which have NO references or reliable sources. In comparison this article is far better written and documented. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed they should not be here either, AfD them if you wish. --- Realest4Life 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Why dont all of the people who so badly want to remove this one have a look at those which are far worse and should be deleted first. This article still has some hope of being improved whereas the articles listed above are a wreck. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After we are done with this article, the others can be deleted as well. --- Realest4Life 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-Yes, but what I am saying is that this artical can be improved if the editors are given another chance. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't understand what you are talking about. Are you saying, that you can make this article that is un-encyclopedic be encyclopedic? By that I mean that you and some other editors can make these feuds be appropriate for an encyclopledia. How are you going to do that? I mean, even if you had many references, and everything else was fine, I still don't believe this would be enyclopedic. --- Realest4Life 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-If it is re-worded correctly then, yes, it can be encyclopedic. I am working, still, even though the article has been nominated for deletion, on its wording, grammar, references etc etc. Thanks. --The-G-Unit-Boss 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now I am really confused, you don't make something encyclopedic by just improving grammar and everything, the thing is, articles on feuds like this simply do not belong in an encyclopedia, an above user mentioned the "Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell controversy" not belonging here, which is obviously much more notable than G-Unit's feuds. I think I already explained this to you, but you just keep going and going. Also, this discussion is turning into a discussion between you and I, maybe we should wait before we add anything else until someone else comes here and gives their opinion. --- Realest4Life 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-True, ok, lets let it cool down a bit. --The-G-Unit-Boss 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI really dont know why people want to delete this article, really what is the point, it is about a notable rap group and there feuds, which they are known for expressing more than most rappers do, so with outta doubt it should be a keeper--Yankees10 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]
- Comment - Just because G-Unit is notable, it does not mean documenting all of their feuds is appropriate for an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy. I mean, Donald Trump is much more notable than G-Unit, and his feud is not here, so why should there be a page for G-Unit's feuds? I suggest you just take some of the information from this article and add it into G-Unit. --- Realest4Life 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-But what we are trying to say is that this is and can be encyclopedic and it is a very informative article. The references have no problems although some would like to think that they do, and yes it does need cleaning up but how can that be done if it is deleted?--The-G-Unit-Boss 11:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is anyone else going to vote any time soon? --- Realest4Life 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I mean, right now we are just going in circles and we aren't getting anywhere. --- Realest4Life 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-This is not a vote-it is a disscussion--The-G-Unit-Boss 15:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - COMMENT - All right, well is anyone else GOING TO DISCUSS SOME MORE to give another opinion? --- Realest4Life 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, please stop correcting me on whether or not I say "vote" or "discuss" as I could easily correct your horrid grammar, but I choose not to. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to get so stressed out--The-G-Unit-Boss 15:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*KEEP~~-this article should be lept because loadsa different articles link to it as a main article so you gotta keep it 84.71.186.170 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment-Thats true, Many different articles in the G-Unit family link to this article as a main feud article. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Comment - For the last time, The-G-Unit-Boss, do not vote twice, it is not allowed, and you are certaintly not allowed to edit others' comments. --- Realest4Life 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Once again, G-Unit Boss, remember to say "Comment", not "Keep". --- Realest4Life 17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- What difference does it make because I want to keep as well as comment--The-G-Unit-Boss 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I already explained that to you, I am not going to say it again, as I would only be wasting my time. --- Realest4Life 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The-G-Unit-Boss seems completely unbiased and neutral on the topic! Lugnuts 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - I never said he isn't unbiased or not neutral, I just told him to make sure he doesn't use "Keep" twice as it is confusing, that is all. --- Realest4Life 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - I never said he isn't unbiased or not neutral I never said you did!Lugnuts 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One !vote per discussion, please. Also, links can easily be removed, so this is hardly a reason to keep this article. Resolute 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - The article does have 31 references, but it is not enough, there are just as many sections I believe or more. I am going to improve grammar and spelling as much as I can, and the people that want to keep this article, I suggest you try to get more sources. Much more, because the Big Pun feud, the Jay-Z feud, the Diddy feud, the Styles P feud, and more, have no sources. I will do everything I can and starting within the next 10 minutes, I will keep trying to improve everything I can. G-Unit-Boss, and everyone else, please help. --- Realest4Life 18:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Yes, I have been improving this article very frequently and I think that it is close to a good standard now. Keep up the good work. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, it is not, look at how many unsourced statements there are, and you barely started to improve the article a few hours ago. There is still a lot of work to be done. I also changed your vote from keep to comment. See above, it is not just me who says you should not use keep twice. --- Realest4Life 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this puts black people in a bad light, we should be honest about our history.--Perceive 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment-Well actually if you look at the it history I hav ebeen improving this article for a lot longer than you have. You have only started in the last few days. --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too bad your improvements weren't good enough and so led to the AfD. Besides, it's not how many edits you have, it's the quality of the edits. I have about 70 edits, and it would all be pointless if I didn't help, instead creating edit wars and such. Also, whether or not you worked hard or more than me is irrelevant, as if you don't find sources, the article will be deleted. --- Realest4Life 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rap feuds are no more notable and unstaged than professional wrestling feuds. Making a list of them is not encyclopedic and blurs the line between fact and fiction, which an encyclopedia should never do. - Richfife 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Question, the decision on whether or not the article is kept or deleted is on which side makes the stronger argument, am I right? --- 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, its based on whether the article in question violates WP Policy and Guidelines Corpx 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above with the pro wrestling feuds, just because two people diss each other doesnt mean that the "feud" is notable. Perfect example is the Rosie/Donald feud I cited above, which was deleted. Feuds mainly exist for promotional purposes so that people will talk about it. Corpx 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then this should have already been deleted as these "feuds" are rather trivial and unencylopedic. The articles that The-G-Unit-Boss mentioned above should probably deleted as well, as they are all articles on these types of "feuds". --- Realest4Life 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article more likely to be kept or deleted? --- Realest4Life 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully if we find an admin with some balls and a spine, it'll be deleted. It's now riddled with more unsourced statements than ever, non of which are notable or encylopedic. Lugnuts 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be pure OR with Cite tags at the end of every other sentence and this is despite both it's main editors having about a hundred edits each on this article alone. And the group of articles mentioned in the middle of this AfD need to go as well. This article clearly violates policy, I have no idea why this AfD is this long. Darrenhusted 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dessie Larkin

Local politician. Does not meet notability criteria as on WP:BIO. No reliable secondary sources. Pathless 09:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tikiwont 12:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected government official in very large ~~Northern~~ Ireland county. --Oakshade 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is an elected official at local level, not national level. And the county is in the Republic of Ireland. Pathless 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Ireland correction. --Oakshade 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - deputy mayor of the largest town in Donegal, a county itself not remotely close to being one of the smallest in Ireland? Completely wasteful to throw away such information. Discarding such an important figure would not be considered if he were a politician in the US! In fact why has the mayor's article even been deleted? --Letterkennyboi 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from relisting admin: Rather than arguing with absolutes, subjective terms, and accusations of bias please present reliable sources to show whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines.-Wafulz 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the articles here, I read that he's the deputy mayor of a town of population 6,855! He's just a member of the bigger city council Corpx 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guidelines are a national office, or a local official with significant media coverage. Does not meet criteria. Or we go to primary notability criteria and reach the same conclusion. He is a non notable person.Obina 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his position pretty clearly fails WP:BIO. False WP:INN arguments about US politicians were given; in my experience such articles are deleted. "A county itself not remotely close to being the smallest" isn't really an assertion of notability, either. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Street episodes

Original Sim Street article deleted, this is left. A pointless episode guide to a pointless internet series. Not-noteable and unsourced. Dalejenkins 18:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the main article was deleted. KJS 77 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator - We dont need a list of episodes for a show that does not have a page Corpx 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the show isn't notable, the episode guide is not useful. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge JodyB_talk 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry constraint engine

This should be copied to Wiktionary then deleted since it will never be more than a dictionary definition. Not enough sources, see here, to expand. Bridgeplayer 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concept is certainly worth more than a dicdef. I suspect the lack of sources may indicate that we may already have an article on the subject, but under a different name. Let's see... constraint geometry, variational geometry, constraint geometry system, computational geometry, constraint algorithm. Meh, could be better. Rl 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with CAD. Adrian M. H. 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with CAD, where it is not yet mentioned. Han-Kwang 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand do not merge, but must be mentioned in CAD. --MaNeMeBasat 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Kander and Ebb. JodyB_talk 11:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fly A Kite

NN industrial musical. Only performances were for a GE executives conference in 1966. — Music Maker 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Co-written by John Kander and Fred Ebb, better known as Kander and Ebb; the creators of Cabaret and Chicago. That is enough to make this a notable production, even if it only had three performances. Masaruemoto 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search of ""Go Fly A Kite" General Electric Kander" retrieved 33 results. Just the fact that John Kander was hired by General Electric to pen a couple songs for an executive retreat does not mean it's notable. — Music Maker 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At the same time, having 33 WP:GOOGLEHITS does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kander and Ebb. Couldn't find any coverage, so I'm not convinced this is notable for its own article, however, keeping info in the writers' article and keeping a redirect can't hurt. There are no notability guidelines specifically for musicals, but from WP:MUSIC, an adaptation of "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" could probably be applied here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zeibura; there may be a substantive article here, but this isn't it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. TMC1221 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kander and Ebb and redirect. But I wonder - should there be a disambiguation page for the expression Go fly a kite and then "this" article be renamed as Go Fly a Kite (musical)? Anyway there is no independant notability for this one-time performance, per MUSIC. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by the River

NN musical. Several small productions. Article states that "over 3000" people have seen it. — Music Maker 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not much online, but claims several awards and coverage in major media outlets. Notable if true. Premature to delete. -- Steve Hart 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer as well as Playbill. Inquirer article was picked up by Knight-Ridder newspapers.--Ispy1981 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It scrapes through, pending better verification. Adrian M. H. 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Doritos

POV blather, tagged for a merge but no salvageable content. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doritos. Personally, I don't remember the original Taco Doritos (flavorwise at least), but the current flavor is quite tasty in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, I remember asking my mom about Doritos once, and she says she remembers a Taco flavor from the 1970s or so, that wasn't Taco Bell affiliated. Did Doritos try the Taco flavor three times? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from clearly being nothing more than one person's opinion, I doubt that individual flavors of particular brands of snack foods meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Calgary 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:POV rant. "Taco" is still a flavor offered under the Doritos brand, but they tweak such things all the time, and individual flavors -- let alone historical flavors -- are not really notable. Nothing here worth merging. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per TenPoundHammer--JForget 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TxHustla

nn musician without a record contract, apparently, who releases his own mixtapes under his own label. No claims of notability, but I thought it borderline enough to bring it here instead of nominating it for speedy deletion. No independent sources. Corvus cornix 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without reliable sources, multiple releases on a notable label, et al, there's no way he meets WP:MUSIC at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on top of that, it reads like the article was written by him or somebody else to promote this person. Delete per failing WP:BIO in lacking references Corpx 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even get close to WP:MUSIC yet. Just another MySpace anon at the moment. As an aside, I agree that there may be some COI involved. Adrian M. H. 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% non-notable (WP:MUSIC) and no references. Precious Roy 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kanev

Subject falls short of WP:BIO criteria for entertainer notability. Dali-Llama 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As actors go, his resume is unimpressive. Most of the IMDb entries say "(1 episode)" for shows I've never heard of anyway. Yechiel Man 10:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per his imdb history. He's lacking any main roles and is mainly an extra ("red haired boy") Corpx 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boreas Music

NN local record label, no major releases Rackabello 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upstart label with no track record, no reliable sources.--Ispy1981 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Release from notable contemporary composer performed by notable group.--Stardir124

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No nontrivial independent sources appear online and none have been provided, so delete. Pan Dan 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough yet. Maybe one day. Adrian M. H. 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. JodyB_talk 11:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Keep

Non-noteable and non-referenced. Merge any valid infomation to
*Dragon (Shrek)
*Shrek (series)
or *Shrek Smash and Crash Dalejenkins 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a notable location: I believe that Princess Fiona, who lives there, is a major character, although I have never seen a Shrek film.--Vox Humana 8' 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dalejenkins. Princess Fiona's notability does not extend to her place of captivity. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I dont know enough about this movie to know the notability of this place, so either a merge or Keep Corpx 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with whatever article seems most relevant to the place. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the three articles mentionned by nom--JForget 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this fictional location is used in a number of works. A merge/redirects only works when there is a single merge target, and nobody has indentified one yet. John Vandenberg 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. JodyB_talk 11:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Group for Independent Business

Non-notable corporation based in Calgary, Canada. Cites no reliable sources and as far as I can see there is no available sources for the material it cites except its own web-page. semper fictilis 14:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. semper fictilis 14:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are about 3,000 ghits, and there seems to be some indication of local notability, but given the poor writing and the lack of references in the article, it's not quite enough for me. This is a judgment call, and I could see it either way. Yechiel Man 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability here is that the group is led by Craig Chandler. Keep. Bearcat 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Craig Chandler per Bearcat. I note that PGIB's activities are already covered at Craig Chandler. There is no sign of enough independent source material on PGIB for a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout article. Pan Dan 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Merge, at best. Adrian M. H. 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys

Delete. Un-noteable phrase, nuff said. Dalejenkins 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article makes several claims to notability. If its not kept, a merge to Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons makes sense. Zagalejo 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has entered the political lexicon as thoroughly as Axis of weasels. Anything meriting a NY Post cover surely merits a Wikipedia article. MJustice 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found it interesting. Its seems to have enough different uses noted on the sight that someone may search the phrase. Information is sourced and factual. Really good visuals too. I like it. Dayleyj 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced. Lugnuts 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove uncited material and merge with Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons. The phrase originates from The Simpsons, but even though it has some use outside of the Simpsons, I don't think it's enough to warrant it's own article. Calgary 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a phrase which has political significance (however tongue-in-cheek at times) in the US. It shows up 8 times in current Google News results. Articles that just use the phrase: [20][21][22] Articles which discuss the phrase's usage: [23][24][25] The phrase may have peaked (as has US-French animosity) but the article deserves more references. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially useful for external links into Wikipedia. And call me ignorant of the latest memes, but I didn't know the origin was Simpsons-related until I looked it up. I for one welcome our memetic overlords. --Robertb-dc 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simpsons-derived meme that has spread into culture at large, with 690 hits in a Google News Archive search. Alansohn 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To quote the eminent RickK: "Well-worked on article by several people, absolutely no reason for deletion". Only replace several with dozens. —Xezbeth 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proquest shows 21 occurrences of the phrase in reliable publications, most related to American reaction to France's lack of support for the invasion of Iraq. Thus there is material to expand and improve the article. Edison 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it's a non notable phrase that everyone in the western world has heard. It's appeared in innumerable third party sources. Nick mallory 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable in 1995, notable since 2003. --Groggy Dice T | C 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though not without reservations. JJL 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important contemporary cultural reference ROxBo 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the names of those who will never have a chance to see this. "Lest we forget" -- particularly those who pick and choose when they will and will not assist their "allies". -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Textbook example of What Wikipedia is not. —Angr 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Naruto: Shippūden

AfDs for this article:

Like Plot of Naruto before it, this article is just one big plot summary - a violation of WP:NOT. We already have List of Naruto chapters and List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes for those that need to know about the story. Last AfD ended in a huge anon/sock-fest, so I've preemptively placed {{afdanons}} just in case. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Delete BLATANT violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries! Corpx 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is helpful to American people who have no access to part two of naruto yet,or at least divide it into sectionsBlaze of merc 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American people will have to look elsewhere, because wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries! This is the official policy and this article is in clear violation! Corpx 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per nom and first delete comment, this is not the place for plot summaries. Wildthing61476 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete We already have the story arcs which tells the important facts in each arc. However like what Blaze said, Shippuden is unknown to people who don't read manga in America. I lean toward the delete vote thought since the character's bio usually have the current plot part. -ScotchMB 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an informative plot and shouldn't be deleted because it helps others learn about the basis of the story 66.68.224.179 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT the place to read about plot summaries. Its the official policy! Corpx 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is just plot summary and fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In that case, we should just delete all movie and book articles too, as they are also just "Plot summaries." GET REAL PEOPLE! In reality,the only way we can create an informative article about this manga is if we talk about its plot. Otherwise, the most we could do without voilating anything is sa "Naruto:Shippuden is an extention of naruto. The end." Yea, real informative! In reality, even the most prestigious of paper encyclopedias will discuss some part of pop culture by using a "Plot summary." I say, if this is the only way this article can be even a little good, or informativ, so be it. No one is being hurt, and no one is getting upset. Trust me, if the author of this manga really had a problem with the plot summary of his comic being on this site, the administrators would hear from him. Otherwise, they are just splitting hairs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
Real book and movie articles contain real world information, not just plot summaries. Just a plot summary is a violation of policy. Jay32183 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article also contains real-world information as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
- Can you show me where this article has ANY encyclopediac content? Wildthing61476 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The very first paragraph of this article. Anyway, when u say encyclopediac content, you mean the stuff you would find on the article naruto?

I dont know if there can be a clearer case for a "plot summary" than an article that says "Plot of ______". Blatant violation of WP:NOT Corpx 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Like stated above, this is very useful to people who are not familiar with what is going on in Naruto II and is essential to those who wish to learn information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.93.81 (talk • contribs)
- Usefulness isn't a valid reason to keep. This article is still in violation of the policy WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Naruto: shippuden. So much more than a plot summary" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)

This discussion is not about the main article. This is only about the "Plot of Naruto : Shippuden" article. Corpx 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea!: Is there a naruto wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)

Found this from a google search Corpx 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks corpx! But, this is good, but, there is very little detail as far as the plot of this story goes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
WAIT, KEEP!!! I have just come up with a plan, but it will require some time. It will definetly get the plot summary off of wikipedia, but it will take some time, so don't delete the article just yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.123.31 (talk • contribs)
- You can log create/login to an account and copy the page to your userpage or a subpage under your userpage. Corpx 04:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck out your subsquent votes. You only need to !vote in an AfD once. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've unstruck and unbolded them, they're not votes and neither are anyone else's. With {{notavote}} at the top here I hope we're all in agreement. --Random832 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've undone those edits. None of the opinions are votes, but it's important to at least highlight what we think should be done with the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the contrary, it's entirely unimportant, the arguments speak for themselves. Regardless, no justification is provided in your argument for why such "highlights" should not be provided with every comment that recommends a course of action, rather than just one per user. Unstruck. --Random832 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette points out (and recommends) that most voters bold their recommended actions. It doesn't give other users the right to mess with other people's arguments like you did, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The difference between an article on, say Gone with the Wind (film) and this is that the former shows how the movie was received, the historical context, the racism, etc. It has an analysis, not just a description of the plot. This article, on the other hand, just has a plot summary, and Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if an article about a book went into chapter by chapter recap of the book, it will be in violation of WP:NOT Corpx 07:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has no-one considered the possibility of a merge/redirect? --Random832 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP UNTIL ANIME GETS TO THE STORY What I mean is that keep the sections that the anime has not reached yet, retaining the information of the manga. When the anime reaches that particular story arc, then delete it. Apply this to List of Naruto episodes. The information was the same in Plot of Naruto, but it was deleted when the anime reached to that particular point in the manga. This should be the same for Plot of Naruto: Shippūden. Let's retain the information until the anime reaches to that particular point of the manga. After all, this will comply with the WP:NOT#PLOT and it would contain information on where the manga is up to that the anime has not reached yet. Then Wikipedia would still contain information similar to an encyclopaedia and comply with copyright rules. -Omghgomg 06:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished plot is still plot and a violation of WP:NOT Corpx 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, I suggest trim the article. There are thousands of articles with plot summaries like this page. However, they are not being nominated for deletion because their plot summaries are trimmed and kept to a minimum. So therefore, we should trim this page as well. After all, isn't it a big waste if we delete the WHOLE thing as many people have put time and effort in providing information to the general public. So instead, why don't we trim or even split it into different articles? - Omghgomg 09:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in that case even though books provide real world info they still have detailed plot summries, i do agree it is to detailed and long which is why i said split Blaze of merc 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article about a show gets too long, its usually because there is too much text in there about the plot. Wikipedia is not the place for season-by-season/episode-by-episode recap of a tv series. This is what WP:NOT clearly disallows. If the main article gets too big, trim out the plot details, as because plot summaries do NOT belong in wikipedia! Corpx 07:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policies such as WP:FICT. A short plot summary is fine as part of a general article. This by name is just a plot summary and is outside guidelines. Many of the keep comments are based on other articles that are still on Wikipedia. Per WP:INN that is no basis to keep this one.Obina 10:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much fancruft is included in the article and will keep being fluffed as long as the show goes on, which may take years. It's no different than the deleted Plot of Naruto, except it appears nicer. However, WP:ILIKEIT does not justify its continued existence. Lord Sesshomaru 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Naruto: Shippuden episodes page and the Naruto chapters page do not show the plot so we should keep it. —The preceding comment is by 69.250.235.204 (talk • contribs) 69.250.235.204: Please sign your posts!

Delete per above arguments and the Plot of Naruto afd. --Pentasyllabic 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then split it into sections,or trim it downBlaze of merc 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a length issue, splitting doesn't help. The article doesn't have real world context or secondary sources, splitting cannot fix that problem no matter how many times you suggest it. Jay32183 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: As much as I am tempted to jump on the "keep bandwagon", after looking at wikipedia's rules for plot summaries, the article is a very, strong contender for deletion. However, the pure plot summary is quite good and this is why I am hesitant to throw the baby out with the bath water. Seeing as there are so many fans of this article, could I propose that they band together and save it with some proper editing. The article had been flagged previously for its content--or rather lack thereof--and no great changes were made to its format. This I believe is why it was proposed AGAIN for deletion. With that said, the easiest way to save the article would be to first split it into different sections for the different story arcs (three so far). Then for each section include some analysis. Most of those who wish for the article's continued existence must have some familiarity with the movies, comics, anime, and manga of popular culture. Just compare them with what you already know (no fluff) and remember your references. Others can then come along to help with and correct your analysis, allowing the articles to conform to wikipedia's standards. That said, it was a pity that the flags went unheeded for so long that the article became what it is. But I think that it will be an even greater loss if this information resource is deleted before the community is given a chance to fix it. 201.238.84.204 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want the article Naruto to exist. Well it already does, so wish granted. Jay32183 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that would highlight the inherent problem of nominating the article for deletion. If you believe that there is nothing to be said about the individual story arcs, outside of what is available in the parent article, character bios, ability lists, and so on; then should the article be moved and become merged with one of these? In the contributors' intent to be as reasonably extensive and exhaustive as possible, all of this information was submitted. For tidiness and better organisation these same characters, abilities, and plot summaries were separated for easier navigation. This should imply that all of Naruto's related articles are part of a larger whole: the parent Naruto article. While this may need improvement, I am not aware that the community has found any glaring problems with it. And if the plot summary is just a part of this parent then logically it should be allowed to stand as is. I, however, do believe that more can be said.

The problem with the plot summary lies with its length, which would make its inclusion into the parent article unsightly, and why it would exist better as a separate article. Think of it like this: what if a movie summary were done in this same format, that is separate articles for its characters, plot, box office performance, as well as the ubiquitios parent article? Let us take Sophie's Choice. After talking about the influences of WWII, non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, Stingo, Sophie, Kevin Kline's character, and its Oscar wins in separate articles; when left to write ant entry for the plot, one may think that there is little else to say save for a condensation of the plot. This of course would not meet wikipedia's standards but can be easily remedied by consolidating all relevant information into one article. This would be pretty tidy as the movie lasts no longer than 2:30 hours. The same cannot be said for Naruto's unfolding story: the article would just be too long. Iconic, serial sitcoms like Seinfeld in their wikipedia entries, on the other hand, avoided their article length problems by doing what the Naruto articles have been trying to do: a parent article and then character, episode, and meme specific links from the former. Their episode plot summaries contain episode specific information, that may or may not be found elsewhere on wikipedia. This is the type of content I was speaking about when I suggested adding analysis to the Naruto plot summary article in order to fix it. And this is why, though it definitely fits the criteria for deletion, it may better serve the wikipedia community by fixing it rather than of deleting it.

201.238.84.204 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is starting to sound like a broken record. I really do not care about what happens to this article, but the decision should be made, instead of debating and bringing this up over and over again. 142.165.145.60 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or more specifically move. Yes, this does contain mostly plot summaries, just like every other currently popular fictional work, and yes, some aspects do make it different from other articles, notably summarizing it directly and adding in an after the fact statement that this covers the plot from manga volume xxx to xxx. However, if you delete it, the issues discussed above will not be resolved.

By the way, I previously thought that "Useful" was a valid alternative to the "I like it" argument. People were saying something else here, but I would love for someone to set me straight on this matter. Whichever it amounts to, this article is "Useful" and people clearly come to Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of finding out that Deidara is currently just about to deliver his final blow to Saske in the manga. If you force the editors working on these articles to put it somewhere else, it's proper place in regards to the characters or whatnot, you're doing nothing more than hiding it. WP:NOT does not say the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it could be interpreted to say that it doesn't belong in the form of the current article, which I by all means agree with. I do not think that an AfD is the correct action to deal with this, I believe that deletion will hide the problem and chase the information into little corners, not fix the problem. Not to mention that this is a pretty central article to the series around Naruto, which I assume has significant work going into it seeing as we have as much as a portal for it. Deleting will throw a fairly big wrench into the coverage surrounding Naruto because I don't see any other linear coverage of the manga. Look at WP:NOT --> Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --> Plot summaries, and the policy finishes with A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic., which is why we have summaries for The Office, Scrubs, Firefly, and every other thing. I beg of both sides to not introduce a bias in coverage by either NOT making this information available on Wikipedia or handling it in a in-universe fashion that summarizes by plot archs as opposed to episodes.

If it were up to me: I would

delete much of the article that is cruft. The recapping of information at the beginning, for instance, I think is fairly crufty. I would replace this with information about the manga, it's significance, how it's read by up-teen million people, and so on and so forth, then I would take the rest (that is yes, mostly summary) and
Reorganize it into a list by manga episode. Doing so would make it no different than the examples I was listing before. This would probably dictate changing the name to something more descriptive and possibly dictate doing the same thing to other articles, this is why I say move. It really would not take that much work.

In conclusion, this article has problems but those shouldn't be fought by editing the article and not an AfD. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't mostly plot, it is entirely plot. With the episode lists the plot can be remove and you still have content. A list of Naruto episodes exists. Have you actually read why being useful isn't valid. It also doesn't matter that people worked hard or that information is lost. Jay32183 04:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if it had the plot summary following a list of episodes then you think that it should stick too. I've seen all the policies you've listed, except the information is lost one, that's new to me but I don't have a problem with it. I never meant to say that it shouldn't be deleted because it's useful. I was saying that deleting will just cause it to pop back up again in another form, deleting it won't fix the polices problems except for a short time, while at the same time it will cause nothing but a headache for the editors.

If this really can be a matter of "it should be deleted like it is, but would be okay if..." then end this discussion right now. People in the talk page were bringing up the fact that it was the 80 some most viewed article on Wikipedia. I'm verified up to the 356th position. No wonder people are complaining about random IPs shouting keep keep keep. The user who started this AfD didn't even comment on that page except once for an unrelated issue. I'm fine with these discussions being completely within the framework of the policies, and I think I'm playing by those rules, but speaking out of general common sense, if we delete one of the highest traffic articles with no preceding discussion about how we can change one or two simple things and avoid an AfD entirely, then that pretty well comes to "Wikipedia shooting itself in the foot". -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, but thanks for the bit about WP:USEFUL. Is there a page of arguments that should be used in these AfDs btw? Policies seem just so negative... (literally) -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — WP:NOT#PAPER/WP:SS. Matthew 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good ref. I suggest we follow the advice quoted here just below WP:NOT#PAPER. This says since it is not paper we could put in anything. But below it explains what else wikipedia is not, and specifically mentions pure plot summaries. And for those who think this is useful, I agree. Post it on a fan site and link it from here.Obina 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — This is a clear copyright violation. It has only plot with little/no real world information. People always say they it will be fixed, but I haven't seen anything happen. I Love Pi 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't summarising plot constitute as fair use? xyzman 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little plot summary is legal, but excessive information is copyright infringement.I Love Pi 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would fix it but i dont know how, heres a idea how about cuting most of it down enough to just have a small recap of the arc's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze of merc (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 July 2007
Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Naruto. This is a re-telling of the plot and Wikipedia is not the copyright holder of this story. --maclean 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an universal fan site for everyone. Its aim is not to collect as much info as possible, but to summarize it. And what we have here is a dump of raw info, which requires "cooking". xyzman 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning on the keep bandwagon because there are thousands of articles that MOSTLY consist of plot summaries just like this page. An example is Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3). While it may contain other information like actors and 'trivia', that article would be similar to the Plot of Naruto: Shippūden as it mainly consists of a plot summary that is being divided into subsections. Let's be honest here. Isn't this unfair that Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) is similar to Plot of Naruto: Shippūden in terms of the type of content within these two articles and only Plot of Naruto: Shippūden is being nominated for deletion. If Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) is not being nominated for deletion, then so shouldn't Plot of Naruto: Shippūden. -Omghgomg 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, just because other similar articles exist doesn't make this any more valid. Also it may be similar, but the real-world information on the Grey's Anatomy article is what is needed on articles about ficitonal subjects. Comapre to this article, which is entirely in-universe plot summary and where real-world impact is already covered at Naruto. This article also fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT and does not all follow the guidelines for writing about fiction. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait wait wait, WP:theotherexists has to do with citing a single example (or it could be more) of another article that is kept or deleted (usually for notability reasons) as an argument in an AfD. Here, we have a well established and agreed upon president that an article can exist being mostly summary as long as it follows real world stuff like airings of shows or releases of books. Don't strike down this argument just because someone provides a sample link for your convince. You said before that that information is already contained in List of Naruto chapters. So far, people are agreeing that List of Naruto chapters combined with Plot of Naruto: Shippūden would not have the WP:NOT problem that this nomination is based on. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if an article "A and B" would be fine, then "B" alone shouldn't be subject to deletion by an odd technicality. An AfD should be our last resort in that case. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, my bad, I was wrong. I (wrongly) assumed that the article was similar to List of Naruto episodes and other episode lists, but now having taken a good look at the article, its details plot summaries of each episode is indeed in violation of WP:NOT. And I see it too has been nominated for deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your reply! I hope we'll arrive at some consensus soon. However, you did loose me a little there. What other Naruto article did you mean is also being nominated for deletion? All I see right now is the action figure article going to AfD, the list of episodes and chapters appear to be stable (relatively). Thanks! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant the Grey's Anatomy article is up for deletion, that's all. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. this article has been marked for deletion a million times and it keeps passing. if it doesn't meet guidelines, then fix it. how obvious is that? just cut out a lot of the details and make the article about a page or so large. if u don't like the article, it's up to u to fix. u don't just get to delete things b/c u don't want to go to the trouble of fixing it urself. --24.96.180.56 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a problem that can be fixed by means other than deletion. Jay32183 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, you cant fix n article that is a blatant violation of what should not be on wikipedia. If a "Plot of ____" article isnt construed as a plot summary, might as well strike that line out of the WP:NOT Corpx 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Plot of Naruto is dead and this too will die. For all the IP's wanting a reason as to why this is happening and don't want someone shoving something down their throat then listen up. The differnence between this article and other articles with plot in it is a matter of product for example amovie article explains not only what the movie is about but what the movie did in the real world like contriveries it created or how much money it made. This article talks only about plot and nothing else so it must go.Sam ov the blue sand 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am once again Neutral in this debate as I was in the other AFD. I can see where people are coming from regarding the want to delete this page, and I can see why people want it kept. I probably would have voted Keep if the List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes page wasnt as developed as it is now, along with all the other Naruto episode list pages.
However, we also have moved away from plot summary in individual character articles, so I'm pretty sure most people are gonna have to go through a lot more pages if they want to find out about the show's storyline, instead of a central article. And looking at this page's position on the Most Viewed Pages chart, I'm assuming that's a large number of people.
My only other objection to deletion is where to put plot info from chapters that havent been animated yet. With plot summary all but gone from character pages, and the List of Naruto chapters page devoid of any plot info, people who want to know about info that's happened in the manga after the current animated episode are going to have a very hard time doing so.
Also, I'm amazed to see how many more anon IPs turned out for this AFD than for the one for Plot of Naruto... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the anon partcipation shouldn't be a surprise considering how popular the page is to begin with and that the part of the story that Plot of Naruto covered is old news for awhile now. Still, this site shouldn't be a replacement for reading the manga or watching the anime (as some of the keep voters seem to mistake it for). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that, and I'm not saying that it is. But there are anons who treat this like that, and they will probably just make accounts to try and readd the deleted material or try and readd it in their own flawed ways. I'm not saying that it should be kept only for that reason, but you can't expect to delete one of the Top 500 most trafficked articles on Wiki and not expect it to have any repercussions, especially among the hordes of anons who do use this page. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately the page is popular for a reason that violates policy. If recreated, WP:SALT the page and any subsequent pages. Corpx 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm, I think I cam up with a compromise that might satisfy most people here. Since this comment is already buried up here, I'm gonna post it at the bottom with a new entry. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Following the patterns of other manga and anime information articles, the information on this page should be dispersed through the individual character pages and episode guides related to Naruto. I like the page, and I visit it all the time, but no encyclopedia contains this amount of detail about referenced literature. JCruzMorales 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since the last Afd, there has been no widespread movement to fix this article, and the only thing that has been added to it is more plot summary. Any relevant information to the characters is already summarized, and removing this page could perhaps be an impetus for improving other Naruto-related articles, particularly the Naruto article itself. We're going to see a mass of anons try to recreate this page though. =/ Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse)
KEEP!- Please! It's not fair that just about EVERY movie/novel entry spoils the plot for that entire movie/novel yet this can`t exist. If you don`t want spoilers then don`t read it.. The page isn`t hurting anyone or wikipedia. What if we PROMISE to make some of the eariler sumamries like the garra arc and hidan/kakuzu smaller!? Saying summaries are illegal is like saying If I tell my friend about a movie I`ve seen but he hasn`t is illegal since he didn`t pay for a ticket to know the story! Come ON! Please? :( Just save this page, I beg you... It isn`t fair that just because it's japanese and therefore we can't attach articles affecting the real world because of the language barrier that the page gets deleted while others of the SAME variety, plot summaries, stay up. Oh, and I just read this: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Show me where, in any copyright case EVER, a plot sumamry has been taken as infringement. Show me ONE case. NEither does it violate wikipedia policy because of the aforementioned statement in WP:NOT 69.125.198.27 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - all those plot summaries that you are referring to for films, other series, etc are short, summarized plots that are appropiate, as a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic per WP:NOT#INFO. As per the same policy, however, if a page is entirely plot summary, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. And in any case, this page really has no reason to stay - the primary Naruto article should be improved and incorporate this instead of attempting to fix the utter mess this article has degenerated into as the series progressed. Wikipedia is not a substitute for reading the manga. And if you see other pages like this, please report them =] Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Show me where, exactly, "As per the same policy, however, if a page is entirely plot summary, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. " this is stated in policy. This PAGE happens to be a part of a larger topic. IMO, it is not messy, it is broken up into paragraphs and arcs. Nor it is a subsititute for reading the manga. Manga is a VISUAL format. We may have one or two pictures every 20 chapters, ahrdly a violation. Mere text summaries in no way give the full expereince of reading a chapter of the manga. a picture is worth a thousand words, but there are only about 100 per chapter. Furthermore, "mess" is a subjective description that can`t really hold water in debate. It is as organized as it neds to be with breaks for arc and subsections within an arc, as well as paragraphs.69.125.198.27 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's appropriate would be a short summary of the series in the main page. What's not acceptable is episode-by-episode recap of the story. From WP:NOT, it states that " Wikipedia articles on published works.....(should not be) solely a summary of that work's plot". This is exactly what this article is. Corpx 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But "Plot of naruto" is not a single article. It may be a single PAGE on wikipedia, but is only a subsection of the larger naruto article. For the sake of page loading times, information on a franchise as big as naruto's is spread out on several pages. The key here is the word "article". Plot of naruto II is not a single article, it is a part of one. Naruto is a story told in a visusal medium. To have a truly revealing summary, one would need several scanned manga pages in the article as well as clips of the anime to be a serious violation. But text? Are you serious? 69.125.198.27 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me one thing does this article have any thing to do with product or profit or has the plot started any contreversies? And saying the manga is the product doesn't count.Sam ov the blue sand 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Profit? What do you mean by profit? As for controversy, it is a timeskip 2 years in the future, which has had some mixed reaction(The Harry Potter article has a section on fan reaction) as well as viz reacting to such a huge change by starting the "naruto nation" campaign. 69.125.198.27 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profit means what the subject has done for itself. I'm not talking about fan controversies I'm talking about lawsuits and other such things.Sam ov the blue sand 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"other such things" would include....? As for doing for itself, it has created a new movie and several new video games based on it. Many entertainment news websites have also written articles on the timeskip. 69.125.198.27 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an article, see Wikipedia:What is an article?. The page only contains plot. WP:NOT#PLOT says article cannot be only plot. The only logical conclusion is to delete the page as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Sometimes merging works, but in this case it would cause bloating in the target article, so merging should be avoided. Jay32183 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand now that the only way to fix the article is to delete it and thank you Jay becuase I was alone for a second there.Sam ov the blue sand 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, deleteion is not the only way. the info can be split up and moved into each chapter's section on the chapter's page. Deletion would cost us one of wikipedia's most popular pages and an unnecessary loss of wanted information . Not to mention, as I statred earlie,r the sumamry is not encompassing enough to be a copyright violation for a primarily visual medium. I could split the sumamry up into each chapter on the chapter apge if no one else wants to.69.125.198.27 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Splitting the information does not solve the problem; it only relocates the problem. Pure plot summary still violates WP's policies. (2) People are using this article to keep up with Naruto, so it is clearly sufficiently detailed. I Love Pi 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts! 3 in a row. What he said and why is this info so important?Sam ov the blue sand 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 It is important to people who like naruto. and the plot sumamry would NOT violate policy if on a chapter list page, since it contains real-world information and context. And can you PROVE people are using it as the SOLE way to keep up with naruto, eschewing any other media and hurting the franchise? In fact, putting it on the chapter list page, in context, would remove the main factor for deletion, that the article is soelly plot summary, which it wouldn`t be on a chapter list.69.125.198.27 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look if people want to read naruto then find an internet site, join that site, and every Friday you will get your Naruto like How I do or what other people do. And what real world information does this article contain, also what a chapter list would be ok but it would still be only plot nothing real.Sam ov the blue sand 02:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not matter to you, but many people use this as reference for discussion or fanfiction, the main use for many wikipedia articles. real world info on the chapter list page would be chapter names, volume imdb's, etc.. 69.125.198.27 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not use the other web sites for your fan fiction. No you don't understand what real world information is, its not chapter #'s its what this article has to do with the real world not how Sasuke is going to kick Diedara's ass next chapter. Things changes, get used to it.Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because other websites don`t have this information? And you don`t have to be so rude. this is a place for discssion, not personal attacks. And IIRC< chapter #'s and IMDB's are very much a part of the real world. Heck, there is a perfectly good hapter page for naruto chapters right here that is just waiting to be expanded upon.69.125.198.27 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that was getting too long for me to read. When was I rude or gave out a personal attack and who are you to tell me about one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars I know the Policies I'm not a new user. Now with all that aside go to MSN Groups and search Naruto and find a web site called Naruto Manga Returns, they have all the chapters there and you don't have to join to look and read. And just because the Chapters are in the real world doesn't mean that it has to do with real world things.Sam ov the blue sand 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think then this can all be solved if a link to that page is put in the main naruto section if people want a bit of detail about the plot. they are sumamries there, not chapter scans, correct? AFAIK this is the only place with short summaries. BTW, the chapter page is actually here, if you want to see it. If what you say is true, then it should be deleted too as it contains no real world info by your definition. As should every charachter page for every anime except really famous ones which would make news, going by that logic.69.125.198.27 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah they have chapter scans page by page. No offense but don't be a smart ass. Lists are the ONLY exception to this policy I have no clue why but thats the policy. There has been discussions of deletions of the Charachters but the IP's and new users stopped us and the fact that the lists would be overly long if we did that. I don't want to do this all night so please except all the evidence put before and give up, you win some you lose some.Sam ov the blue sand 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the PLOT of naruto, not characters. WP:NOT clearly says this is not the place for plot summaries. Can you please explain how this is not a plot summary? Also, please make an account because closing admins may not take comments from IPs into consideration. Corpx 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Corpx I don't think I've ever talked to you before, by the way where do you live becuase you're edits all seem to be later than others. I was talking about the charachters becuase he was being a smart ass about it sorry if I went a little off topic.Sam ov the blue sand 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Plot. I think thats the extent of how much plot summaries are allowed. Some editors even think that's too extensive. (I'm in Texas btw)Corpx

Making acounts at places is always a huge hassle and another PW to remember. Our discussion led us to talk about policy violation and real-world information, and I was about to bring up the fact that charachter summaries and lists contain no such information. To delete this and keep others would be hypocrisy. To the new person who destroyed my last edit and made me retype this, I agree that this page should be deleted,a s it is ALL plot summary. HOWEVER, the information should be preserved and split into the chapter list page. 69.125.198.27 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I LOVE the way the enterprise sumamry is set up. Since one season is roughly 13 episodes, I`d say about the same amount there per 13 eps(or hoever many chapters that is) is in order, to be condensed at the end of each story arc. ALSo, I don`t WANT chapter scans page by page, as that site provides. Now THAT is copyright violation. A short summary for reference is not, and is preferrable to everyone who dosen`t want to violate things.69.125.198.27 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "chapter scans" does that article provide? It provides a short season summary. Corpx 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the chapter scans comment was directed toward blue sands about the other site he mentioned. 69.125.198.27 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are under no obligation to hunt down every violator of policy before we can deal with any violations. Jay32183 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly understandable. I just don`t want any hasty descisions to be made and all the information to be lost forever. Cna we discuss the proposal of shortenting the summaries into each chapter and moving them to the chapter list? that way, the article will not be ONLY plot summary, and therefore not violate policy. 69.125.198.27 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can create an account and WP:USERFY the article to work on it later. As it stands now, it is in violation and should be deleted. Corpx 03:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Sam not blue sands. And that site has premission to do that. PLease get an account and when you sign in check remember me so it will remember you when ever you enter Wikipedia. And Corpx I live in Indiana so not that much of a time difference.Sam ov the blue sand 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. all i'm going to say is this: this article may need clean up or division but it is very informative about the subject matter, the series is very confusing for those who haven’t seen EVERY episode and this form of documentation seriously HELPS… I’m not sure why it is such a problem other than the fact that is has grown a little lengthy… deletion is an overkill all it needs is some pruning and organization 76.48.204.53 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not intended to help people with their questions about tv-show plot Corpx 06:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe someone ought to clarify what it is intended for as there seems to be much confusion, and in any case its more of a cultural barrier reconciliation thing than it is a "q&a forum" ... i use it all the time to do back-story research as they are long and winding and hard to understand from a non-native perspective, and to be rather honest i don't think this can replace any "illustrated work" regardless of the level of detail, it is after all a verbal description of art work its not like there is dialog transcriptions... i am standing by my original opinion that this article (though in need of trimming) is purely of a supplemental informative nature and doesn’t violate the nature of Wikipedia in any way other than being in need of clean up –c 76.48.204.53 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:NOT#PLOT address this issue? "Wikipedia articles on published work....(should not be) solely a summary of that work's plot.". Corpx 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it glosses across the topic however it also makes mention to "... not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and that is what it is though obviously in its own namespace due to the length it has achieved.. surely you agree that this cultural straddling anime is worthy of note? and surely you would also agree that anyone interested in its profound popularity and unique universe is entitled to a wealth of information that can be legally provided via this tool? so i really don't see how you can support deletion of something that requires an explanation in order for it to be culturally relevant -c 76.48.204.53 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main article got long because somebody added an episode by episode recap in it. This info should not have been added in the first place. Since it got too long due to the newly added plot recap, it was ported over to a new article. You cant argue for keep because it was contained plot summary in the first place and was moved over to a new page. WP:NOT refers to WP:FICT, which states that " the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them". The main article got long because users started to summarize each episode instead of just describing it. Corpx 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good man, i thank you, what we need to be focusing on is this litttle bit "In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines for articles." since it is okay for articles of such a descriptive nature to exist as per the guidelines, surely we need be focusing on the concision and not the existence -c 76.48.204.53 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exception is for "encyclopedic coverage" which causes the main article to exceed length. If the exception was for the plot summaries, it would contradict the first 2 lines. Encyclopedic coverage is referring to expanding the characters and other major events in the show/movie. The examples below further prove this point as they're all about characters and major events. Corpx 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more comments (I've already directly expressed my position) - There was some discussion about the nature of the use of this article by users. Perhaps me providing my personal story will help a little. I read the manga. But reading it in Japanese, I find it useful to check english summaries for the purpose of comparing to what I got from it. I read them when I was in Japan too, it was a Monday ritual to buy the new Jump magazine and tear through the pages. For comformation, I would find myself going to Wikipedia. Guess what comes first in Google searches? That's right, this article. You all know this. I'm not arguing this for my personal benefit, that's ridiclous. Any competent person can take 10 extra minutes and find another summary, having an article like this is maybe a little for the fan's benefit, but more so for Wikipedia's benefit. I believe that this article is being used for educational constructive purposes, which falls perfectly in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Level of detail shown is a contention point. Even I don't care to see a summary of every head turn and flap of a wing (though maybe when a wing gets cut off I do care).
- strong contention point - WP:NOT - "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The biggest question of this debate seems to me to be: Does this apply to one article or the series of articles?
- plea to the decision maker - This CAN go in a number of directions. If you go with deletion, please try to make it easier to add this to the other articles. And weather the answer is delete or keep, please suggest some logical restructuring.
- plea to the IP users - your oppinion does count here, but please understand that arguments are made in the framework of the policies here. Many of you are making great common sense arguments, but some are on the verge of scoffing at the rebuttals consisting of nothing but links to policies. If you carefully go through the policy I think you'll find that your argument can be still be made strongly made, but please make concessions to those policies and other oppinions on this page.
- plea to (some of) the experienced users - If this were such a simple matter of summary in the title violates WP:NOT and there's no room for interpretation, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Please justify your stuff instead of making smart aleck comments.
I've put my thoughts in this format to avoid attacking any particular user. I hope this was helpful, I just want to move the discussion along some. And you neither side can do that when they don't give considerable heed to the other's argument. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is just not the place to come read about what happened on your favorite tv show or comic. It is one thing to give a short recap on the happenings of the season, but it is entirely another thing to have an episode by episode recapitulation. I also dont think "benefit of wikipedia" should come into play here. Wikipedia's aim is not to increase the readership/use of the site, but to "incorporate general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" into one. Corpx 06:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT - This states specifically that arguments that the subject is "unencyclopedic" should be avoided. If this contains episode recapitulations that are proved to be within the policy framework of Wikipedia, then get out of this discussion. If you see something covered that you don't like, then suck it up and go edit something that you do like. That is how Wikipedia works. You didn't even address what I said above, and you're the closest to what I would call a blatant anti-anime disposition. Do you go onto AfDs for major movies and shows and say these things too? Please discuss weather we're allowed to have this article as opposed to weather you like it or not, and so far, we're allowed to do what you were mentioning in your post here. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does this not qualify as a specialized encyclopedia? -c 76.48.204.53 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's referring to the encyclopedia's that Physicians use or the ones that Lawyers use. Corpx 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the definition of specialized encyclopedia anywhere in that link, an apology for my ignorance if you could point me to said information i would be much obliged -c 76.48.204.53 07:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
surely if these can be considered encyclopedias then why not naruto? how does star trek differ from naruto? perhaps i have further confused the topic but if the universe of naruto could be an encyclopedia under the "specialized" category does not that mean that it should have some description of event that take place in said universe? almost like a WWII encylopedia having a description of battles.. -c 76.48.204.53 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wont find any articles here from encyclopedias about fiction. Even then, I highly doubt the star trek encylopedia provides an episode-by-episode recap of the happenigs. I dont see how you're comparing WW2 to a TV show. WW2 is not fiction.Corpx 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rightfully so, and thats why the article need be abbreviated and alleviated not obliterated, and surely the Encyclopedia_Galactica or any other such reference material would have event descriptions the point wasn't to compare real life to fiction, of course not but to relate the relevance of events to the universe as it were in as a whole, so basically a description of a "universe" (which i use loosely here) as it where to an encyclopedia has no relevance to whether or not it is fiction or fact, be it just to the "universe" as a whole so if there is a right for such specialized encyclopedias to exist and that encyclopedia's coherency would be compromised by the exclusion of such materials then surely you would agree that the materials are necessary to the encyclopedia's existence as a whole as it were? -c 76.48.204.53 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking a way too broad defintion of "specialized encyclopedia". Anyone can print a book off and call it an encyclopedia, but that doesnt mean its content should be included here. Since anyone can create fictional content (comics), the book will be sufficiently sourced on that content. I could create a comic series, then print off an encyclopedia that goes with it and it should have no bearing on wikipedia. The reference point should be one that's used for professional purposes, like doctors/lawyers and have real world applications that are verifiable. Corpx 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes. I don't watch Naruto, but the episode list seems more than sufficient if I want an idea of what's going on in the show. Snarfies 13:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the manga and anime aren't synched. the manga plot has developed far ahead of the anime so redirecting to the episodes would drop developments that haven't occurred on the anime yet. the point isn't to find out what's going on in the show but to have a plot overview of the manga. --24.214.236.85 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which this article is not, but a summary of the manga, which is against WP:NOT#PLOT. Wildthing61476 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we have List of Naruto chapters, which makes it not a violation of WP:NOT. Or do you disagree? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chapters do not violate [{WP:NOT]] by themselves. What I have a problem with, and why I feel it needs to be deleted is that this page is just a plot summary, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia's not designed to be a fan page with detailed descriptions explaining the plot of movies, anime, manga, etc. A short summary might be in order on the list of episodes, but not an entire article dedicated to just summarizing the plot of an anime. Wildthing61476 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, as suggested in an above post, merging this article with the List of Naruto Chapters would result in an article that was NOT a violation if the summaries per chapter were to be shortened and placed in context of each chapter. To Sam of the blue sands, people who come here do not want to read full manga scans, as they do not want to be spoiled or only want a tantalizing summary at what is to come when they obtain the manga or anime in other ways. Not to mention, for reference purposes, this article is much more suitable than wallowing through hundreds of manga pages. 165.230.31.178 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Avatar: The Last Airbender is a featured article. It has about screen-height worth of summary, and its accompanying episode list has about two short sentences on average per episode. It also has a full page per episode. This page has on average half a paragraph per chapter. I Love Pi 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to read the manga then find a website with manga scans and join and then every friday you will get your Naruto. And besides why are argueing with the IP's when admins don't take their opinions into acount?Sam ov the blue sand 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP's opinions ARE taken into count, however established users are seen as more "credible" Wildthing61476 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh last time I checked I thought IP's opinion didn't matter. Oh well I guess its more fair this way.Sam ov the blue sand 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Bear with me here, because this proposal might get kinda long. However, i think I came up with a compromise that might satisfy most parties. For now, we either Transwiki this page to the Naruto Wikia or to someone's Userspace. We use this article as a base to facilitate the next part of my proposal.
Now, on the List of Naruto chapters page there is currently a list of all the Volumes that have been released, as well a list of the chapters that have not yet been put into tankōbon format. I propose we take the relevant information out of this article and summarize it into a short paragraph or blurb of no more than 5 - 10 lines regarding what happened in that Volume. These summaries should be a little bigger than the current episode summaries we have in List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes and the Naruto episodes by Season articles. Currently, there are 38 Volumes that have been released in Japan. That means adding 38 decently sized paragraphs to that article right now, with a new Volume, and therefore, paragraph added every 3 months or so.
The next part of my proposal is to write a slightly larger summary of no more than 3 to 5 paragraphs to summarize the chapters that have not yet been published in tankōbon format. As new chapters come out, we update this summary. As new Volumes are released, we delete the relevant chapters from the larger summary and either write a new summary for what happened in the Volume or move the relevant information from the larger summary to the Volume area. That way we can still have a summary of the Naruto plot, without it being too bloated or violating WP:NOT#PLOT. So, what do you guys think? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Summarizing volumes would be acceptable, though summarizing uncollected chapters would be more trouble than necessary. Not only would it rapidly become 10 paragraphs in length due to excessive detail, but it would also be prone to size fluctuations as a result of build-ups of un-volumized chapters. Can you imagine what it would look like if Naruto fell as far behind as Bleach? Only summarizing volumes would be much easier. ~Snapper T o 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - this would require splitting the List of Naruto chapters article due to size issues, but would be acceptable. A similar (or somewhat similar) thing is seen at List of Bleach episodes, where arcs are briefly summarized independent of the actual episode lists. Also, it would create impetus to improve the List of Naruto chapters page, which is good. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That would depend on how long of a summary each volume receives. One paragraph probably wouldn't cause problems, though two or more likely would. Besides, it seems likely that Viz will re-number the volumes once they reach Part II at the end of the year, so some sort of split might be necessary anyway. ~Snapper T o 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if someone could take the time to explain to me why this is anything more than a cleanup issue, it would be greatly appreciated, and please no "snappy" one liners from the wiki-vets who just link you to a random page without any incite as to what or how anything should be interpreted, this just caught my curiosity it almost seems as if a handful a people who were not affiliated with this page until this all began are popping up all over the place, i guess what i am trying to say is rather than sitting here and blasting everyone who is a fan of the articles put together on naruto and work to cultivate and preserve whats here to the point that, this discussion is now 65k, wouldn't a "real wikipedian" find his or her time better served trying to create something new to replace the article in question? ...so that the creators and contributors wouldn't feel so sh*t out of luck? -c 76.48.204.53 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unsuitable for Wikipedia because it's completely plot summary. For fictional subjects like Naruto, any related articles must talk about real world impact of the subjects. An article that just retells what happened in the plot is a in-universe story with no information on real-world impact. Not only that, an article that is detailed to the point where people use it to follow the story instead of reading the manga or watching the anime (which a number of readers of this article have admitted to doing) is in danger of being a copyright violation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a cleanup issue because there really is no point in keeping the article. Having an article solely for the purpose of having plot is pointless, and does violate policy, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT. The only reason that an article on plot should be maintained is that there is something truly unique that can be supported by out-of-universe sources, thus passing WP:N and proving itself notable in a real world context. And following policy is important, lest Wikipedia would degenerate into anarchy and become pointless. Anyway, this article should be incorporated into the central Naruto article (which needs to be aimproved anyway). As to your concerns about a proposal, read above. In any case, before you take potshots at the editors here, many of whom have made quite admirable contributions to Wikipedia, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We appreciate respect and courtesy, and would enjoy it if you followed that as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i was being civil, but you hardly are, so WP:CIVIL did i do that right? any how i am just trying to say that i don't think the naruto documentation is going to hurl the wiki into anarachy, and or make it "worse" in any way as something that touts itself a collective of knowledge you thing something such as an importaint cultural refrence would be imparitive, but the truth is: if naruto was dead and finished this wouldn't be an issue just because something is "hot" its almost like it attracts both enthusiasts and ... well what ever you would call them... anti-enthusiasts i guess? point is now follow me here:

wiki == documentation of all things.. culture being one of them culture == what is "popular", "trend setting", "influential"...and so on culture as it is in an encyclopedia == documention of of said and unsaid elements to the point of an aproximation of comprehnsion now as it were, i know its hard to believe but naruto is a cultural icon so understanding naruto is understanding an element of a particular cultural timeframe and its values so with your own guidelines taken to heart, the article need be rectified, yes, but not destroyed to someone reading about modern jpn. cutural refrences and impacts on a global scope this information will be invaluable.... now once again i AM NOT SAYING.. that it does not need work and to leave well enough alone, but i imagine the destroyer point of view must come from youthfulness and the want to break and build, but as i said wouldn't the energy be better spent influencing the worker "ants" as it were? more can be said of leadership then yelling at others for a project's shortcoming, so respect is what i give to the rightful project leaders and their ability to understand others point of view as it were... -c 76.48.204.53 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not documentation of all things. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for further explanation. Jay32183 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as redundant to List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes. WP:USEFULness is not an acceptable argument to keep an article that is in clear violation of policies, such as WP:NOT#PLOT. However, that also doesn't mean one should go on an WP:ALLORNOTHING campaign to have every article about a book, movie, anime, or manga. WP:NOT#PLOT mealy prevents articles that are nothing more then plot summaries with little to no real-world context, sourced annalist or critical commentary. Generally small plot articles can often times be fixed by adding in such information and controlling their size. But when you get to the scale of this one, it's far to big to clean up and you are better off deleting. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those IP's that think they're the only ones who care for the Naruto articles then look at any Naruto pages history and you will see most of our names there, maybe not mine becuase I work in the talk pages more than anything else. I think thsi is starting to get too out of hand Its become a battle of IP's vs Users and that usally (in what I've seen before) can turn very ugly. This page should be deleted for the reasons given and I hope that the admin knows what's right. And besides what's the point of having this if there's no regular Plot of Naruto any more, where were all these IP's when we were deleting that?Sam ov the blue sand 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo bradbury

I can't find any evidence that this person meets WP:BIO, and no sources to show notability are cited in the article. Interesting if true, though. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are added verifying the claims made in the article. NawlinWiki 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the creator can come up with some hard evidence. I've seen this type of "semi-plausible" hoax before. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 21:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of importance, poor guy missed the cosmic boat ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Anas ^talk? 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita

As a member of the Olympics WikiProject, I can safely say that this page has no place in the encyclopedia. While it was a creative attempt at manipulating medal statistics, it certainly does not have any standing. This page only serves as an opposing point of view to the 1996 Summer Olympics medal count page, which is the way that the IOC tabulates the medal count. And besides the fact that it is not a widely accepted format, the page offers little source material and suggests no possibility of future expansion.

The following similar article is being nominated for the same reason:

— _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐ 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless page, obviously just created by a POV pusher that wanted to see (insert least favourite large medal-hogging country here) moved further down the list underneath their own. Non-encyclopdic OR. --Maelwys 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - clearly an attempt to insert POV under the disguise of NPOV. Problematic because the implied mathematical correlation between the two numbers is flawed. For example, "number of medals" can't be used as a measurement of how "good" a nation is at Olympic sports; perhaps only just at "sports that offer a lot of medals". One nation could potentially win 58 medals in swimming, yet only two in football. Also, a single athlete can skew the results significantly, such as Kirsty Coventry who won three swimming medals for Zimbabwe in 2004. I don't think the size of Zimbabwe's population had as much to do with their ranking by this method as the natural talent and training of this specific individual. Andrwsc 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge into the medal count page and delete or just delete. Since I'm not an expert on the topic, I'd take the recommendations to delete. Corpx 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, among other problems there is a natural limitation on the number of medals that can be won even by a large national Olympic team. This analysis simply favors small countries (like the top one, Bahamas). That country sent 24 athletes to the 2004 Olympics, almost 1 in 1000 Bahamian citizens. If the US were to send a team in those proportions, we would send 200,000 athletes, and likely win proportionally. It's simply an artificial measurement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Medals per capita? Yeouch. WP:OR and WP:NOT apply here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nothing but original research with no comprehensive encyclopaedic interest. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. JodyB_talk 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (politician) (2nd nomination)

I previously nominated Smith along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Smith is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transafer to Smith.

He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.

He is also not a noted political philosopher but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every senior member of this small group does this.

He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the elected guideline is intended for a candidate based system like the US. In a party-based system like UK, you can have leaders who are not elected Corpx 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but is he notable? You haven't argued that he is. Bigdaddy1981 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by his article, I think being a "National Secretary" for a national-level party in a pariamentary level system is a notable position, so he should have a page. Corpx 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Keep, if an external source can be found, which does not appear to be certain. DGG
Delete This is not the British Labour Party. This is a tiny far left splinter group which meets in this guys bedroom with his mum making the tea. The Socialist Workers Party doesn't even stand in elections anymore and when it did it was regularly thrashed by the Monster Raving Loony Party. Nick mallory 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have sources for each of those. (not that any of them necessarily apply to possible individual notability) DGG 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - really, wikipedia's going to turn into a phone book if pages like this are allowed to stay. Kripto 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Holding some office in a political party (especially a very minor one) does not automatically make the holder notable individually - as in this case. Cheers, DWaterson 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a7. Sr 13 09:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Blood

No sources given, could not find any reliable sources. Also a big question of notability. Iknowyourider (t c) 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notoriety / mentions to be a notable gang Corpx 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. I'm sure that they would love to be notorious, but it looks like they are not. Nothing in Google News. Adrian M. H. 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instinctive Shooting International

Two sources are cited. Of these, the first is about a different organisation and mentions this only as an also-ran, the second mentions the firm only as the employer of a security guard from whom a one-sentence quotation is taken.

Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are trivial mentions and does not give notability. This company also fails WP:CORP Corpx 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NN too. --Shuki 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JodyB_talk 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bossaball

AfDs for this article:

Not Notable sport, External Links is a primary source & Copyright violations on the images. ExtraDry 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little independent sources Will ^(talk) 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt - There is no evidence of notability here. This obvoiusly a is a new and very niche sport. Given that the logs for this article show that it has been removed a number of times and recreated afterwards in each instance (including almost immediately the last two times) I must conclude that salting is needed to keep this topic off of Wikipedia. Should this sport show signs of catching on (meaning articles in notable publications and/or press coverage of bossaball tournaments, etc.) then a deletion review can be done to decide if unsalting is appropriate. --EMS | Talk 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nominator's claim, there are no image copyright vios. Rracecarr 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three of the images are taken from the website thus copyright vios. ExtraDry 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Commons Image:Bossaball-wiki-3.jpg also appears on [26], it is not necessarily a copyright violation. The version uploaded to commons is of a much higher resolution and it is not cut off by cheesy flash formatting. Other photos also appear on [27], with the disclaimer stating "Feel free to use these images for any purpose." There are several possibilities: the photographer contributed personally to bossaball.com and also released his work on Commons, the website used a free picture they found on Commons without proper attribution, or the Commons user lied about taking these pictures. I highly doubt that the copyright status, in this case, is a huge concern, but you could always check by e-mailing User:Pedroromero2 or the webmaster of bossaball.com. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copright is always a concern. ExtraDry 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hope you make an attempt to contact the uploader and webmaster. Nevertheless, the use of questionable images by themselves is not a valid argument for deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No image copyright violation. Notability and Sources are being discussed on Talk:Bossaball. Existing sources need to be used in the article. Article is a stub = it needs work and time. Ronald.peavey 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like fun! However, weak keep -- the coverage is there, but it's still trivial-ish. I'm sorta seeing notability momentum there so I'd give the article a chance. -- Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. I'd like to get this on a beach or something nearby. 128.61.53.136 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.61.53.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dale Smith (The Bill). NawlinWiki 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale 'Smithy' Smith

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dale 'Smithy' Smith

Contested prod. A cut-and-paste duplicate of Dale Smith (The Bill). Kurt Shaped Box 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a fan of The Bill, but I can't see why Smithy needs two articles (if it were Don Beach on the other hand....) Bigdaddy1981 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No real need for AFD - WP:BOLD and redirect it as it's duplicate content. Lugnuts 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Walton^talk 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insect fighting

I am not sure that this is a proper topic for a WP article. There does seem to be a tradition of Cricket fighting in East Asia (which has its own article) and there are also staged insect fights on YouTube, etc. I'm not sure you can put the two things together, plus some pop culture references, and create the general topic of "insect fighting". Steve Dufour 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentary I wrote, and am still the primary contributor to the Cricket fighting article. This insect fighting article is problematic. The only reference actually refers to cricket fights. The rest of it is entirely un-referenced. And whereas cricket fights were organized into leagues and tournaments with professional bookmakers setting the odds, other kinds of insect fighting is generally amateur stuff. I think the subject matter is legitimate even if this article currently is not so great. A possible solution might be to re-direct it to cricket fighting and create a stub section heading. Once there is a paragraph of referenced material it could be moved back over the re-direct. SchmuckyTheCat
Comment. Seems like a potentially encyclopedic topic, but needs more sources for sure.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some cleanup and a few more sources, but I think it's notable enough to have an article. It definitely exists as far as beetles, because I remember it being mentioned briefly in a Nature documentary back when they did a series entirely about insects (Alien Empire, I believe it was called). Aparently certain species of large beetle fight as a kind of mating ritual, and there are people who gamble on it...If I can go back and find the specific documentary (and that's a pretty big if) would we be able to use it as a source? Calgary 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. SchmuckyTheCat

Delete as unsourced. I did a cursory seach and couldn't come up with much, and I'm not sure there is any out there. If a source can be found to the contrary, then I could change my mind. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add sources. After all, people have been chucking bugs in glass jars and shaking them for centuries. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that is true. Lots of people ride bicycles without wearing shirts too, but there is not a WP article about that. Steve Dufour 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to cricket fighting per Arkyan - I can't see this as being verifiable. Cricket fighting, on the other hand, seems to be verifiable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But I fail to see the logic in directing an article to another with a narrower scope.--Huaiwei 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic "Insect fighting" might be too big for a WP article. Should it also include insects fighting each other in nature? I'm sure that happens. Steve Dufour 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more that the above suggestion would appear odd. The larger potential of scope the general article has, the more it seems absurd that it is being directed to just one aspect of it.--Huaiwei 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say is the topic "insect fighting" is too large and vague for a WP article. I don't think there is an article on "animal fighting". Steve Dufour 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but looking at the current state of the article, I doubt the article will explode in size anytime soon, so your concerns may be unfounded. I don't think we have a policy of not writing an article on insects in general just because it may become "too large". As for "vagueness", I do believe we can set parameters right with a good introduction, and not allow it to spill over to include spontaneous fights between insects in the wild.--Huaiwei 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of choices said "sports and games" so I thought that was the right place for it. Steve Dufour 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I share the same feeling that has been stated here, the subject seems worthy of a topic, but I honestly haven't stumbled on any decent sources for insect fighting. I think that it should be stubbed and completely rewritten. That of course is a content/editorial decision that doesn't have much place here, but that's how I feel about it. The other tempting decision is to merge cricket fighting and other like articles (if there are any) to insect fighting, as insect fighting is a broader scope topic. daveh4h 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Butterfree, I choose you!--Perceive 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment haha, but I don't think we're including Pokemon here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does need references, though. Kwertii 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeland Records Limited (UK)

NN label, spam/advert. Fails WP:CORP Lugnuts 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I can't find any online non-trivial sources (cannot comment about offline sources, of course, but I suspect that there are none). Adrian M. H. 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Rho

Initially an article on a nn person, this article has since been subject to several acts of vandalism. As the subject is living, I've reverted these per WP:BLP. All those who have contributed to the article, including the original editor, are single purpose accounts. In short: fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable person, possible vanispami-I can never spell that right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete - is this article for real? It reads like a personals ad. Bigdaddy1981 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non notable by any measure. Could be speedied as no claim of notabiity, but no rush.Obina 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oregongirl0407 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organized crime in popular culture

This article is a directory of entries only loosely associated by the mention of organized crime. It is essentially trivia, which should be avoided. The content in the article is based on original research. Whispe ring 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to agree. Since there isn't any sources or published articles on this (at least sourced in the article) it appears to be largely bases on original research. Maybe a category could be made as an alternative --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fit it with some cement shoes. A laundry list of appearances does not constitute an article. Makes no attempt to address the topic of organized crime in the media. Etc. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mrzaius appears to have been improving this in the month since it was first created. I recommend getting rid of the video games, comics, and music, and distinguish between Prohibition-era gangsters and Vegas-era mobsters. It's a good carve out from the existing topic crime films Mandsford 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be noted that several of the redirects to this article (Gangster film, List of gangster films and List of Mafia movies) have extensive edit histories, thanks to a number of merges and cut&paste moves. Although the current article is a bit of a mess, perhaps there is something useful to be salvaged from it? PC78 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Unfocused and unmaintainable article. Eusebeus 12:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if kept it should be renamed. It is not about organized crime in general, only about one of its facets. Whether this or a something new, article like this will exist on WP as the topic is definitely one of the most popular. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep potentially sourceable and verifiable, it might become a very interesting one in case it would be integrated and expanded rather than simply deleted. However I agree this should not be a mere list of Mafia-related movies and books, but consider the real impact of organized crime behaviours and characters in popular culture. --Angelo 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because like the nominator said, this is a directory. Categories already exist for these items, and there's no encyclopedic value in putting these loosely-associated entries together into a list of indiscriminate trivia to convey the so-called topic of organized crime in popular culture. Seriously, someone needs to write a prose article of some entity in popular culture based on significant coverage from independent, secondary sources, to put this listcruft and all the rest to shame. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim (MAS*H)

Does not satisfy notability for Television episodes, about time to be deleted. Trumpetband ^WIHTW? 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all of the episodes in this series have been tagged for notability concerns. Why haven't they been deleted and redirected to the parent article or moved to List of M*A*S*H episodes, which seems misleading in itself, since it's just a rundown of the seasons?--Ispy1981 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Episode articles for television shows that have broadcast in any major market are pretty much granted notability per previous consensus. M*A*S*H is about as notable a television show you can come up with, and thus individual episode articles should stay. This is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs to be cleaned up, but otherwise from a Emmy Award winning show. Callelinea 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I have been swayed. Someone needs to remove the notability tags and put in cleanup tags, though.--Ispy1981 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Arkyan. Dalejenkins 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's generally accepted that if a show is notable, so are its episodes. M*A*S*H is one of the most notable shows out there; therefore, its episodes should be kept and cleaned up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article consists entirely of this: "A young Korean boy, apparently an orphan, arrives as a patient at the hospital and Trapper John wants to adopt him and send him to the United States. After he and a helicopter pilot rescue the boy from the middle of the camp’s minefield, a nun from the nearby orphanage arrives with the boy’s mother." All it needs is a tagline that says "Hawkeye:Alan Alda Trapper John:Wayne Rogers" and a beginning that tells me it's on channels 9 and 11 at tonight, and then you can say, "Wikipedia is not (snicker snicker) TV Guide". Funny how we can't stand a list of films about organized crime, but we love an episode summary that can be found on several different M*A*S*H websites. Mandsford 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We don't delete articles on episodes of notable TV shows just because they are short. We call them "stubs" and try to improve them. Masaruemoto 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJL 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Episode is notable for simply being an episode of M*A*S*H. Matthew 12:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only to allow the already established review process to do what it's designed to do. I ^{(said) (did)} 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^talk 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrill Middle School

Non-notable, un-referenced, middle school. No real usable context. --trey 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total lack of notability. --EMS | Talk 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Needs work, but reading it shows that it is not the normal middle school, that is why I say keep it. Could use more sources. Callelinea 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Plains-Fanwood Regional School District. Deor 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reason to keep this. It looks somewhat better financed than most, but otherwise unremarkable. Brianyoumans 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School and its staff have won multiple awards and has been covered extensively in the press, all of which is documented with reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think a teacher winning an award should give a middle school notability. Most of the references in there are absolutely trivial mentions and add no notability to this school. Corpx 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two awards--the other one went to the principal. There are two notable athletes as alumni, and articles discussing their middle school career have been found, showing it started while still at the school. Over the bar. DGG 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the alumni pages mention where they attended middle school. Just because they attended kindergarten somewhere doesnt make that notable either. The principal's award is awarded by the state Assosiation of principals. Neither of these award winners have a page on wikipedia, which futher shows the notability of the award Corpx 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has more than three third-party refs; it documents multiple recent awards & it has two wiki-notable alumni. Frog47 05:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N as there is nothing notable here. -- But|seriously|folks 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill middle school, whose claim to notability via successful alum & awards fails to convince, in the former as being germane, in the latter as being particularly unusual. Eusebeus 10:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --Bill.matthews 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant school with faculty awards and notable alumni. Anyone coming to Wikipedia looking for this school would be pleased to find this article. TerriersFan 18:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think most notability alumns ever mention their elementary school when disucussing their careers Corpx 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few alums mention a middle (not elementary) school. Both of them did here, which only makes it all the more notable. Alansohn 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What mentions are you referring to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs).

All of the sources provided demonstrate a definitive connection between the school and the individuals and their athletic career. Alansohn 00:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Alansohn, TerrierFan and DGG's reasoning. Noroton 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep due to notable awards, notable press coverage and presence of multiple notable alumni. If not kept, recommend redirecting to the school district. JoshuaZ 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please many reliable sources and notable alumni and other awards too yuckfoo 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.-Wafulz 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest churches in the world

There seems to be little point to this page. As the introduction itself says, there is no really objective way to determine the size of a church, and size is a pretty non-specific term in any case. Square feet or cubic feet (both very difficult to find information on for most churches in any case)? Which parts of the church should be included? For instance, the title of largest cathedral (and largest Gothic church) in the world is disputed between St John's Cathedral in New York and Liverpool Anglican Cathedral. In addition, the article has existed for a month and still only includes nine churches. This is only ever going to be a list of a) people's favourite churches and b) churches with easily discovered square/cubic area information (not many of them, I would suggest). -- Necrothesp 14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real inclusion criteria, no attempt to define what constitutes a "church", and so on. As stated, the very intro paragraph of this list admits that it is pretty much a mess. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe square feet are used as the basis for "largest". The fact that one could quibble or could create other lists, such as "largest volume churches," does not prevent area being used to order the entries and to determine what goes on the list. It is not an indiscriminate list because someones favorite (small) church gets ppromptly deleted as not being as large as the large churches. The churches are notable because they were created, at staggering expense and effort, specifically to be notable. St Peters was created with the goal of being large and impressive. Size is a very easy thing to measure; if it were instead List of prettiest churches in the world there would be more basis for quibbling. Footprint of a church is pretty easy to determine. The largest churches in the world have been written about and studied by architects. Quibbles or disclaimer do not justify deleting a list. The list is as encyclopedic as List of highest mountains which says "The dividing line between a mountain with multiple peaks and separate mountains is not always clear" and that the heights are uncertain. List of lakes by area says "Note: The area of some lakes can vary considerably over time, either seasonally or from year to year". List of rivers by length says "The length of a river is not always easy to calculate." Edison 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Total area of what? The nave, the nave and aisles, the nave and aisles and chancel, every subsidiary building? What? Do you include the many chapels in large Roman Catholic churches? Does floor area necessarily mean largest? St Peter's has a large floor area indeed, but its impressive size is just as much to do with its height and its cavernous interior (i.e. volume). The criteria for the article are far too woolly. Yes, the largest churches have been written about extensively, but I can virtually guarantee that pretty much every account has a different figure for area. Compare with List of tallest churches in the world, which includes most of the top end of the tallest churches and has a clearly defined criterion for inclusion (tallest means tallest). Also note that of the nine churches so far included on the list two have no area specified and one has a variable area. -- Necrothesp 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So do you want to delete the list of rivers, far woolier than the area of an 800 year old church, because of the many uncertainties and disagreements and year to year variation? Uncertainties and need for operational definitions are bases for editing, not for deletion. Big churches are big churches. The editing process, through consensus, can come up with a metric like Gross leasable area is for shopping malls. Maybe footprint of structures used for worship? Gross holy area? (e.t.a.:) I agree that source data needs to be cited, and that some stated criteria are needed. If the article does not improve in the next several months, the possible deletion could be revisited. It could also be limited to the few in the world with the largest square footage of usable interior space, the largest overall footprint, the greatest volume, and the largest seating capacity. A search shows that various chueches claim to be "largest" on criteria that favor them. Clearly more complicated than "tallest". But we have "largest office building" etc. Edison 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree totally with Edison.. Just because some of us may not like the idea of Lists as articles, does not mean it should be removed. Callelinea 15:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with lists. Don't immediately assume a non-existent reason for proposing an AfD. -- Necrothesp 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and explain what "TK" means. Criterion could be tightened up a bit, but is well enough defined. Clarityfiend 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TK is just editorial shorthand for "to come."

Keep per Edison. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article acknowledges multiple criteria and sort feature allows ordering by desired characteristics. Ample sources are provided for this notable topic. Alansohn 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size is not a non-specific term, and there are objective ways to determine it. Sure, there are different citieria one could establish, but the article acknowledges that. Yes, it may be a somewhat difficult topic to research, but that is not grounds for deletion. Sylvain1972 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list, but add the metric equivalent.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete Everybody knows the largest church in the world is Charlotte Church--Perceive 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lol Bulldog123 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, and please reorganise the references. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faceboy

Contested WP:CSD#A7 deletion, restoring for further review. Please check previous revisions and Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_June_21#Faceboy.27s_page_deleted. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable notability provided. The Rambling Man 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find any independent sources about this person anywhere Corpx 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An earlier version of the article referenced Time Out New York. The website of the show's producer, Surf Reality, includes a current show listing (also listed at the show's venue's web site) and a history. The Village Voice "best of" in 2001 and 2005 seem to be real. This article from New York magazine seems to be real. This is definitely not a mainstream topic, but looks plenty notable to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak to middling keep Seems to be just about notable enough, based on the NYT article. Adrian M. H. 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a significant figure to a lot of NYC artists. Seriously. Yes, he's silly, but so were the dadaists.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaboroni

A small article, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, etc. Also, Job (professional wrestling) mentions it. --Ouzo 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary.--Ispy1981 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wictionary If it's not already there, otherwise delete --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, if this even warrants dictionary status. Eusebeus 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, not being convinced by claims of notability as a property of Wikimedia. Michaelas¹⁰ 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inuktitut Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

Feh, what the feck is this crap? Come on, this is an incredibly minuscule wiki that has received no coverage in reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N and WP:WEB by a country mile, and there is nothing but a one-sentence stub here because there's nothing to say. The article probably won't grow beyond a one-sentence stub for years to come. Expand the List of Wikipedias to cover the minor relevant data and there's no need for this. Not notable, how is it intrinsically so? Moreschi ^Talk 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The only reason this crap isn't speedyable is because it's been through AfD before and (somehow) kept. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability, attribution and notability. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content worth merging. We should not keep an unsourced virtually contentless article about a non-notable Wiki just because we "like" Wikis. It is already listed in List of Wikipedias. The similar article on "List of Wikipedias" on Meta-Wiki [28] has lots more info and data fields than the Wikipedia article: how can we improve the Wikipedia article with the additional Meta-Wiki data? I wish I could read Inuktitut Wikipedia, to see if there are any "rouge admins" among their 3 admins or any what the edit wars look like among the 136 users. They have managed to create over 200 articles with over 4,000 edits, but according to one talk page I found with English text, [29] " we almost totally lack any articles whit actual content". The editor with that tak page was said to be the only active speaker of the language (!) active in the project, which doesn't make much sense. If, in time, it has several independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of it, a separate article can be created. It sounds like a worthy project, and I congratulate those participating in it. It should be a valuable asset to the 40,000 or so speakers of the language in northern Canada if they get some articles with content. Edison 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nationality-specific or language-specific subjects remain notable regardless of the small size of the country. The major online encyclopedia in one language is as notable as the one in another, even if it is and will remain much smaller.DGG 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on, that just can't be right. You mean to tell me that this tiny wiki is somehow intrinsically notable because it's part of Wikimedia? I have no doubt it's worthy of a mention somewhere, but it's fundamentally not notable. It doesn't deserve it's own article. It's a non-notable website just like any other. Moreschi ^Talk 09:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don't get it... isn't this an article that promotes a Wikipedia project and Wikipedia's philosophy of an encyclopedia whose editors come from all over the world? Maybe we should nominate the "Make a donation" section for deletion, since it's blatant advertising. It's notable enough that Wikipedia has articles in Inuktitut. The alternative to mentioning this is that the column on the main page would feature all languages, not just the 35 main ones. I think, however, that any article about a Wikipedia in another language should include a few examples of what articles are on there. I can't read Inuktitut and my computer can't even support the font for its alphabet. I'll go one further-- I think it's bigoted to write off another culture's language as "non-notable". Mandsford 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not writing off another culture's language as non-notable. I'm writing off a non-notable website, per these rules, as non-notable. Yes, we are supposed to push free content to a limited extent, but it's blatant POV/systemic bias just to keep articles on non-notable websites around just because they're part of Wikimedia. Notable how? This website has not received any coverage in independant reliable secondary sources. It's patently non-notable. Moreschi ^Talk 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. I don't see anyone here calling the Inuktitut language "non-notable", nor should they, but their Wikipedia does not seem to have attained much notability. --Metropolitan90 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison. Maxa megalon 2000 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this particular version of Wikipedia. I'm sure a mention somewhere is appropriate and sufficient. GassyGuy 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing in the talk page cited above from this Wikipedia that only one of the editors speaks the language and that most of the few articles lack any real content makes me wonder if some of the smaller Wikis aren't just vanity hobbies like people creating "micronations" or "constructed languages" or imagined nobility heirarchies of defunct governments, and as non-notable as "things made up in school" and collectively less notable than the 493rd most important Pokemon character. If people who don't speak a language are writing the articles, it probably comes out like English As She Is Spoke or like something translated by Babelfish [30]. I had always pictured these as the collective work of people who shared a language and sought to preserve their culture and history, and this one at least looks like it isn't filling that role, based on the English comments readable on talk pages of it. Edison 22:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but welcome back if they ever get big and famous. There's little to be merged to Wikipedia or related articles. Sure, a Wikipedia language edition would be worth discussing if we could say more about it than "it's a Wikipedia in language X that was established in Y and has Z articles as of Q". However, that particular sort of information would be best suited in some list article (or even metawiki material; in that case an encyclopaedia wouldn't really need to cover anything besides the fact that such language edition exists in first place). Besides, I've always liked the rough guideline of "if it shows up in en.wikipedia's main page, it's famous enough of a topic"; a Wikipedia edition with 217 articles has a very very long way to go to reach 25,000 articles... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore business magazine

Non-notable free online publication relating to offshore finance. Articles editors also have an unfortunate tendency towards linkspam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, could be {{db-web}}. --Evb-wiki 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qualifies for speedy delete. The creator and primary editor of the article appears to have a COI as a founder and promoter for the magazine. --Ronz 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Walton^talk 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Wrestling Syndicate

Non notable fed, poorly written and referenced article. Darrenhusted 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IWS is one of, if not the most notable indy promotion in Canada. Do some research before nominating AfD's next time. --DanZero 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC) While not an SPA DanZero has made few contributions outside of AfD debates[reply]

"Do some research before nominating AfD's next time.", I suggest you tone it down. Vote and/or improve the articles. Quit the snarking at me. Darrenhusted 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable subject matter, Danzero may have expressed himself poorly, but he is correct. Callelinea 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then improve the article, because as it stands it's very poor. Darrenhusted 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The IWS is a really good Wrestling Fed, and the articles are all true. Keep. Crowbar91 While not an SPA, this user has few edits outside of the article up for deletion.
Strong Delete, Fails WP:V, and WP:CORP, seemingly could also be a walled garden. Bmg916^Speak 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per BMG. Nikki311 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus result = Delete. --VS ^talk 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramantis Black

This seems to be a fictional profile, written is the style of a fiction character rather than a pro-wrestler, and the only link is to his myspace page, and that seems to mainly be selling his shirts. Even his weight is kayfabe. Darrenhusted 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although, as a "pro wrestler," he is a fictional character, he fails WP:BIO. Also, contains both PR and commercial WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixing the page is simple enough - delete the second paragraph. Otherwise, UltraMantis is plenty notable as a star and commentator with CHIKARA Pro. --DanZero 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC) While not a SPA DanZero has made few contribution outside of voting in AfDs[reply]
Comment, Dan you need more references than a myspace page. Darrenhusted 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, true enough, if I can't find any primary/secondary sources then I'd support the deletion.--DanZero 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable indy wrestler un-deserving of an article (as of right now anyway). Nikki311 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not sufficiently notable as it stands, without the requisite sources. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable indy commentator for Chikara. Kris 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, are any of these links sufficient to verify notability: [31][32][33] ? This looks useful as well, but that webpage looks terrible; is Pro Wrestling Torch a respectable source? John Vandenberg 11:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer, the first link is just an indy fed homepage, the second is not a link for UM Black but for Hallowicked, the third page is just a list of results, and the fourth is a video review. None establish notability, they are just trivial, passing references. And is still doesn't change that the only link is myspace, and even that seems to just be there to flog merch. The CHIKARA link doesn't establish anything other than he is a member of CHIKARA, notability is not inherited. Darrenhusted 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"March 19, 2005--Chikara Pro Wrestling: Hallowickid & Ultramantis Black ..." is pretty clear that UM Black was part of that promotion. UM Black was a wrestler in the video that is reviewed; again, is Pro Wrestling Torch a respectable source? I am surprised to hear you say that notability is not inherited, as other Afd's have been based on the premise that the wrestlers are not notable because they have only been in less notable promotions. I agree that a single appearance in a high profile promotion wouldnt be enough for a bio, but the links I have provided indicate that UM Black has a long history with this promotion. John Vandenberg 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for substantial non trivial coverage, not passing mentions in wrestling results. All the links above just reveal that UM Black is actually less notable than before, not more. Darrenhusted 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy not only appears at live shows but is featured in hundreds of DVD's that are sold around the world. --EdWood 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You could copy and paste that in to most of the Porn Star AfDs and it would still not save them. I suggest you improve this article then if you have such extensive knowledge of the subject. Darrenhusted 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —« ANIMUM » 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Affleck

Fails WP:BIO. Backup quarterback for a minor-league football team. May assert that he is notable, but does not assert anything notable. Also, violates WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Evb-wiki 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria for people. There's also a clear conflict of interest seeing as the trivia section is made up of information that would have to come from the subject himself.-Wafulz 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, he plays in a league that cannot be considered "minor league." The PPL must be semi professional because I can't find anything about it. The most popular result on google for the name Mark Affleck is a CEO, not an unknown football player. My guess is that this guy plays in someone's backyard. Clearly, notability is not established in the article, and until he plays for a more well known team, it probably won't be. --Cyrus Andiron 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I suspect hoax. I've only three hits for this "Bunker Hill Bobcats" team he allegedly quarterbacks, and it's the same three hits for a "Panhandle Football Alliance." RGTraynor 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sack this quarterback. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTE and WP:COI. Realkyhick 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says he plays for the PFL, which is an NCAA Division I league. According to WP:BIO collegiate sports satisfy this (unless I'm mistaken). Thoughts? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's a WP:HOAX. "Affleck was selected from Free Agency in the 2003 PFL Expansion Draft by the newly-formed Bunker Hill Bobcats. . . . However, on March 4th, 2007, Affleck agreed to a five-year deal that would keep him with the Bobcats through the 2012 season." Doesn't sound very collegiate. --Evb-wiki 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wafulz and Realkyhick. MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bobcats played their home games at Happy Creek School, in Inwood, WV, which is a few blocks away from where I live. They are a semi-pro team, as Darksville, WV has a team as well. The bobcats of the PFL play opposite to the Winchester Tigers from the Mason Dixon Football League. There were tons of yahoo groups that had their old schedule and even a list of playersAbster08 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it does not seem to meet the qualifications for notability. All the redlinks in the article suggest that no one else thinks this league notable enough to create content about. SU Linguist 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - no consensus. --VS ^talk 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Aleman

Standup commedian who's biggest claim-to-fame appears to be that be was immediately eliminated from America's Got Talent, having insulted the judges. Just not notable, IMHO. Also, quite likely a subject created vanity page, given the creator's user ID. TexasAndroid 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim-to-fame is a microscopically-short appearance on a TV talent show: the linked clip is 20 seconds long! Looks like a WP:COI case as well, one of the pictures has the description "The picture is of me, Comedian Ricardo Aleman". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article for non-notable alleged comic. Realkyhick 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious vanity.--Ispy1981 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Though he has appeared on national television, and has released a CD, he does not satisfy the requirements set forth on WP:BIO. Maybe some day, but as of now, he isn't notable. Though WP:COI isn't a good thing, it doesn't necesarily mean that something should be deleted. I'd say honestly it should be on a case by case basis. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Deleted I am terribly sorry to upset anyone. I thought as long as I posted facts, and not say “He’s Great” I was permitted. There are very few comedians on here, many with fewer credits than myself. I blanked out the page, and if I’m notable enough down the road, someone will write about it. Ricardo

Administrative note: I asked Starblind to reopen this discussion because the author apparently regretted his comment immediately above and recreated the article. Shalom ^Hello 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, and with that in mind the closing admin may wish to let this run an extra couple of days to make up for the time during which it was closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: delete for similar reasons as everyone has been saying already. Shalom ^Hello 01:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have changed my vote from before, as I spoke with him via my talk page after this was originally deleted. He has provided independant sources written about himself, that are now sourced on his page. I believe him to pass WP:BIO --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It! I've seen a few articles on what he did. A quick google also tells me he's a regular at most of the NYC clubs. There's no reason to delete. WP:BIO --chrise007 ^{talk with me·changes} 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it asserts notability, and appears to be notable, although a (verify) tag might be needed. Bearian 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the support everyone. I reposted per my talk with Sumnjim. Raleman
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John Vandenberg 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia isn't paper and the worst that happens is the stub sits for a while, and if it can't ever be more than a stub, we can delete it later. User:Raleman seems to be aware of WP:COI and doesn't seem to be abusing Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Røde Microphones

Procedural nomination. Article has previously been speedy deleted citing CSD G11 and A7, with no assertion to notability despite the article being in existence for over a year. Article has been recreated, and despite being in existence for just over three weeks, it remains as nothing but a one sentence article which has failed to deal with any of the issues giving rise to previous speedies including WP:V, WP:CORP, WP:RS, etc. It was tagged for speedy as CSD A1 on June 5, but due to Speedy queue delays remained unactioned until the tag was removed on June 29. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context, no sources, no verification, no nothing at all! Heck, they don't even list a web site for this company. Realkyhick 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP, WP:V. RGTraynor 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its current incarnation this is speediable, since notability isn't even asserted; but I think it's best to let the AfD run its course. Deor 15:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep short but expandable article on a very notable company. Røde, especially the Røde Classic and NT5 models, are widely used in professional music. Note: some of the previous versions in history are superior to the current version. Definitely passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With due respect to the above user, it's been given three individual chances to be improved and nothing has happened. Each time the article has been created, it has been left languishing and was nothing more than spam and corpcruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I submitted the stub a year and a half ago, I most definitely did not do it for the purpose of spamming or advertising. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's quite basic, and could use some cleanup, but is certainly notable. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded and cleaned up the article; plenty of hits on Factiva, definitely notable in the professional music industry Recurring dreams 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is certainly a notable company and rather well known within the audio engineering industry. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. However passes WP:N with a reliable secondary source of Sound on Sound magazine. A short article is not grounds for deletion. Assize 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand as per Assize. --NAHID 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't see any significant problems with the article in its current state. Lankiveil 11:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, looks notable and well-referenced now, good work Recurring dreams. --Canley 14:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimeTrex

Spam article lacking in verifiable sources and no case for made for Wikipedia:Notability. fails WP:CORP Hu12 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Struck the spam revert and went back to the version I threw out there a few months ago, but still can't make a case for NOTE - Haven't been able to find much of anything but listings on shareware and OSS distribution sites. MrZaius^talk 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not established by the article & links given. EyeSerene^TALK 11:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Try not to bite the newbies. The users who worked on this article are new and are trying to write in a non-spammy manner, as noted on my talk page discussion.-Wafulz 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Respectfully dissagree that this is a WP:BITE situation. Article was created almost a year ago (14 August 2006) and deleted twice. Since that time multiple editors, have noted their concerns for this article (22:05, 14 August 2006, 22:05, 14 August 2006, 01:45, 15 August 2006, 02:18, 15 August 2006, 06:38, 13 April 2007, 06:57, 15 June 2007 14:12, 15 June 2007). Not much more than an Infobox, external links to timetrex and catagories were added since. Plenty time has elapsed for the corrections to be made. Ip's involved with this article source from the same location. WP:COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote, Where the aims of Wikipedia are ignored in order to advance, in this case, TimeTrex. As noted on Wafulz talk page discussion started 27 June 2007, it took a deletion to have these concerns addressed. However, they were not addressed, the result was these edits after restoration of the page(28 June 2007), more promotional language, and links. No attempt at third party verifiable sources, or notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising TimeTrex.--Hu12 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this page not realizing it had been deleted in the past to try to prevent Comparison of time tracking software from being emptied out/listing purely commercial software after deleting the non-notable members, but, try as I might, I haven't been able to find much of anything that can be used to make a case for note for TimeTrex. MrZaius^talk 05:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is Not for Me

Anonymous song posted on the Internet. No sources cited in the article other than Youtube and 2 other sites that are hosting the song. Article states "it is not clear who wrote and published it". Fails to establish song's notability through reliable independent sources, see WP:V. NawlinWiki 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Islam is not for me either, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Without a verifiable claim of notability, this topic is not for Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a long discussion with original author about POV issues (see the talk page). He insisted on maintaining his stance. I tried explaining that while I generally agreed personally with his assertion that the song is Islamaphobic, that designation inherently carries a non-neutral point of view. Furthermore, the song itself doesn't seem to be notable or attracting all that much attention. Realkyhick 15:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any real evidence that this is notable, beyond it being available several different places. Brianyoumans 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability, lacks documentation --Orange Mike 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. SU Linguist 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-There are article son songs on wikipedia.This does not violate WP:SOAP.There are articles with accusations of anti-semtism why no deletion for them? The article needs expansion not deletion.It's all over the internet thats why I wrote hte article.-Vmrgrsergr 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a bald claim that "it's all over the Internet" does not constitute documentation, provision of references, or evidence of notability. --Orange Mike 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly written to make a point--Sefringle^Talk 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Non notable. deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweats & Kicks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sweats & Kicks

Non-notable album by non-notable artist Closenplay 11:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Depending on whether or not this [34] and multiple non-trivial coverage of the band in various Michigan newspapers meet with notability.--Ispy1981 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The band has no article so I'm assuming non-notability (it'd be kinda ass-backwards to create articles for the band's albums before creating one for the band (thus establishing notability for the albums)). Obviously, if the band meets notability (with its own article), then the albums would meet notability per WP:BAND Closenplay 11:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Artist is red-linked; if they aren't notable enough for an article, neither is the album. Realkyhick 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Forest

A sixteen year old Russian indy wrestler? Seems close to a hoax, not notable anyway. Darrenhusted 11:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian? Nick mallory 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian then, all the same area. Darrenhusted 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really pal, they're not the same thing at all. If you call a Latvian a Russian you're likely to get your block knocked off. Read a little history before you make entirely ignorant remarks like that. Nick mallory 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to vote, or nitpick? Darrenhusted 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stupid hoax that should have been speedied. I'm merely trying to stop you from regaling the world with your ignorance. If you think Latvians and Russians are the same thing you should spend more time reading Wikipedia and no time writing on it. Nick mallory 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then vote, and quit nit picking. Darrenhusted 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax despite nominator's rationale and attitude. Nick mallory 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Outside of the fact that Ronald Forest doesn't sound very Latvian, this guy's 16, "competes" in an unverified league, and was trained "by himself"? Yeah, non-notable and a hoax. Let's cover all the bases.--Ispy1981 11:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. --Evb-wiki 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, even if he's a legit wrestler. Throw it over the top rope. Realkyhick 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: There's a "Latvian Wrestling Federation," but it's the IOC-aligned Greco-Roman sanctioning body. This one is almost certainly a hoax. (And that aside, a strong dose of WP:CIVIL is appropriate here.) RGTraynor 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete, My only concern is if this person really does exist.. If he does exisit then yes I would say he is notable.. Propably notable in his country, where Greco-Rman style wrestling is much more popular then our "professional" wrestling. The Lavian Wrestling is an affiliate of Latvian Olympic Committee and a member of the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles. Just because we are from America does not mean that other countries "notables" are not notable.. If someone could prove to me that this person exisits then I would meke this a KEEP. Callelinea 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err ... quite aside from the improbability of a Latvian teenager named "Ronald Forest", from where do you get that wrestling is all that popular in Latvia? RGTraynor 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raised Eyebrow, seriously Callelinea? Darrenhusted 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced, probable hoax. NawlinWiki 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a backyard wrestler from the information given.. ThePerfectOne 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC
Delete. Delete. Delete some more. Edited in total by four different users.

Two of the users have edited this page, and nothing else.
Another user vandalised the page by calling the wrestler a "retard"
Another user was nothing but an IP Address, who has edited nothing but this article in the past month, and 2 articles ever

Information is unsourced and ludacris (lawl). Send it with the rest --SteelersFan UK06 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per other users. Hoax or not...this article is about a non-notable wrestler. Nikki311 05:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, he must be very thin, he's 6ft and only 160lbs. And his co-workers are both redlinks with distinctly un-Latvian names. Darrenhusted 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph_Malcolm_Dixon

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joseph Malcolm Dixon

Pages about an extra that has appeared once is really not prestigous enough for a Wikipedia entry. It also looks like the user created the page about themselves, which is what user pages are for! ~ Analysethis ~ Anonymous Deity ~ Just a n00b ~ 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's really nothing there. I mean, at all. Nothing to suggest notability, nothing but pics of him and a line about having a walk-on role. Nothing. God, I wish we could speedy this.--Ispy1981 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't this speediable? Isn't it what we used to call an A7? AndyJones 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A7 says there must be no remotely plausible assertion of notability. The sum total of the assertions reek of hoax, but the individual claims don't. "Is a keen footballer any won many trophies with the under 16 team"... while it doesn't meet our notability standards, and has nothing to do with his acting career that's the focus of the article, probably counts. Morgan Wick 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy if available), no assertion of notability. AndyJones 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and is completely WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO DELETE why can't this guy have a page he will work just as hard as any actor to get a role i have heard of him i seen him do stand up a couple years back he was quite funny leave the page it might increase the chance's of him getting work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewashere (talk • contribs) — Kanewashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ah, yes . . . also WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE IF THIS GUY HAS A PAGE THERE IS MILLIONS OF WIKIPEDIA PAGE'S THIS IS JUST ONE LEAVE IT ALONE— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDDDIXON (talk • contribs) — DDDDIXON (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- For a topic to be included in Wikipedia, it has to satisfy several key policies. One of these is Wikipedia:Notability, and this page does not meet it, so it should be deleted. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. Hut 8.5 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you like something doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Morgan Wick 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above especially WP:N and WP:COI. MartinDK 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible. Gosh, where to begin? WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:TONE, fails them all. How did this not get speedied? Come on! Realkyhick 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability, and frankly I don't see where there'd be any notability even if asserted. RGTraynor 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, normally I do not like to delete bios, but this one has no sources, and poorly written.. If it was written better and had some sources then I would of said Weak Keep. But the author of the piece seems to have not seen any other bio articles to have at least of written it in the style of bios on wikipedia. Callelinea 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also vote for deletion, particularly if nobody can find any sources. I took a stab at cleaning up the style, but I could not verify a single claim the article makes regarding: publication, acting or stand-up work. Notability is only one issue. There may be sources out there, but right now there is nothing to prove that the whole thing isn't fiction. Moonriddengirl 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant roles as actor, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no established notability. Acalamari 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, SPAs notwithstanding. Doesn't appear to have an imdB entry. If Callelinea is voting to delete... Morgan Wick 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:SNOW Bigdaddy1981 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO DELETE HE DESERVE'S A PAGE LIKE EVERY OTHER ACTOR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.137 (talk • contribs)
- Please see WP:N and WP:V. Morgan Wick 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like every other actor? I think the point is rather that every actor doesn't deserve a page in an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to User:Kanewashere If you want this to remain on Wikipedia, and assuming it's about yourself, you could copy it to your own userpage, which is here. Wikipedia doesn't approve of using User pages as personal home pages, but most of us say something personal about ourselves on our own user page. Of course, we only really want you to do that if you intend to stay here and be an editor. AndyJones 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stetson

AfDs for this article:

Non notable wrestler, survived one AfD, and no changes have been made to the article to establish notability. Darrenhusted 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has won three championship awards with ECW, a notable wrestling organization, including two world championships. There's a reason this survived a previous AfD.--Ispy1981 11:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he survived becuase no one voted against it. The article needs to be improved. Darrenhusted 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. Winning a couple of titles (one of them very minor) is not enough to establish notability. See other entries on the List of ECW Tag Team Champions article for wrestlers that do/do not rate an entire article (eg Stevie Richards). EyeSerene^TALK 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Stevie Richards does or doesn't deserve an article? The man was given the WWE Hardcore Championship 22-times. I think that's a bad example, as he probably deserves an article. Nikki311 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, a two-time ECW tag champion passes the BIO bar. The article doesn't need to be padded just out of an aesthetic sense of how big a legit article needs to be. RGTraynor 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons given by RGTraynor. --DanZero 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seams someone has it out against wrestlers they seam to all be getting AfD. He is notable. Callelinea 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it isn't that someone has something against wrestlers, it's that many wrestler were discussed and agrred they weren't notable and should be PROD-ed, then a bunch of editors who feel they own some articles decided to remove the PRODs and force an AfD. Darrenhusted

Reply: I can't imagine why anyone would figure that removing a prod on some of these could only come from sinister motives ... and, come to that, not all of the articles you AfDed today were prodded. The actual discussion on the wrestling Wikiproject was more of a "I'm considering prodding these fifty names, anyone object?" RGTraynor 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and looking back no one spoke up to keep. Since surviving the AfD in April there was one edit made, and after the PROD was removed there we no edits made. Darrenhusted 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh.....keep How in the world could you fathom he's not notable? He's won the tag team title. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he won the ECW Tag Team Championship twice, so I do think he is notable. However, I agree that the page needs to be cleaned up and sources need to be added. Nikki311 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I just cleaned up the article and added some more information that will hopefully establish his notability better. Nikki311 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hoag

Non notable wrestler, PROD contested. Darrenhusted 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 11:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worked for one of the two biggest wrestling companies in the world, made several PPV apperances - that he's unsourced is a different issue all together, it's easily verifiable that he wrestled for WCW and made several apperances in a non-jobber role. MPJ-DK 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice Train is notable, pure and simple. --DanZero 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ice Train was certainly no jobber (heck, there over 400 unique G-hits), although his career was relatively short and he wasn't a headliner. He's at least as notable as your one-game pro player, whom WP:BIO entitles to an article. RGTraynor 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the above reasons. Callelinea 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO as is suffiently well known --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was on several episodes of a national TV show, which makes him more then notable. Kris 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone adds some refs I'll withdraw the nom. Darrenhusted 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be sourced, but he was a mid-carder for WCW (one of the 2 biggest wrestling organizations in the world) for several years. TJ Spyke 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midgard in popular culture

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture etc. Punkmorten 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything useful into Midgard Lurker 11:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes no attempt to inform us on the topic and is just a list of appearances. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then find out the culprits and delete them too: Oh my freaking god, "Midgard" in pop culture? Just another portmanteau of unrelated and obscure trivia, important to no one. Can we just do a blanket delete on every Wikipedia article with "in popular culture" in the title? For every one usable article that gets thrown out, a thousand worthless ones will go away. RGTraynor 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The items on this list have nothing in common past happening to have somthing in them called "Midgard." This tells us nothing about the items on the list, the topic of "Midgard" or the real world. Otto4711 12:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no indication of notability), borderline g1 (nonsense). NawlinWiki 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy the Gypsy

Zero Google hits. Very possibly a hoax. Anas ^talk? 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense, with no context, could have speedy'd--Jac16888 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely a hoax, seems to be something made up in school or work one day, not a single source or actual information to make it satisfy the notability guideline. The Sunshine Man 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bald faced stag

Nothing to indicate notability above any of the hundreds of eighteenth-century pubs all over the UK; if it can't stand alongside establishments listed in Notable British public houses (notable in that famous people are associated with them in some way, have been established for a particularly long time, etc.), I can't see the value of a Wikipedia article. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any particular way. Sparky 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prominent (TQ2789) pub but no notability claimed in this write up. -- RHaworth 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems solid, notes failure of WP:BIO. Cheers, Wily D 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Genovese

1. non notable person 2. this page appears to be an advertisement of some sort (see history) Kripto 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A candidate for a state senate seat is notable Lurker 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Merely standing for office isn't enough if there's nothing else there. Nick mallory 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running for state office is not, by itself, enough for notability. The page was created by someone very close to the campaign, and had severe WP:COI issues before it was stubbed yesterday. But in general, not notable, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 12:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, needs to be re-written and more sources.. If she is a candidate, she should have articles written about her. If it was written by someone on her campaign, they need to be fired, article doesn't make me any more likely to vote for her.. This discussion is larger then her entry. Callelinea 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're talking about this version. Morgan Wick 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry, but this is a prima facie failure of WP:BIO. Politicians get a pass if they "... have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and [are] members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." It's long been held that mere candidates are not in of themselves notable, unless they pass WP:BIO on other grounds. What in this subject's resume does that? RGTraynor 18:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone holding a statewide or higher office is at the very least debatable, by virtue of their office and by the fact it's likely to generate enough news and information from a variety of sources to base an article on. A mere candidate with nothing else going for him or her? No. --Calton | Talk 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, it's not debatable. WP:BIO clearly states that members of national, state, and provincial legislatures are always considered notable. --Charlene 12:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia precedent is that mere candidates for office (except for national leadership roles such as president and prime minister) are not notable simply because they're candidates. --Charlene 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - merging can still be done by editors if they obtain consensus on the relevant pages. No problems with self-reference, as discussed. Cheers, Wily D 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

This is likely to be a contentious deletion, but I believe this page goes against the spirit of WP:ASR. I don't know that Wikipedia is any more notable than any other site censored by the Chinese government, making this an unnecessary fork of Internet censorship in mainland China. It doesn't help that the page has apparent OR (the "Third block" section has no sources except links to Chinese Wikipedia that lack the external link icon, violating WP:ASR) and POV (the "First block" and "Reaction" sections especially) problems. Please don't give me WP:EFFORT arguments. Morgan Wick 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blocking of Wikipedia in China has been covered by lots of mainstream sources [35] and is an important part of the wider story of the communist dictatorship's efforts to suppress freedom of speech and information. It's notable because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia used by millions, is the best and most egregious example of this censorship. Here's an article on the BBC about it [36]. Here's one from the New York Times [37]. There's this story from the International Herald Tribune repeating the NYT piece. [38]. This is from CBS News in the USA [39] and this from Reuters in Canada [40] Heck, it's even covered by those lovely people at Al Jazeera [41]. Certainly looks something of international significance and interest to me. If that article needs improving then it can be improved but deleting it because it has POV problems in your opinion is not a valid reason at all. These sources have been added to the entry. Nick mallory 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This block (i.e. of Wikipedia specifically in its English and Chinese versions) has been big international news for years already. There has to be a way to avoid ridiculous AFDs like this one in the first place. Perhaps no AFD should be allowed if it isn't discussed first on the talk page? Dovi 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this needless content fork after merging any useful info with Internet censorship in mainland China. Not really notable enough to stand on its own, and the majority of the sourcing is to blogs and wikipedia's own village pump conversations. Tarc 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion of articles in Wikipedia should be judged by notablility, not WP:ASR or the like. Otherwise even articles like Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales could not exist. Notability of this article is achieved by having multiple reliable sources. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, then. Are there other web sites that might deserve a "Blocking of X in mainland China" article? And I haven't looked at any of those sources, but do any of them say that it is "the best and most egregious example of this censorship"? Because that sounds like a pro-Wikipedia POV to me. It just seems a bit too convenient that the one notable specific example of web-site-blocking is the one on the site that's doing the covering. Morgan Wick 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, by the same way, this AfD sounds like a pro-Chinese Government POV to me. The reason why there are no other "Blocking of X in mainland China" articles is just that no one cares to create them (yet). If they have established notability then sooner or later somebody will create them. Also AfD appears to be the wrong place for discussion of this article (notability is established), "Merge" might be a much better place.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm basing this in Wikipedia's own policies. Please assume good faith. Morgan Wick 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I now try to make myself clear. Your two reasons of this AfD appears to be WP:ASR and WP:POV. In WP:ASR it suggests that ASRs should be marked but not necessarily be deleted. Besides, Wikipedia can write about Wikipedia. Obvious ASRs can be cleaned up manually. WP:POV (and also WP:OR) problems can also be fixed by cleaning up (or just simply removing the problematic part). Not all parts are affected. I'm not saying that this AfD is not following a correct procedure but it appears to be a bit redundant.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But this is a special case. The existence of this page at least gives off the appearance of being itself POV, at least without corresponding pages on other such web sites. Morgan Wick 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with the nominator. We could make an article like this for multiple websites. Merge with Internet censorship in mainland China. SU Linguist 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Internet censorship in mainland China.SU Linguist 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete and merge" raises GFDL concerns. Morgan Wick 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete per SU Linguist and Tarc. "Merge" is a not infrequent outcome; I think that admins have some way of merging histories as well, so the GFDL concerns should be handle-able. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge/history merge/delete would not be done in this case. --- RockMFR 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While I agree that WP:ASR isn't a valid ground here - like it or not, Wikipedia looms largely in the news, and if you want an example as to why, Google "Chris Benoit" right now - there probably isn't enough material to sustain an independent article. Ravenswing 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject in and of itself, or move back to Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Either way, people can merge content to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China at any time. --- RockMFR 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "We could make articles like this for multiple websites," yes, and if they are equally notable and have sources, so we should. DGG 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 plus websites listed at List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China, lots of them with multiple sources. The reason that Wikipedia has a page like that is because it doesn't make sense to make an article for "Blocking of Amnesty International in Mainland China," and "Blocking of CBS in mainland China," etc., for every blocked website. SU Linguist 02:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into other articles. I hate to say it, but it doesn't provide any useful content, not to mention it's something that almost can't avoid NPOV. All the energy that's focused into this article would be better spent on articles about the PRC itself, or about the great firewall, or the history of wikipedia. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please either say merge or delete; they are very different actions. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China,wikipedia is influential,but the blocking of wikipedia is not specially to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. FireSpike 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event. jni 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sufficiently well written and useful. enochlau (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chinese govt's attempt to block Wikipedia are the second most notable internet censorship activities after its dealings with Google. Fig 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The China vs. Google and China vs. Wikipedia issues are fulcrums of history worth documenting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.24.172 (talk)
Comment We do not have an article on China's dealings with Google other than Internet censorship in mainland China. Either we create one or we delete this one. Incidentially, if we created a bunch of articles for each web site that's been blocked by China there wouldn't be much left for Internet censorship in mainland China. Morgan Wick 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the generic Internet censorship article, since this is clearly a part of a bigger issue and not a particularly atypical example of it - it just happens to be something that we have first-hand experience of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Great Firewall. More relevant there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is clearly the website of which the censoring has been most controversial, and it got by far the most coverage in news reports etc, compared to other websites. Sala Skan 11:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is certainly notable enough to deserve it's own article instead of just a section in the censorship in China article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjs56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This issue is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article due to its widespread coverage, and it is too large to merge into another article. Grand master ka 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikeomra

Autobiography / advert for a non-notable painter, sculptor and writer. -- RHaworth 06:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, Crestainaa appears to be a sock of Shaikeomra. The closer should look into that. MartinDK 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spam, should have speedy'd--Jac16888 09:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. Should have been speedy. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an advert. Jacek Kendysz 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. —Jacek Kendysz 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Johnbod 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, crappy --Attilios 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way. Modernist 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 Sala Skan 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna-Barbera's Batman universe

Delete article that imposes a universe built around a single character within one company's cartoons. The article assumes continuity between different HB series without justification or external verification. This is OR and would set a precedent leading to a proliferation of overlapping "universe" articles. We then get Hanna-Barbera's Superman universe, Aquaman's, Wonder Woman's, etc. Doczilla 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the same reasons I gave on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Burton's Batman universe nomination below (i.e. that this article is nothing more than information copied and pasted verbatim from other Wikipedia articles). --Hnsampat 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fits within the context of the Alternate versions of Batman article. Plus, Batman and Robin appeared on The New Scooby-Doo Movies prior to Super Friends. Olan Soule and Casey Kasem did their voices on Scooby Doo also (as was the case of The Adventures of Batman animated series by Filmation). So in a way, there was already a canon to be built upon. If you're going to talk about an article that imposes a universe built around a single character..., then also criticize articles being devoted to the "DC animated universe." TMC1982 11:26 p.m. 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete No secondary sources to establish real world context. Jay32183 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Peter 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Camp Waziyatah

Contested prod, declined speedy. This summer camp was the setting for the first season of an early reality television show. I'm bringing it here for more discussion. No opinion yet. Chaser - T 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish notability per WP:NOTE, and also fails WP:ATT - the only vaguely notable fact is already mentioned in Bug Juice. EyeSerene^TALK 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Bug Juice. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Bug Juice. There's little notability, but this will discourage recreation of something for which most of the sources relate to Bug Juice.--Chaser - T 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (person)

Duplicates (poorly) Mary I of England. I don't see anything worth even merging into that article. BPMullins | Talk 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with the proviso that it could be cleaned up, some content removed, etc. -- I am curious, did you even read the article? Much of the information has nothing to do with Mary I of England and does need a Wikipedia article, if not at that name, somewhere else. You can't just delete the rest of that information. DreamGuy 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't (yet) meet WP:SK, but can be speedy kept if the nominator withdraws and all opinions are for keep.--Chaser - T 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even realize there was an official speedy keep designation these days... but I did hope that based upon my post that the nominating editor would admit to an error and withdraw his nomination. DreamGuy 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, this nomination probably can be closed now as moot in any case. The nominated page is now a redirect, which are dealt with elsewhere if they are controversial, and most of the original page now stands at Bloody Mary (folklore). I think the redirect ought to be to Bloody Mary (disambiguation), myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think moving an article during a vote alone ends a deletion vote, otherwise things would fall apart. There is no [[Bloody Mary (disambiguation)], just Bloody Mary, which serves as a disambiguation page. I would think any article that links to Bloody Mary (person) would be to the ghost, but it certainly can be checked out and all the links pointed to the correct location. DreamGuy 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. A page move changes the title but doesn't cause closure of a current deletion discussion. Folks at the disambig wikiproject might be willing to help with those links.--Chaser - T 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The epithet "Bloody Mary" starts with Mary I of England, since the sobriquet was first applied to her. But the bulk of the article does not have anything to do with the queen; the chief focus of the rest of the article is on Bloody Mary, the figure of folklore that inspired the Candyman movies and many similar supernatural dares. The article also briefly discusses the Bloody Mary cocktail, and various other fictional characters that have been called Bloody Mary, including the one in South Pacific. I may have originated this article, and have had a hand in editing it. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to focus only on the supernatural Bloody Mary, merge any other content back to the relevant articles (on the Queen, the musical, the cocktail etc.) and move to Bloody Mary (ghost) or similar. This article is trying too hard to be an in-detail version of the already existant disambiguation page and needs to focus on just one Mary. Confusing Manifestation 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An article entirely independent of Mary I of England, no grounds for deletion. The article is instead about the folkloric character, definitely meets the criteria for a Wikipedia page, although I would recommend a name change to Bloody Mary (folklore) in order to avoid similar confusions. Calgary 04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spin off the Bloody Mary (folklore) and Bloody Mary (South Pacific character) into separate articles, add them to the disambiguation page at Bloody Mary, and delete the rest of the article. The folklore subject seems to be the sole subject of numerous academic articles in folklore studies.[42]. The South Pacific character is if I remember correctly one of the major characters in the book (I don't know about the movie or musical) and there also seem to be a number of academic articles about her (given the age of the book, popular articles about the character probably don't exist online). We don't need the rest of the cultural trivia, though, since none of the rest of it appears to pass WP:FICT, and without these two notable characters the rest of the article is either duplication of Mary I of England or non-notable trivia. --Charlene 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a page for the South Pacific character under Bloody Mary (South Pacific) Calgary 05:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look there. Thanks. --Charlene 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Delete and merge" and variations such as this aren't possible under the terms of our site license, the GFDL.--Chaser - T 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note I've edited the article to remove any reference to Queen Mary I or other people named Bloody Mary. The article now exclusively discusses the folkloric character, with a link to the disambiguation page. Calgary 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you move the page to Bloody Mary (folklore)? I'll go to the university library tomorrow and see if they have the journals in which the character from South Pacific is mentioned. I have a feeling she's notable as well as a cultural archetype, since in the first five pages there were three journal articles about her - unusual for a 20th century fictional character. --Charlene 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). I recommend deletion of Bloody Mary (person) as an unneeded/misleading redirect, unless that makes GFDL compliance impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There has recently been a lot of activity at this page for whatever reason, so a lot has changed. But the topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic, even if it needs work. It might do to revert to the article's previous state, but it definately should be kept.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly acceptable fork given that Mary I of England is already very long and the distinction between the two articles is quite clear. MartinDK 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). Wouldn't it be better to change the redirect at Bloody Mary (person) so that it points to Mary I of England? Deor 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most of the incoming links to it would be for the ghost and not the queen, as I think those would go to the queen page directly. But, as I said above, it'd just be better to find the links that go to it and change them to go to the more appropriate intended article in each case. I'd think just for now (person) itself should redirect to (folklore) for the sake of incoming search engine results. DreamGuy 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as written now its a wonderful article about the folklore of Bloody Mary. Callelinea 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep Very widespread folklore. I remember this as a kid, and being too scared to say her name in the mirror. :) --sumnjim ^{talk with me changes} 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe add section about her grave(s)·
Strong keep. The legend is quite distinct from the queen. --72.84.34.222 07:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is good folklore history. TMC1221 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altruismas

Hoax/Joke article. This has been posed as an actual holiday. there are no google hits, and the claims of the article are incredible. i went ahead and changed category assignment to fictional until it is resolved. i suspect the creator is the owner of the only website for event in question of which the article plagiarizes. also suspect sockpuppetry has been committed in removal of previous objections. apologies if i am mistaken. Some thing 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page should be delete because it is a possible hoax and if it is not a hoax it is not a notable enough of a holiday for inclusion into wikipedia.--†Sir James Paul† 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could find no support for it. --Evb-wiki 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be made-up, either way, not notable. Interestingly enough, Altruismas was apparently just yesterday...Calgary 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something made up during the last days of school. MartinDK 07:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from this I can find no reference to it, therefore made up. What's more worrying is that the creator is using this page to support the holiday's existence [43]. Hut 8.5 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. theProject 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made-up holiday. NawlinWiki 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax. Acalamari 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems funny to me that this is being questioned as my family has been celebrating this holiday for over a decade. I was excited to see it finally posted about here and was just showing it to my new in-laws when I saw the hoax question. I can assure you that it is indeed real. Also, this deletion is being considered based on not having reliable sources on the internet... there are however printed sources referenced in the article and (although I haven't looked them up myself) they seem perfectly valid. I say most definitely keep this article. However, it ultimately makes no difference whether this article gets deleted or not, as I'm sure it will go on being celebrated (by myself and many others). It would just be a shame to see this holiday fall into more obscurity as a hoax as declared by the people on this website not doing the appropriate amount of research. -P.S. I edited this entry as I was not originally aware of the rules of notability, also I needed to adjust format and placement. However, the authenticity of this article and my vote remain unchanged. : )— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.19 (talk • contribs)

Nevertheless, for something that claims to have "enveloped most of the European Union" and to be "celebrated throughout the U.S." to have only one Google hit (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors) is extraordinary, especially as that one website uses the Wikipedia page to back up its claims. No, this is made up, pure and simple. Hut 8.5 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello, I am the one responsible for this entry and I believe I am responsible for wikipedia's appearance on the other site. (I have not yet been able to get a response from the author.) I wrote this article and submitted the link to altruismas.com because I thought those responsible might enjoy reading about it. (And I was, I'll admit, proud of this entry) Shortly thereafter, it appeared on their site. I have also alerted the moderator (hopefully) of altruismas.com as to what is happening here and have asked him (her/them) to remove the link from their site, or to at least point out that wikipedia is not promoting/backing up the holiday. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion surrounding this. But, all of that is neither here nor there. I am here to defend the validity of Altruismas in hopes that it will remain on wikipedia. If it doesn't, at least I can say I tried. Firstly, addressing the comments immediately above in regards to having "enveloped most of the European Union" and being "celebrated throughout the U.S." These phrases were not meant to imply that all (or even a majority) of the E.U. and U.S. celebrate Altruismas. The intended connotation was that it is widely celebrated in terms of dispersement throughout these respective areas, albeit by small sects (for lack of a better word.) In other words, you may find people who celebrate it in every country (or state) but not by any means in large quantities. Poor word choice on my part, perhaps, and I shall adjust the phrasing shortly. Secondly, the cited (published and referenced I might add) books do indeed acknowledge Altruismas, its history, and its longstanding traditions. I know it is rare in this day and age to not have everything on the internet that you're interested in (this was actually an attempt to alleviate that condition with respect to Altruismas) be returned in a google search. But, it is actually an interesting ability of Altruismas to remain relatively unknown as the mass commercialization of this holiday would undermine what it stands for. I am a relatively new user of wikipedia and was definitely unaware of some of its finer points of etiquette. That being said, I realize now where my entry was borderline and that it could use some "fleshing out" as it were. However, despite its flaws, I think this article is well within its rights to remain a valid contribution to this project. If the powers that be deem it necessary to delete it, I will understand that to mean it was a failing on my part and an injustice to the holiday. I implore you to carefully consider the facts of this article and if nothing else, at least check the references. It does seem ridiculous to me to have to defend so strongly a fact that has been around as far as I can remember, but if all of this falls on deaf ears and this article disappears, rest assured Altruismas will as said above "go on being celebrated (by myself and many others)." Should it be deleted, I will also gather even more evidence to show you this isn't a hoax. (The sheer absurdity of it being touted as a hoax would make me laugh if I hadn't put so much effort into the parsimony and accuracy of this article.) I do not mean to seem bitter or spiteful. This is just an important topic to me. Also, if you're reading this discussion and happen to celebrate Altruismas, please say something. Thanks for your time and I apologize for the lengthy comment.Wmartin1900 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I get the joke, and as far as hoaxes go this is very well written, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Add it to Uncyclopedia instead. It appears that a lot of work has gone into altruismas.com, I just wonder if it was worth the effort for something that's not that funny? Or maybe this is part of a genuine attempt at a larger hoax? Masaruemoto 01:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Let me preface by saying that I don't celebrate this holiday and didn't believe in it either. I decided to follow the advice of Wmartin1900 and look up the sources (I work in a library so this was relatively easy). Reference number one- MacDonald, M. The Folklore of World Holidays (1992) Altruismas is actually one of the first holidays mentioned as the book lists holidays by their chronological order. Page 44 contains the entry which, among other things, talks about Altruismas' struggle with other pagan summer celebrations. "The rise of the power of the Church during the Middle Ages made it a struggle for any pagan ritual to survive, and Slover (Shortly to become Altruismas) was no exception." The entry is no more than four paragraphs, so while it might not be substantial, it is there. Reference number two- Shurgin, A. The Folklore of World Holidays, 2nd Edition (1999) Once again, Altruismas is listed toward the beginning of the book due its early origins (Paleolithic, apparently - I thought this fact alone was a sure sign that this article was a hoax.) In the second edition the article on Altruismas is much more substantial. Though it still only uses one and a half pages (p. 53-54, 8 1/2" x 11") the entry this time includes the story that Altruismas is based on (absent in the previous edition) as well as the traditions of the "Altruismas Stone." "Probably the most notable of the traditions associated with this obscure festival is the creation or decoration of 'Altruismas Stones.' These are usually nothing more than a colorfully painted rock..." It is from this reference that I believe the author of this article has drawn most of his information. The information on Altruismas listed at wikipedia very nearly reflects the information from this book. So, as bizarre as it sounds, in the light of this evidence I am forced to conclude that Altruismas is real (even if incredible.) I will be posting this in the talk article as well. Hope this helped clear things up.68.93.138.238 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment frankly i'm amazed this article has not been deleted yet. where do i start. first off, this is not really a hoax, because the name "altruismas" could not be taken seriously by anyone. its a joke created to see how long the bureaucracy can allow such a falsehood to continue existence. whats problematic to me is that the joke isn't even that amusing. whats amusing is that someone has actually taken the time and effort to create this mythology using both a website, sockpuppetry, and possibly meatpuppetry (ie. wmartin1900, trever frost, IPs 130.76.... and 68.93....). i cant even say the lie was all that intelligent because the defenders in question have not even bothered to look at the sources they are claiming to cite. My interests as of late have included solstitial holidays, and i live next to a library, and i am actually quite familiar with The Folklore of World Holidays 1 & 2 (wonderful reference book, i might add). they are not in alphabetical order, nor in historical chronology as 68.93 mentions. they are in order of date, page 44 and 53 would be around chinese new year. (let alone neither has an altruismas or slover listed near the summer solstice, for those of you who want to continue humoring this). aside from deleting this article we may want to consider requesting blocks for all users mentioned if the charade continues to waist our time, as it is clearly nothing more than common vandalism.Some thing 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And finally someone actually does some research work other than googling. I hope all wikipedia entries aren't rejected with this little effort expended in the area of legitimate research. Also, This article was never meant to be funny, although it did end up being so. Finally, I have no idea why others chose to defend this article but I'm glad they did. Now, if only you guys can find the other fakes. Here's a hint, you'll actually have to get out of your chairs and into a library for these as well. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.138.238 (talk • contribs)
- Comment You seriously wanted me to believe this crap ? The 20th century and after. The return of Altruismas can most aptly be attributed to the Hippie Movement of the late 1960's and early 1970's. The personal freedom movement and the concept of "free love" were at their peak during this time and were the driving force behind the return of this all but unknown holiday. Hippie scholars were responsible for the in depth research required to uncover the long lost traditions of Altruismas. Their passion for this holiday arose from the fact that it embodied so many of the positive qualities of the human spirit that they stood for. It wasn't long before this passion ignited a fire that swept overseas and enveloped most of the European Union, being celebrated in various circles and small bands. In a sort of "boomerang effect" the celebration of Altruismas returned to the U.S. more popular than ever (which isn't saying much). Sections of Canada quickly took to the holiday as well. Today, Altruismas is celebrated in certain communities throughout the U.S. and is slowly gaining in popularity, though nowhere near that of its winter counterpart, Christmas. However, most experts agree that Altruismas will eventually reach a level of popularity on par with Christmas.. Also, I happen to have a master's degree so don't tell me to get out of my chair and visit a library. Finally, being Danish, I can tell you that midsummer has nothing to do with this. If you wanted to fool us you have to try a lot harder than this. I suggest you find yourself another hobby rather than disrupt Wikipedia. MartinDK 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks a lot! I'm a bit ill (that's why I waste my time here) and I really enjoyed this stupid joke.Dan Gluck 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! Yet ANOTHER hoax-Christmas replacement! That makes 4 or 5 with the already deleted following {{hoax}} tagging Newtonmas, Agnosticalia, Athiest Kids Get Ppesents Day (Not sure about the capitalization) and another one I've forgotten... 68.39.174.238 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. theProject 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Madrid

Non-notable MySpace "celebrity". More memecruft. Corvus cornix 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than another myspace 'singer' 'band' etc. etc. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio has just enough assertion of notability to escape a speedy. Kevin 03:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't this be a CSD anyhow? -WarthogDemon 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's got a claim to notability. -- Coren ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We sure can't speedy it, but we can Quickly Delete this non-notable "celebrity". --Haemo 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it squeaks by a speedy but you still must be ^ this notable to ride the Wikipedia. -- Coren ^(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could probably have been speedied since the claim is so flimsy. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person, however many people know him on Myspace. Hut 8.5 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Ortiz

This is clearly cut and dry. It's just an ad hominem bash of someone who's made an enemy or two. Shazbot85^Talk 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that attack has been in the article for over a week! There is a bio in the history, but it was created by User:Joachimortiz himself, so clear WP:COI violation, and the person himself is not notable. Delete. Corvus cornix 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone cleaed up the ad hominem, however, the article still fails to meet any semblance of a notability standard and is devoid of sources. If you'll also check the history, the article was created by Joachim Ortiz himself, so the ad hominem about self-promotion might be on target. :) Shazbot85^Talk 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently notable. Fails WP:BIO.--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article. Lurker 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, he's head of makeup? At the TV Guide Channel? Wow... non-notable even with such an impressive list of accomplishments. --Cyrus Andiron 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Yes it might be written by the person, but if a little more is written into it and more sources added, it might be a nice little bio. Callelinea 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails WP:BIO with flying colours. Bigdaddy1981 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable makeup and hair guy. NawlinWiki 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography of non-notable person. CitiCat 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nom withdrew and nobody voted delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howarth

~~NN cricket player who played only one match. I don't think this merits an encyclopedia article. Rackabello 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Withdraw - Please accept my apologies, I went by the general notability guidelines, not realizing that cricket has its own set of rules concerning notability. Apparently a similar notability rule is in place in baseball, a single Major League Baseball appearance establishes notability Rackabello 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Thanks for withdrawing and saving us some time. Nick mallory 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer with first-class appearance, as per WP:CRIC guidelines. See "Notability criteria guideline for article inclusion", which reads "has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player". Speedy keep. Bobo . 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nominator may not think this merits an article but wikipeida policy and precedent means that anyone who's played even one first class or list A match is notable. Please check the established policy before making nominations of this sort. Nick mallory 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Anas ^talk? 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films receiving two or more acting BAFTA Film Awards

Classic listcruft. This is already taken care of by Category:BAFTA_Awards and others. eaolson 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also AfDing:

Condense down by award, either into a "List of films receiving multiple foo bars", or into a "List of films receiving foo bar", as a section on "Multiple foo bars. As an example, all films receiving multiple BAFTA awards are listed in the single article, OR all films receiving a BAFTA award are listed, with a subsection (or a sortable table) detailing how many awards each film received. -- saberwyn 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Saberwyn. Additional note, no need for separate articles on GGAs for films and people - List of multiple Golden Globe Award Winners would handle it. CitiCat 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge all in BAFTA award recipient article. Any specific number violates policy against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Doczilla 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary indeed, and indiscriminate.A bit less so than List of films receiving the three main Golden Globe Awards per category. I've never used the word before, but I think there is no other word for it - "listcruft". Too many possible permutations for articles on the themes possible that I didn't want to even try, but obviously the creator of these articles did. I applaud you ;-) Ohconfucius 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Ohconfucius. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Arbritrary inclusion criteria. Masaruemoto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no assertion to notability. Chaser - T 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planix

Appears to be basically an advertisement. Non-notable product. CitiCat 03:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes in Georgia

Arbitrary POV essay, continuation of user's POV pushing; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania. `'Miikka 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not essay but sequence of historical facts!Ttturbo 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly POV. eaolson 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is trying to push a point of view. It is not encyclopedic because of this.--†Sir James Paul† 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This article is trying to realise Jesus' don't KILL!Ttturbo 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII)?Some thing 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army crimes were comitted not only during WWII unfortunately.Ttturbo 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything in this article is already well covered in History of Georgia (country) and Georgia (country), making this a content fork to promote a position. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth. See Sjakkale. No reason to merge this one. Can we also agree that threaded comment here is immediately moved to the talk page? Judging by the page quoted by Miikka, this page is going to be attacked soon. --Pan Gerwazy 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete POV forking of the worst kind. No way is this ever going to be NPOV. Judging from the nominators comments someone should have a serious word or two with the creator about the meaning of disruption and POV pushing in general. MartinDK 08:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Disagree with the nominator. Kingjeff 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty much sure that it is already covered in Red Army article or other related article outside of this useless POV-filled article.--JForget 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chaotic colection of few events lacking context, attack page. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is hopelessly POV and not up to WP standards... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red army crimes in Estonia

Arbitrary POV essay, continuation of user's POV pushing; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania. `'Miikka 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why you placed this article not in a historical but science chapter for deleting starting from my article about red bandits crimes in Lithuania placing in HISTORY chapter? Are you trying to hide systematic attack on category Red Army crimes?Ttturbo 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly POV. eaolson 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is trying to push a point of view. It is not encyclopedic because of this.--†Sir James Paul† 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII)?Some thing 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History items like this should be in the article on the country, or the history of the country. Putting up a page like this is content forking, and the whole thing is written with a disturbing level of bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth. See Sjakkale. No reason to merge this one. Can we also agree that threaded comment here is immediately moved to the talk page? Judging by the page quoted by Miikka, this page is going to be attacked soon. --Pan Gerwazy 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination and my comment on the above related AfD. MartinDK 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Disagree with the nominator. Kingjeff 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely covered in Red Army article. POV-filled.--JForget 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Very noteworthy topic, main Red Army crimes article will get too long if all sub-articles are merged. Trying to delete something from Wikipedia does not make them not happen. Article needs expanding, though. DLX 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, into Soviet war crimes article including references. The Soviet war crimes article itself could then be expanded with other similar articles, so there would not be any need to merge it with Soviet war crimes (WWII) as it has been suggested. --Ukas 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as a country specific sub article of Soviet war crimes. Red Army crimes in Estonia are well known and documented here [44] Martintg 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a subsection to where its appropriate and make this a redirect.It is valid content, but its too little to make an article on its own.--Alexia Death 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another crappy article by the same author. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the same thoughts as Ukas'. --Erkkimon ^{(Smg 2 complain?!)} 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork of already existing articles. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate or possibly rename. The title is inappropriate. The topic is not war crimes by the Red Army and the Soviet Army (the Army was renamed later) but mainly the aggressive policy and acts of the Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union against Estonia, partly the Soviet Union's unjust treating of Estonians. Therefore I don't think Soviet war crimes is the appropriate article to merge into. Perhaps there is no need for the collection like this but it should be made sure that each individual item is present in Wikipedia. Andres 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Chaser - T 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBIZ

Business with no notability asserted. Previous prod was contested, hence this nomination. BPMullins | Talk 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - does not assert notability. --Charlene 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7.--†Sir James Paul† 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andean Wolf

Every googleable reference either loop back directly to Wikipedia, cryptowiki or Cryptozoology.com. I can find no reliable source pointing to even the existence of the hoax, and while there is a Dr. Susanne Hakenbeck at Cambridge, she is an archaeologist specializing in early medieval history. Hoaxitude? -- Coren ^(talk) 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as possible hoax, I see no reason to believe it... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a possible hoax and there is no reliable resources for it.--†Sir James Paul† 04:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hoax creatures are fully permissible under wikipedia policy as long as their nature is made clear and they are not passed off as a real creature. Just look at bigfoot, it's got 2 or 3 different wikipedia pages relating to it and it's not been proven to exist. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few sources on Google refer to the "Andean Wolf" as an alternate name for the Culpeo, or Patagonian Fox. Might be worth redirecting. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found those by cross-googling. You're right, if deleted Andean Wolf would be a worthwhile redir. -- Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would agree with the redirect. Q ^{T C} 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are asking the wrong Google. The article is not a hoax and there are reliable sources. Try this instead. Whether it is a species of its own or not, this animal has been the subject of several scientific writings. Rl 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AMNH article is a very brief discussion of the status in a review of the group, but there does seem to be a real controversey and discussion. It's not a hoax in any case--it is not fake, and the discussion is notimagined--its an unproven species. "I see no reason to believe it"is not an argument. We want and have sources, not belief of individual WPedians. DGG 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Debivort 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google only records what is common on the web and is mostly about popular culture, it's not a good source for the less popular areas of zoology or the more boring areas of cryptology. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google's limitations do not obviate the need for reliable sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; copyright violation. Chaser - T 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrickfergus Baptist Church

I tagged this for sources on 30 March but nothing has been added since then. No secondary sources, fails verifiability and notability guidelines. Bridgeplayer 02:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - even without counting apparent sock votes. --VS ^talk 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown High-Q

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable local TV show. Entirely original research. Fails requirements for verifiability. Chardish 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alright let's see here. Non-notable? Tell that to the 13,300 hits it got on the "Google Test". Local TV show? Sure it's "local" but it's locale happens to be in the 22nd largest media market in the United States. Unverifiable? I don't think so. Try the official site: [45]
- You might be interested in reading these short pieces on why the "Google Test" is a poor argument and why local fame is a poor argument - Chardish 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There are actually only 82 unique Google hits, but it does have an IMDB page. eaolson 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into KDKA-TV. Of local interest only. Corvus cornix 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Okay, IMDB is not an assertion of notability. Anyone can have an IMDB page, key grips have their own IMDB pages so that test is irrelevant. Having an IMDB page is equivalent to having a myspace page. Also, using google as a test isn't very reliable either. I would like to see multiple reliable, non-trivial sources that can confirm the notability of this subject. As it stands now, the article is not cited and thus notability is not asserted. The bottom line is that this is a game show between high school students that is broadcast in only one city. There are game shows like this where I live, and they don't merit their own article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with this article. Lack of sources if a very poor deletion rationale as its so easy to fix. —Xezbeth 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --so find some non-trivial sources. It is not the least obvious that a high school game on a a single TV station will be easy to source. there will be of course the trivial sources from all the neighborhood papers about their high school team appearing, but this is not notability. Of the 13,000 ghits, 11,000 are from kdka.com. DGG 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Look at talk page; this discussion already happened. It's a waste of time to bring the same issue up for consideration after less than a year. Also, the article is quite encyclopedic and the show is increasingly well-know. Cogitocogitare 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there should be no problem finding sources that say that the show is increasingly well-known, right? - Chardish 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure: this link confirms Westfield Insurance spnosorship (http://www.westfieldgrp.com/jsp/about/sponsorships.jsp). These videos can confirm season championship winners (http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=hometown+high-q&ei=UTF-8&x=0&y=0) in addition to full video archive available on KDKA's High-Q website itself. This link can confirm programming information for the Pittsburgh media market (pdf.sharonherald.com/samples/20060609/pages/09_pm__s11.PDF). These links consist of local media or school-based publications reporting about the show (http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/woodlandprogress/schooldistricts/42511/ , http://www.northallegheny.org/schools/nash/GOAL/WEBSITE/grapevine.asp , www.thehamptonnews.net/Issues/April%202007.pdf , www.slshs.org/Awards/index.html ). Given that all these links were available in the first couple pages of the 723 unique hits for the subject on Google, perhaps we should spend time adding these easily accessible sources to the article rather than reconsidering deletion. Cogitocogitare 09:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, neighborhood articles about neighborhoodpeople, and non-encyclopedic lists. DGG 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Those sources do nothing to indicate notability. Chardish 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Xezbeth: nothing wrong with this article. Weak rationale for deletion. mFillmore13 07:25, 39 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nothing wrong with this article" is not an argument which helps anyone to decide why the article should be kept. Explain what makes this local TV show notable. Corvus cornix 03:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The Google test, the above links, the sponsorship by a prominent insurance company, and the fact that it's on a very notable tv station (KDKA was the first commercial radio station in the United States) do suggest that this is notable. That said, I reject the notability criterion in any case; wiki is not paper. Moreover, I see no reason why this article should be renominated for deletion when Academic Challenge (Ohio) for example has never been targeted in spite of the fact that it's a less encyclopedic article in a relatively minor media market. mFilmore13 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and agreed that it's just as bad. DGG 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that cultural bias is going on here, because people are making claims that the show's fame in one U.S. city gives the show notability. I need to make the point that notability is universal. For something to be notable, anyone should be able to arrive at the conclusion that it is notable - even someone in Germany or Japan or Morocco. Personally, I wouldn't consider a locally-produced TV game show for high school students in Stuttgart to be notable, so I don't see why we should apply a different standard to an American-produced show. - Chardish 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a sufficiently notable show on a definitely notable station. 130.132.143.49 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP's cant vote, usually they are a sock anyway.trey^{Sex Me} 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't discussion be closed given that we're now on the sixth day? MFillmore13 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added a few sources to the article. The various newspaper archives have more sources that can be used. John Vandenberg 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom.trey^{Sex Me} 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; copyright violation. Chaser - T 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schankowitz

Non-notable executive, article is possibly autobiographical as well. CitiCat 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Chris (rapper)

Non-notable rapper. Have been asking for sources for six days. Corvus cornix 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Bay Bay, about his debut single. it has a couple of sources. --Evb-wiki 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand using sources from A Bay Bay. That is a bona fide charting single, which makes him notable under WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. This would help expansion.--Chaser - T 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. Maxa megalon 2000 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC per has a charted hit --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, artist has charted on four major US charts -- good enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist is charting in Seattle of all places (KUBE playlist), so he appears to be closer to mainstream than I would have expected
Keep - artist was recently voted for "greatest gainer" on the Billboard Hot 100 chart [46]. Has a Billboard page, as well [47]. Zchris87v 06:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Didn't we go over this in the Plies debate? "A Bay Bay" has actually charted higher than "Shawty"...Tom Danson 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned, his song A Bay Bay has received airplay. However, the article might need fixing in the beginning paragraph. --esanchez, Sign your name here! 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anderson Premier Military Band (APMB)

There's a lot of sound and fury here, but what this boils down to is a high school band that fails WP:MUSIC. Having an Idol contestant perform at your venue isn't really a claim of notability; it's quite common for performers to do concerts in their hometowns. Crystallina 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete school band that doesn't seem to have won any awards, played anywhere important or published any of their performances. CIreland 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability not established, seriously fails WP:SOAP, fails WP:ATT... EyeSerene^TALK 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, don't redirect- I mean really, who would type "Tim Burton's Batman universe"? Sr 13 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burton's Batman universe

Delete article that is redundant to content of the articles on the two movies covered, does not make a lot of sense given that those two movies are in the same continuity as the next two movies, and constitutes subjective (POV) interpretation to say anything otherwise. It at least borders on OR. Doczilla 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is nothing more than information copied-and-pasted word-for-word from other Wikipedia articles. This is, basically, a composite Wikipedia article. We don't need one of these. --Hnsampat 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we were to keep this article we'd be setting a precedent by allowing an entire article on a particluar canon of a superhero, and with someone like Batman, who's had so many incarnations, just think of what gates we could be opening Calgary 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two films that followed the Tim Burton Batman films are technically, of very "loose" continuity (a la the James Bond films). Plus, I didn't have a lot of time to edit the article one-by-one. So, I purely took what was available right in front of me. TMC1982 11:17 p.m. 29 June 2007
There's a complete article/category for the DC animated universe, which is of seperate canon to the regular comic book continuity (or any other adapation of Batman for that matter). So why not also go after that particular article while you're at it. TMC1982 11:17 p.m. 29 June 2007

Because it is about a complete universe. It does not involve your inferences/original research regarding continuity. It is not built around a single character even though there are many characters in the same universe. (Your Hanna-Barbera's Batman universe article is especially confusing in that regard. The DCAU article is not called "Timm's Batman universe", after all.) Doczilla 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The universe itself started with Batman: The Animated Series. A majority of the programs have involved Batman in some shape or form (Batman Beyond, The New Batman Adventures, The Adventures of Batman & Robin, etc.) And comparing the DCAU article with this is sort of apples and oranges (animated television series vs. live-action motion pictures). TMC1982 9:38 p.m. 30 June 2007

Delete Each of these films has its own article already. This just seems to be completely uneeded. Stephen Day 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is basically original research about the in-universe details of the films -- not appropriate for the real-world context sought on Wikipedia. Better suited for a Batman Wiki. A better article (still in rough shape) for film details (production and so forth) would be Batman film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just redirect there? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Mortal Kombat (series). --VS ^talk 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Mortal Kombat

Pure plot summary/In-universe background, unsuitable per WP:NOT. --Eyrian 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this article was already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mortal Kombat storyline and was kept. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mortal Kombat (series), per WP:FICT. Merge only after heavy trimming and untrivialization though of course. Kariteh 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mortal Kombat (series). This violates WP:NOT, but should be merged due to WP:FICT. It's disappointing to see the previous nomination resulted in keep, when it obviously shouldn't have. --Teggles 10:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, plot articles are a no-no per WP:NOT. A heavily trimmed version would be acceptable as a merge per above. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like in the last AfD, I vote Delete. The plot is already explained in the articles for each individual game, and there's no need to merge this already large article into the rather large main MK page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the reasonable solution would be to redirect the article. I fail to see what benefit there would be in deleting it completely. Kariteh 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? Personally I don't see the point in keeping the edit history. If this gets kept and redirected, then all it takes is one user who doesn't agree with the decision to restore it back to a full article. Since this article already fails WP:NOT, it really doesn't belong here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Risks of being restored or reverted aren't really relevant at all in deletion discussion. Besides, a deleted article could also be restored anyway. Which means in all cases that if (and only if) there is too much revert-warring, the redirected or deleted article would be protected by an admin and that would be it. Kariteh 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd been planning on renominating this in a few weeks if substantial work was not done per the outcome of the previous AFD. Seeing as how someone beat me to it and seeing as how there's been no substantive work done since the last nomination and the likelihood anyone will be doing any substantive work on it is low, delete it. This should never have survived the previous AFD since the arguments in favor of keeping it are incredibly poor and should have been discounted. Otto4711 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section in the Mortal Kombat article. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per every one above, useally it is not in an individual article.--JForget 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was since Noroton merged all the information, which was very little, delete. Wizardman 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daiches Elementary School

Elementary schools are not inherently notable. I'm nominating all the elementary schools in that school district Corpx 02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into district, if nothing else. I agree that schools aren't inherently notable, but mass AfD's are no fun. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Crap on a Cracker This is the Strongest Delete Ever - Elementary schools have the same claim to notability as the mom and pop general store down the street. The fact that something exists doesn't make it notable. Unless we want to create List of blades of grass on my front lawn? - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with ElbridgeGerry on this - there are thousands of primary schools in the world - few are notable, these are not. Bigdaddy1981 02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the respective school district articles, unless multiple instances of non-trivial coverage, or documentation of multiple notable alumni, can be found in reliable sources. cab 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally skeptical about using 2+ Wiki-article-worthy people as a requirement for a school article. Most famous people tend to associate themselves with their university/college year far more than with their kindergarten class. Weak redirect/merge to distrct education article OR locality article. Not-a-keep. -- saberwyn 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their respective school district articles. None of these elementary schools have third parties talking about them. Far from being inherently notable, it seems to me that schools are as inherently non-notable as any other small business - they don't pass WP:N simply because they're schools and because kids think they're important. (Edited for clarity.) --Charlene 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability aside, these have virtually no information and are not even real articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Contentless articles that would probably qualify for CSD A1 were it not for the pretty formatting. —Xezbeth 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Laredo Independent School District, as it doesn't had really any additionnal info for most.--JForget 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as above. No notability asserted for schools that are, in-and-of themselves, unnotable. Eusebeus 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article or Delete. This is what happens when you link elementary schools in the district articles and add templates like {{LISD}} with the links. If result is to delete or merge, the links in the district article and template need to be removed. Vegaswikian 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the school district article - we have precedent for this and it allows the schools to be found and also expanded if any become notable enough for their own article. TerriersFan 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per TerriersFan (I can't say it better than he did). Noroton 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I just merged every single piece of information from ALL these elementary school articles that did not already exist in the school district article. Would you believe that the new information amounted to: 1. The name of the principal of one of the schools. 2. A sentence or two on who one of the schools was named after. That's it. That's all of it. Otherwise these were entirely cookie-cutter articles with only the name of the school different. Noroton 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry P. Becton Regional High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Henry P. Becton Regional High School

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spamming multiple AfDs with a criticism of policy is not a good argument. What exists that causes this article to meet relevant policies and guidelines? Resolute 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Spamming is a strong term, but if there is anyone who is taking multiple individual actions as a proxy for promoting a new policy, I'd say it's Tatonka. Tatonka has recently nominated List of high schools in Oregon, Clackamas High School, Lake Oswego High School, and numerous others. In the three I linked, the nominations have been almost universally considered ill-conceived, based on a misunderstanding of policy, and on very little examination of the articles in question. I agree that Callelinea's argument is a weak one, but so is the original nomination. -Pete 05:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The school has won multiple sports championships, documented with multiple reliable and verifiable sources, and has been involved in a well-publicized effort to have a handicapped athlete compete against able-bodied runners. The school is the lone school of a regional school district; in these cases, the article refers to the school AND the district using the name of the school, but it is a district article and there is clear consensus that school districts are notable. I am very concerned, again, that a new user has started off on a spree of deletion nominations without any evidence that the user understands relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd some of you think I'm spamming with these Afd's - a lot of pots here calling the kettle black - several of you users seem to be trolling school Afd debates to defend any school. Also, it's not "relevant Wikipedia policy" that any high school is notable; there have been several criteria that have been shot down, and no clear list is followed now. Maybe I should start me a new school to guarantee myself a Wikipedia page. Tatonka79 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not so odd, if you think about it. When an editor takes a scattershot approach that threatens deletion of numerous articles that are worth keeping, it is to be expected that those of us who value Wikipedia content would take a look at what else you've nominated for deletion. Speaking for myself, so far I have yet to see a single AfD of yours that makes any sense to me. -Pete 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton.--JForget 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:Noroton. Probable WP:POINT nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this particular instance, a clear keep, though I certainly disagree that all High Schools have material enough to show notability at WP. DGG 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Dwight Morrow High School. --VS ^talk 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academies@Englewood

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Academies@Englewood

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is not accurate. A news column has been present since last November. -Pete 05:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The school has been at the center of a voluntary desegregation effort to attract white students from a largely white district to a school system that had a near complete minority population. The school has received substantial news coverage from the time it was created in 2002 and has continued to receive such coverage, with ample reliable and verifiable sources provided to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable and even if they weren't, this already meets WP:ORG and WP:N. Noroton 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG. NOWHERE on Wikipedia does it say that schools are inherently notable. That is your personal opinion, and one most disagree with.the preceding statement was brought to you by ... TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Shouting is considered rude. 2. I didn't say it wasn't my personal opinion, and I linked to my own mini-essay on the subject, so no disagreement there. But I also said this article meets Wikipedia standards for notability for organizations. If you're going to criticize, at least get my position right. And if you're going to say something that you want to try to persuade others with, make your case. Noroton 20:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2 - You did not state that it *was* your personal opinion, which was part of the problem - it confused me initially until I clicked the link. An often time-poor closing admin reads the comments and they need to be as clear as possible. Orderinchaos 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Dwight Morrow High School (since this is part of the school, or at least is located within it) and is not notable by itself. TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per TJ Spyke - clearly not notable by itself, and the only relevant independent sources address the issues it creates for DMHS. (For the record, I dislike blanket statements about notability - most high schools are notable, but some fail the test. most primary schools are not notable, but some clearly pass it. etc.) Orderinchaos 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. School fails to assert notability that would provide grounds for its inclusion. Eusebeus 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the desegregation controversy. I thing merge with the Dwight Morrow article might be a possibility, because the two are closely linked. That'll be an editing decision. DGG 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or merge to DMHS We have a major, notable controversy associated with the school that has had a lot of press coverage. however, Orderinchaos is correct that there has been little coverage focusing on Englewood. JoshuaZ 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - borders on no consensus, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. Cheers, Wily D 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Regional High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buena Regional High School

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. There are no major media mentions or notable alumni. Tatonka79 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive.The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...it would seem you haven't heard of "quality, not quantity". Either way, implying a guideline is wrong (in this case WP:N) and "should" be something else is not an argument against deletion. --Teggles 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as the article fails to even assert notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserts notablity as public school serving a thousand pupils. Is presumably notable in the local area. LiamUK 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not notability. Notability is decided by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Teggles 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Butseriouslyfolks, article does not assert subject's notability. --ForbiddenWord 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great assertion to make. Can you point to where in the article there is even the slightest demonstration of notability as laid out in WP:N? --ForbiddenWord 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument and we're not required to vote by WP:N, although if a particular article meets WP:N I'll use that as an argument for those who want to follow it. My argument is laid out in the link I provided. I suppose I should make it clear it's my opinion and nothing official. Noroton 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable is asserted--but schools can not be speedied for that. There is no sourcing except for directory information. there is no information besides half a dozen AP courses and the name of the principal/vice-p., and the geographic area covered. I agree with that it is possible nonetheless that this school is notable, but not on the information presented. DGG 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Liam UK and Noroton, there are thousands of those.JForget 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that asserts that this subject is notable. Nothing gets a free ride on notability- if it doesn't meet WP:N, it doesn't meet WP:N. Can you show me where in the article there's any basis for your claim? --ForbiddenWord 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have different interpretations of notability. Some of us think that all high schools are notable, seeing as thousands of children spend years there. It has a cite in a reliable, govermental source, so I guess it comes down to if you think a high school is notable. LiamUK 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it comes down to whether policy, which is the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the final arbiter in this case of what is or is not notable, sets standards that any subject meets. I respect your opinion if you believe that high schools are notable, but the simple fact is that it is not a matter of opinion- consensus has established a standard, laid out at the policy/guideline page, and we have a duty to follow that policy, or change that policy if we disagree with it. --ForbiddenWord 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment !votes based all all schools being notable or not do not help the decision process. What's needed are arguments about whether this particular school is notable. Those who think them all notable should show how it is specifically justified by this instance. DGG 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article does provide sources, and would benefit greatly from additional expansion. Alansohn 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BsF, DGG, etc... above. Eusebeus 07:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic County Institute of Technology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Institute of Technology

Does not meet WP:N criteria for notability. Tatonka79 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N criteria. --Charlene 05:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is considered helpful to explain why an article violates a given policy. This goes for the nom too. Morgan Wick 07:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1.7 million google hits (or 1580 when putting the school's name in quotes) suggest that there might be a case to be made for notability. Google news archives also have some hits. The article in its present form fails to claim notability, but it's likely that could be remedied. -Pete 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school has received secondary press coverage, this in the past month for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the lone school of a regional school district. As a school district, we have consensus that such articles are notable. As noted, additional coverage does exists and should be added to the article to further demonstrate notability. Alansohn 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that it didn't take very much Google searching to realize that this isn't some arbitrary one in a million kind of school. The nom is understandable, however, given the lack of sources to establish notability. MartinDK 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as the article fails to even assert notability, and WP:V, as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Butseriously: the standard is not whether the article currently has reliable sources cited, but whether such sources exist. Take a look at [48], [49],
Keep since all high schools are notable. Noroton 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Tse

Completing a malformed nom here; ~~I abstain.~~ Subject has been tagged with "may not satisfy notablity", and I somewhat agree. There are a few sources, but five of them are from RTHK only. Doesn't seem to be that notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer, thanks for correctly formatting my malformed nom properly. You're a true gnome in that regard.Gnome84 11:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn (where are the stories about her?). JJL 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a byline is not evidence of notability. 469 GHits on Chinese name [50]; adding some constraints to the search to try to exclude blogs and forums leaves 24 GHits [51]. cab 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable television person. Bigdaddy1981 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this article have "sources and a minimal standard of notability"? Preferrably sources independant of the person and the organisation they work/worked for? Can the information from these sources be used to prove the notability of the person, not just the existence of the sources themselves? For various legal and technical reasons, there is a minimum bar of inclusion, indicated by Wikipedia's rules, policies, and guidelines. Meet them, and its 'no worries'. -- saberwyn 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you have a disagreement with Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living people, you should bring it up on the village pump or something, not mass-post nearly the same basic text to twenty-five different AfD discussions [52] without any reference to actual Wikipedia policies. cab 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment These are somewhat pointy votes related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel S. Martinez. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no independent sources attesting to the subject's notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article's writer can demonstrate any substantive media mention about the subject, which I doubt. After having looked online for it myself, I nominated this one for deletion. Reading the news to an audience is different from being the subject of the news (which good journalists try to avoid).

Related Page for Deletion There's a related stub - Yonden Lhatoo - that I am nominating for deletion as well (although I don't think the nomination is formatted properly). It suffers from the same lack of notability in the subject matter - a local news reader with no other achievements or media references.

Still More Related Pages for Deletion Grown like weeds: Whoever cleans this up, will probably want to get ride of (CSD? or AfD?) the following pages as well: Nick Waters, Anne-Marie Sim, ATV News. All four of these pages (including Edna Tse) were created or edited by user 219.76.185.6 on April 27th. And all four of these individuals work at, or worked at, ATV News as news readers. ATV is the distant underdog in a two-station TV market that serves perhaps 100,000 native-English speakers in Hong Kong. There is nothing notable about the station or its employees as far as I can determine. Gnome84 11:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know about Nick Waters or Anne-Marie Sim, but ATV is notable for being one of only two freely broadcasted TV stations in Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HongQiGong, I agree with you about ATV. The entry for ATV itself (as distinguished from the stub for ATV News) is detailed, and ATV - as one of two free-to-air stations in Hong Kong - is notable. ATV News, however, is just a stub. Unless the author cleans it up to demonstrate notability for the news division, I suggest deleting that stub as well as the individual news readers' stubs appended to it. Gnome84 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Nick Waters was speedied as WP:CSD#A7 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after I put it up for {{prod}} earlier. This one and Yonden Lhatoo might be speediable as well. cab 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as it stands. Sr 13 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Watson

Lack of multiple nontrivial published sources about this person. His affiliation with DhimmiWatch is not any more an indicium of notability as my affiliation with Wikipedia. -- Y not? 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete, non-notable quasi-blogger. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now I would delete the article. He's written a book and a few pieces, but the article doesn't show its significance or notability. Sounds like an advertisement or a book jacket cover. Needs major cleanup if kept. Barkeep 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Porteau

Non Notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this fellow can't be too notable if the article's author can't keep the spelling of his surname consistant throughout. Rewrite appears to establish notability. Keep Bigdaddy1981

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ * ~~Delete~~ KEEP For one thing, Pourteau/Porteau is used somewhat interchangably by those not familiar with the wrestler. That said, he had a run in the bigs and is an active indy name, so I say he's plenty notable for wikipedia. DanZero 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In retrospect, Porteau isn't really *that* notable and the pro wrestling project here would be better served having detailed pages on worthy wrestlers Reckless Youth comes to mind, here - and not almost-were wrestlers.--DanZero 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, the revised article is *definitely* worthy of inclusion.--DanZero 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete despite possible delusions of grandeur, appears to be nothing more than enhancement talent. CitiCat 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Weak keep did appear on WWF Raw[53] (even winning a match), appears enough to keep. CitiCat 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass notability SirFozzie 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 1996-1997, he was a pushed superstar in WWF, known as "The Pug" and had his own theme song. Very notable wrestler, has been a big part of the biggest organizations. Dannycali 03:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Active with WWF, WCW, NWO. Limited roles, but counted together, probably counts as enough. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well for a 20 year veteran the only support on this page is his official page. Darrenhusted 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've re-written the article and added sources. Porteau is notable and, although he did not achieve much success, was a part of many of the top promotions. Including the WWF, WCW, GWF, USWA and WWC. A-Dust 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI've done a few minor tweaks to your otherwise fine edits A-Dust - mainly in regards to certain built in templates for height, weight, age, country/state flags. I also corrected your citation style to be in line with the generally accepted way of doing it (so that it repeats the same reference instead of 6 individual lines) - If you're interested in any of the edits or not sure what I did feel free to ask me on my user page and I'll be happy to help you out with your Wikipedia editing. MPJ-DK 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment provided other editors are happy with the re-write (if you want to contact them A-Dust) then I'll withdraw the nom becuase the article is drastically improved. Darrenhusted 08:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better, I withdraw my nomination. If anyone wants to close this as a keep then I have no objections. Darrenhusted 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasyn Rance

Non Notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important.Callelinea 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not hit the notability bar here. SirFozzie 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable as a mid-range Florida indy wrestler/former TNA jobber, and it seems like Mister Saint Laurent is essentially the only editor of that article *and* tried to remove it from the list of AfD's. If that's all that needed to happen, I'd have done it a while ago, heh. --DanZero 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and poorly sourced. Nikki311 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor (wrestler)

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

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

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

Non Notable wrestler Darrenhusted 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. There is enough information in this article to tell that Chuck Taylor does exist. His MySpace page, OWW profile, among other things are there. And like Callelinea said, it's better to have a lot of information that you know is true than just half of what is possible. And indeed, DanZero, there are VERY notable indy wrestling names in this article. Every indy fan is familiar with Chris Hero, Ian Rotten, Low Ki, Davey Richards, and even more in this article. Actually, all are notable, including Chuck Taylor, who has been getting tons of praise from the internet wrestling community. Theperfectone 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Although not an SPA, this editor has made few edits outside of the article which is up for deletion.[reply]
- Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTINHERITED (name dropping does not make the subject notable), and WP:ILIKEIT. Morgan Wick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having lots of links to bigger wrestlers in the article does not make this article worth keeping, and the praise of the IWC is not proof of notability. Darrenhusted 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEP Obviously we wouldn't waste time creating this page even though i wouuldn't put it past people who actually do that. We provided proof and what not to prove the guy is real. He isn't that important of a Wrestler to have a Wiki page so soon but he does exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the 4 keeps above this have not made decisions based upon policy but upon the belief that all people need bio pages. This Wrestler has done nothing notable in or outside of the sport. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestler article gives no indication with multiple independent reliable sources to prove otherwise. Whispe ring 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple independent wrestling sources on the page. Theperfectone 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears that he has wrestled and won titles for 2 different professional wrestling leagues. Passes WP:BIO --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CHIKARA boasts "On Sunday, February 18th, 2007 CHIKARA drew their biggest crowd ever of 275 at the New Alhambra/ECW Arena in Philadelphia, PA to see the "King of Trios" finals.", and IWA's champions (apart from Chuck) are redlinks. I don't think their championships are notable. Darrenhusted 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think" is not a valid criteria for determining anything. As he has/does wrestle for a professional league, he's notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bar of notability is slightly higher than "has wrestled". IWA and CHIKARA are small indy promos, they are not ROH or even DSW or OVW. If their largest crowd is 275 then the league is not notable. Darrenhusted 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO clearly states that if they have played in a professional league, they are NOTABLE. It does not say anything about the number in attendance to the sport for it to be notable. This guy easily passes whether you like it or not. The policy is pretty clear. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best reply yet. There's really nothing else to be said. He passes, guys. There's no need to change the policy. It says nothing about attendance. They're independent professional promotions. There's nothing else anyone can say to counter that. The man has been trained. He's professional. He wrestles for independent promotions. He's notable. Theperfectone 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "professional" in professional wrestling is there to distinguish it from amateur wrestling, it does not make those who have wrestled in indy promos "professionals". For PW the bar for notability is set higher than wrestling in bingo halls. Darrenhusted 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly is IWA MS not notable? You guys are making no sense. Chuck Taylor has been trained professionally. If someone does wrestle in an indy promotion, how are they not professional? They are. They've been trained. Professional and non-professional separates whether you've been trained or not. Chuck Taylor has been trained. So he's notable. The company runs small buildings. But they have also been around since 1996. And if you want to go deep in this, the promoter of ROH, Gape Sapolsky, mentioned Chuck Taylor on the ROH website, saying he would look into his work when ROH got the IWA MS DVDs in stock. So yes, ROH DOES notice Chuck Taylor. And yes, he's notable. I don't understand your thoughts when you say he isn't notable. He's been in the ring with very notable wrestlers. Of course, the average indy promotion isn't going to draw 500 people. If you think that, you're crazy. I would never expect it. I don't see why you guys would either. According to Wikipedia, IWA Mid-South is a notable promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Wrestling_Association_Mid-South

Adding that, go to their website, www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com

Look at the whole site. Chuck Taylor is all over it. He's one of their main draws, obviously. IWA Mid-South isn't expecting 500 people for a show. So I don't know why you guys would. You should look into your criteria a little more before going on a subject like independent professional wrestling. Theperfectone 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This editor has edited almost exclusively on Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South and Chuck Taylor, and this AfD.[reply]

Sorry, notability is not inherited. Notable promotion ≠ notable wrestler, at least when that promotion is such a lo-o-o-o-ong way from the big time. Darren, I think you missed a larger point below. "If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page?" By that logic, why do we need any part of Wikipedia? Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they have their own site (and feature Chuck heavily) then why do we need this page? Obviously you are passionate about saving this page, you have edited it a lot, but this article does not meet standards of notability, some two-bit small-time indy wrestler selling DVDs of himself to other promoters is not a notable occurance, getting called up to the main roster in WWE or TNA is. Darrenhusted 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a simple answer to that. Not all the information can be found on http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com. He does work for other indy promotions, not just IWA MS. I'm just proving that he's a huge draw to IWA MS with that statement and that he is a notable professional wrestler. Anyone who is professional is notable. Theperfectone 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then the IWA website needs to be updated. Non Notable wrestler draws 275 people to Non Notable indy fed does not establish notability. Darrenhusted 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHIKARA is not a non notable federation. They are growing in popularity, run multiple cards per month at times, hold established tournaments that feature indy wrestlers from different federations all over the world (including ROH), and in July, they will officially be multi state when they run a show outside of Pennsylvania. Chuck Taylor has won two consecutive tournaments for the company, and is not a non notable wrestler. — 76.98.15.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment They can't put CHIKARA and his other career's info on an IWA MS site. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Theperfectone 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quit filibustering. Darrenhusted 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What? What I said is obviously right. Why would you put another promotion's information on your site (if you owned IWA Mid-South)? That would be like TNA putting Kurt Angle's WWE achievements on their site. Theperfectone 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm sorry, I should have said quit filibustering, of your last 50 edits "theperfectone" nearly all have been removing PRODs then commenting in AfDs, if you want the article saved then go edit. Darrenhusted 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what filibustering is. I didn't say "what" to that. You seemed to just totally drop your earlier statement after you saw what I typed. Why are you trying to ignore the point I made? Theperfectone 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes I am ignoring you, becuase you are just filibustering. Darrenhusted 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a debate, if you catch someone saying something wrong that is not an opinion, you're obviously going to prove a point. Why not say something about it? You don't want the other side to win in a debate. Theperfectone 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One last time, and s l o w l y for you. You...are...filibustering. Edit the article, stop pumping up this debate. The problem is that you feel you own this article and don't want it deleted, but spamming AfDs and filibustering does not help the article. Darrenhusted 23:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey. As long as you are making no sense, I'm throwing in my comments. Spamming isn't what I'm doing. I'm actually making sense about the indy scene, unlike you. While it doesn't help the article itself (even though I've been working on it a lot tonight, but that's another story. That would be helping it. But, anyway...), it does help the decision to keep the article. So far, I have made numerous points. IWA Mid-South and Chikara are in no way small indies. They're actually two of the bigger indies. Why keep discussing something you know nothing about (the indy scene)? Theperfectone 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that you seem to be arguing that people who wrestled in the original ECW aren't notable... Morgan Wick 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the implication. Darrenhusted 17:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sumnjim, the term "professional" in professional wrestling is used loosely. I can get a few friends together and create a professional wrestling league. The guy has won titles in two leagues which draw less than 500 people, which honestly I think some backyard federations get. Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestling promotions would be lucky to get 50 in attendance. Theperfectone 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and that is why they are not notable. Darrenhusted 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestling and independent wrestling promotions are two different things. They're in no way related. You can't get together with a few friends and create a professional wrestling promotion. It would be backyard wrestling due to you not having a legit license from training.Theperfectone 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I retract my statement above. Having a page of him is pretty pointless as he has not done nothing to be noteworthy or should I say anything extraordinary. A wiki page isn't needed if he has a page at OnlineWorldofWrestling. When he has a few more years under his belts, achieve things that matter then he could have a page. Like Bryan Danielson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.41.39 (talk • contribs) — 70.173.41.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP

I'm gonna make this short and sweet, the man's a professional wrestler. He may not work for some of the big leagues but he's still a notable name with many, many fans of pro wrestling (not the casual Monday Night Raw fan perse, but rather the fan who has their heart and soul into the profession). Besides if we can have a Wikipedia on actors, musicians, films, or TV shows that aren't well known then why can't a pro wrestler who isn't very well known (by the casual fan, again) have his own profile here dedicated to him showing off his acheivements and life story? [[User DSG|DSG] 15:36 29 June 2007 — 69.116.134.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I do not know wrestling; but I do know poor arguments when I see them. The general N guidelines for athletes apply only when there are not sport-specific guidelines; the word "professional" does not make for actual professional anything; to call backyard [whatever] a separate sport is like calling high school [whatever] as separate sport; MySpace pages don't even prove bare existence. the general principle holds that our coverage of the notable is diminished in importance when we cover the non-notable. Our pages on the truly important people in a sport--or anything else-- lose their value if we accept the unimportant. Having a page on everyone is an important goal, but for a directory, not for an encyclopedia. DGG 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Backyard wrestlers are not notable. I'll admit. I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training. Backyard wrestlers are not notable. Independent professional wrestlers are. You can't compare backyard wrestling to independent professional wrestling. You can however, compare independent professional wrestling to mainstream professional wrestling. Theperfectone 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a point I think we missed. "I used to do it, until I smarted up and got professional training." Really? You actually are a professional wrestler? Do you work in some promotion? This is not a sign of me coming around to your side, because now a seed has been planted in the back of my mind that you might actually be Chuck Taylor, and even if you only work for Chikara or IWA MS that would bring up conflict of interest concerns. I'm just saying, in case these suppositions might be true, which they might not. Morgan Wick 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ~~Agree with Callelinea on issue of rampant deletionism, including somewhat notable indy wrestlers. DanZero 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~Duplicate of vote above; added by IP below

Look, this page isn't hurting anyone. Just keep it up, and move on with your lives. k thanks bye. — 69.0.45.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Who cares whether or not it harms anybody? Policy is what matters. Morgan Wick 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And according to the policy, he passes. He's been trained. It says nothing about attendance. Whether you guys like it or not, he passes. There's no reason to change everything up. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm just telling the straight-up truth. Theperfectone 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
KEEP The argument using attendance to prove worth is a poor one because CHIKARA and IWA-MS sell DVDs and have fans all over the world. Taylor is a rising star on the independent wrestling scene, and is becoming, or rather is, a fixture in several promotions. Bios of wrestlers should not be limited to people in ROH, TNA, or WWE. There is no reason to delete this.— 76.98.15.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me quote this for a moment. * Athletes:

- Competitors who have played in a fully professional league.

Guys, it's pretty clear. He passes. What else needs to be said? Theperfectone 06:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable, pro-wrestlers do not compete in a professional league, they take part in pre-arranged bouts! The bar is set higher, and Chuck does not clear it. Darrenhusted 00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestling is a professional league, hense the word, "professional". That's kind of obvious, man. Theperfectone 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more, take this to a talk page. Darrenhusted 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the professional wrestling project (WP:PW) has recently agreed to start getting rid of non-notable indy wrestler articles. These people have not yet done anything of worth, including Chuck Taylor. He's only performed at non-notable indy promotions and won non-notable small-time championships. Maybe if he gets called up to WWE or TNA, then he can have an article. As of right now, he's just one of a billion indy wrestlers...should they all have a Wikipedia article? No. Policy is policy. If they haven't done anything worthy of noting, then they shouldn't have a page. Also, professional wrestling is different from other sports in the terms "professional" and "amateur" are used to differentiate between types of wrestling...not level. I'd say Chuck Taylor is the equivalent of a farm-league baseball player right now...he's in the small-time. I'll say it again: he's undeserving of an article. Nikki311 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an important comparison. Even if the different meaning of professional goes over Theperfectone's head, keep in mind that minor league baseball players are pros. But we don't include every minor league baseball player in Wikipedia. We don't even include all the guys in AAA, I don't think. See WP:BASEBALL. Morgan Wick 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, if IWA MS and Chikara weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Again, notability is not inherited. Being in a notable promotion does not imply being notable yourself. Morgan Wick 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IWA Mid-South and Chikara are big-time indies. Small-time indies include JCW, AZW, CCW, etc. When you talk about the indy scene, he's notable enough. He's a huge name in the indy scene, has won two major Chikara tournaments and the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Championship. Can some of you please look outside of mainstream wrestling before judging who and who doesn't deserve a profile? To back my statement up, there are very notable indy names who have profiles that have never been in WWE or TNA. Theperfectone 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Morgan Wick 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who use the notability scale for athletes as the *ONLY* standard seem to forget that "Athletes" implies competitive sports, wrestling isn't competitive as such but "booked", "Scriped", "Kayfabed" and IMO their notability guideline is somewhere between Athlete and Actor, yet not clearly either one. Also to say that "He's trained then he's a pro" and that that is the difference from Amateur wrestling is laughable, I mean did Kurt Angle not train before winning an Olympic gold medal?? Unlike most sports where there is an amateur and a pro level of the SAME sport the word "pro" here is used to distinguish it from regular wrestling which it has very little in common with and being a "Pro wrestler" is not automatically a sign of notability. Heck you can work for Miamisburg Pro Wrestling and hold the "Park Avenue" title and wrestle regularly in the High School gym in front of 20 people and 2 cats and call yourself a "Pro wrestler" - are they AUTOMATICALLY notable? Not by a mile. . (just my 2 cents) MPJ-DK 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kayfabe? Kayfabe has nothing to do with pre-determining a match. Kayfabe is simply "staying in character". Chuck Taylor has won big-time indy titles. Once you understand that, please continue the discussion. Theperfectone 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to re-read Kayfabe and professional wrestling. I suspect you actually DO know the distinction between amateur and professional wrestling, and are hoping to confuse us, or at least the closing admin, into thinking otherwise. Morgan Wick 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I said, that goes right back to what I said earlier, "staying in character". I know my wrestling stuff, maybe a little too much. I'm very familiar with the insider terms.

Theperfectone 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch what happens when I change the emphasis: kayfabe n. the showbiz and stagecraft of professional wrestling, including the ring personas of professional wrestlers, especially when maintained in public; insider knowledge of professional wrestling. As I say, it includes more than "staying in character", it includes the worked nature of professional wrestling. (Yes, yes, this definition doesn't say that. Again, go read our article on kayfabe.) Morgan Wick 07:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Get It! You like this wrestler, you even removed the AfD tag to try and save this article [54], and you placed a "hang on" tag to it when it was proposed for speedy delete [55], and you removed the PROD tag [56], but none of that does anything other than show that you really, really like this article/wrestler. But that will not save this article from deletion. Darrenhusted 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin, the only people that have voted to keep the article are Theperfectone (who is the main editor of the article and has made no attempt to improve it), accounts that have made few to no edits outside the AfD, two users who seem to think that every wrestler (despite not being remotely notable) should have an article, and users who don't seem to understand the distinction between a "professional wrestler" and a "professional athlete". Moreover, there has been little to no improvement to the article since the beginning of the AfD, even though cleaning up and sourcing articles has saved other articles from AfDs before (I should know b/c I've helped to save a couple). Nikki311 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's funny. I see multiple "KEEP"s. Everytime I do, Darren deletes it all. He's proved he knows nothing about Chuck Taylor. He should just stay off the page. He deleted my sources because he knows I had enough sources. Not to mention, he wouldn't fix it. He just deleted it. I had around fifteen sources. If that's not enough, you're being biased. And Darren, Chuck Taylor actually used the list of themes I put on there. So don't delete them again. You told me to add to the page. Yet you keep deleting almost everything I add (that I have a source to, too). He's simply being biased because he doesn't want Chuck Taylor to have a page because he's a mark. Plain and simple. No other way to put it. None of you people even pay attention to my points. Figures. I've had a ton of them, yet they're thrown right out the window. Forget it. Wikipedia is just full of marks anyway. It's hard to get anything through your heads. I actually thought you would be intelligent on wrestling (including the indies, which the intelligence obviously isn't there), reasonable enough to listen to me and actually LISTEN to me, not ignore me. I have had valid points, whether you like it or not. I'm sure I could find a smarter bunch of intelligent fans than this. And once you delete it (for no reason), just live with the fact that I was right and you were wrong. Think about it. It can help in future wrestling debates. Goodnight. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
I do think Darren went over the line here by bolting badly-formatted references instead of fixing them, but one of them was MySpace (see WP:RS and one was a free web host. He also crossed the line here. Darren, I think you aren't being civil or showing good faith by removing badly-formatted reference lists instead of improving them. However, that does not appear to have directly been to sabotage the article and I think it's incidental to whether or not to keep the article. See WP:CITE.
Please provide a source for the list of themes, or if you prefer, multiple sources.
What does being a mark have to do with us not wanting this article on Wikipedia? You're simply making baseless personal attacks for the sake of making personal attacks.
We've responded to several of your points several times, but you haven't really listened to our responses. Morgan Wick 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the editing, I tidied up the article drastically, and listing 30-something entrance songs does not make this article any better, and cut out the references because they looked a mess, I didn't feel the need to re-format them because I don't want to waste my time, and they didn't really make any difference to the content. The closing admin can see the edit history, and can make their own judgements. Darrenhusted 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think this is really absurd what you guys are doing. It's BS you guys can have pages about sexual eroticy, but you can't keep a page for a pro wrestler? And you call us bad? Wow. Anyway, you guys really should get yourselves in gear. I mean, do you want to be known as the cool site, with info about indy guys? Or the site who took a page about sexual fetishes, over a simple pro wrestler's page? Think about that one, and get back to us. TylerS 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) — 69.0.45.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A little point to those that say "Well he's in Chikara or IWA so that's enough" are missing the boat on the argument. Chikara and IWA as PROMOTIONS are notable enough to get an entry on Wikipedia - but they're not at the point where you can say that "working for IWA" is automatically a cause for inclusion - Working for the WWE (not just developmental), TNA, WCW or RoH (in the US) in a non-jobber role is where you can say they become notable JUST for doing that, if they don't work for the "big" leagues then they have to do something individually to make them notable and it needs to be Verfiable from a Reliable source. Am I the only one that thinks that a "notability scale" for Pro Wrestlers would be good? MPJ-DK 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough...maybe just working for them is not enough. But being the world champion of one company for nearly a year and winning tournaments in the other makes Taylor more than notable. And Darren, I have no idea who theperfectone is. No one asked me to come here. I clicked on Chuck Taylor myself and decided with my own free will to participate in this discussion. I think it is rude to assume that people who disagree with you have been brought here by someone else, and I don't think the fact that I make very little edits should mean that I don't get to voice my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs)
  - I agree completely (WP:AGF) and I think Darren may have been speaking figuratively. But you should realize that typically, closing admins do not weight the opinions of IP's and new users very heavily, simply because they tend not to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. Morgan Wick 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will fully admit I don't have a good unterstanding of Wiki policy, but I am a big fan of independent wrestling, and I have a very good understanding of who and who isn't notable. ROH may be the top indy, but it is ridiculous to limit independent wrestler bios to people in that company or above. Taylor competes in main events against wrestlers from even TNA (he's wrestled Low Ki/Senshi in IWA) and his notability should not be in question given the fact that he has been the World Champion of IWA for over 8 months and is one of the top stars of CHIKARA. Since he's so young, there's no doubt that bigger things are yet to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.15.169 (talk • contribs) — 76.98.75.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      - Per WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that "bigger things are yet to come" can't be used to weigh whether to keep the article. Morgan Wick 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough again, but all that he's already accomplished makes him notable.
- I think WP:PW should have had posted notability guidelines yesterday. It would have been a good way to avoid contentious deletions like this. Morgan Wick 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a contentious delete, I just think that one editor and his anon IP friends are filibustering it. Taking out SPAs and interested parties this has 5 deletes from editors of some repute, and one keep. That Theperfectone is trying so desperately to enter 36 entrance songs, shows that there is not much else that can be said about this wrestler. Now this page is off my watch list someone let me know when this is finally over. Darrenhusted 08:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I have a right to add 36 entrance themes. You can't tell me I can't. It's adding his entrance themes. So it's helping in a way. It might not help a whole lot. But it is helping add information. Theperfectone 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're saying that's NOT "Contentious"?? it fits my definition of the word ;) MPJ-DK 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is a review of the "sources" you are trying to add to the article:

http://www.iwamidsouthwrestling.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
3. http://www.chikarapro.com (Promotion web site, tells us nothing in and of itself)
4. http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/index.html (Taylor's name appears nowhere on the page)
5. http://www.answers.com/topic/brandon-prophet (Wikipedia mirror, can't be RS for obvious reasons, and doesn't mention Taylor)
6. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20632.shtml (sounds decent, but just a set of match reports for a hodge-podge of different promotions - has he had an article ABOUT HIM?)
7. http://wrestling.insidepulse.com/articles/68365/2007/06/23/young-lions-cup-v-night-one--reading-pa.html (sounds decent, and more focused, but on Chikara, though does praise him; but I've heard bad things about Inside Pulse)
8. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20594.shtml (same as last PWTorch one)
9. http://www.smartmarkvideo.com/main/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=97573 (basically says he was on a DVD, and comes off as WP:SPAM)
10. http://iwamidsouth.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=IWA&action=display&thread=1142730710 (message board, not RS)
11. http://wigglysworld.com/chikara/Site/chikara.html (I don't even know what this is)
12. http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20586.shtml (it looks like he appears in one match... and same as Inside Pulse without the bad rep)
13. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=38045 (message board)
14. http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Chikara+Podcast-A-Go-Go/5615 (Now I think I know how #11 applies; but I doubt it's RS)
15. http://www.mopsquad.com/artman2/publish/Indie_Upcoming_Events_443/CZW_s_Cage_of_Death_VIII.html (link doesn't work)
There are a few sources that might qualify on that list, but remember that WP:N and WP:BIO say he has to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Trivial coverage does not establish notability. If you are trying to estabilish notability using sources, you might not get as much slack as you want with that list. You might get some, but... Morgan Wick 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That IWA Mid-South message board link is a post straight from Ian Rotten promoting and hyping up the upcoming show. It's definitely notable enough. They handle all of their card updates on the message board. Theme list, straight from Chuck Taylor himself... http:// blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=31548154&blogID=181896098&Mytoken=2668AB76-7D47-4603-8AB617E25DCE107328413307

Yeah, I know it's MySpace. But he typed it himself. I know it isn't criteria according to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to prove anything for Wikipedia's criteria. I'm just proving that he did use those themes to you guys. Theperfectone 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have 35k of discussion, someone needs to close this. Darrenhusted 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, more importantly, the five-day period is up. Morgan Wick 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for future reference, I suggest someone who is an indy fan judge these indy wrestlers from now on. I think it would cause a lot less problems and things would run a lot smoother if the people in the pro wrestling project knew more about indy wrestling. Because in the indy world, Chuck Taylor is a huge name. But a fan who watches only mainstream wrestling wouldn't know that. What do you guys think? Theperfectone 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think that ANYONE is allowed to vote on a AFD, can't limit it to a very narrow group. I also think that you can be an Indy fan and still vote delete here - it's not like it's a "big bad WWE fans Vs us poor little indy fans" here. Just for future reference if the article had passed WP:V and WP:R there wouldn't be any problems at all and if those that argue for keep had read both policies and found reliable sources for the article then we wouldn't be 36K into a deletion conversation because then it wouldn't even be put up for AFD. MPJ-DK 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you misunderstood me. I meant when people report the article in the first place and label them a non-notable wrestler. If we had some very educated fans on indy wrestling in the Wiki Professional Wrestling Project, that wouldn't happen. They would know who deserves an article and who doesn't. Instead, it would be fans that only watch mainstream wrestling and they don't have any education on indy wrestling. So they would think Chuck Taylor is a no-name. I seriously doubt there will be indy fans out there to say Chuck Taylor doesn't deserve an article. The major indy promotions are ROH, IWA Mid-South, PWG, Chikara, CZW, and maybe a couple more. Anyone who has won titles or tournaments in those, most likely deserves an article on Wikipedia. Now, if you try to make an article on an indy wrestler who wrestles for a small indy promotion that no big indy fan has heard of and has even won the World Title, then that's the time when they're non-notable and should be deleted from Wikipedia. But for someone like Chuck Taylor, he deserves an article because he won major titles in big indy promotions that most people have heard of, that being IWA Mid-South and Chikara. The other two promotions are what I would call non-notable, even though I've heard of them. Most wouldn't know them. But he has won the IWA World Heavyweight Title in IWA MS and two major Chikara tournaments in Chikara. That would no doubt make him notable. Theperfectone 1:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- World? How are any of those titles "world" titles? IWA World Heavyweight Title? Really? Darrenhusted 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The title has been defended outside of the continent. If a title has been defended outside of the continent in which the promotion was started in, it is considered a "World Heavyweight Title". And this article does have a source. I've seen some WWE wrestlers who had never had a source before and the article was just tagged. Theperfectone 3:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment and I think you're missing my mai... no my only point is that if an article fullfil WP:V and WP:RS then it doesn't matter what people think, it's a keeper. It's pretty simple really and it doesn't require anyone to have specialist knowledge to see if an article deserves a wikipedia article. MPJ-DK 06:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor is the current reigning IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion. This is a belt that has been held by people like AJ Styles, Arik Cannon and Jimmy Jacobs. Those three are big time, well known independent professional wrestlers. Chuck Taylor is in the same class as those three. He is also the current reigning CHIKARA Young Lions Cup Champion. This is a championship that has been held by guys like Jigsaw, Shane Storm and Larry Sweeney. Those are three of CHIKARA's biggest stars. To say the least, I believe Chuck Taylor is a very notable independent wrestler. 24.128.99.180 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — 24.128.99.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Somehow I doubt those people are going to cite being IWA-MS Heavyweight Champion at the top of their resumes. Morgan Wick 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP His notablity has been proven. He is a reigning champion has won seceral tournys in various promotions, more than anyone on this page has accomplished. People KNOW who he is regardless of the audience numbers because Chikara Pro sells DVDs all over the world. Hulk Hogan, no but notable, yes.--EdWood 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

His notability has not been proven, and all the SPAs and fan accounts adding to this AfD by simply saying "he is notable" are proving nothing, are you looking at the article? Chaos Pro Wrestling, Hex Gage, Toby Klein, Team FIST, Niles Young all redlinks, Player Uno was sucessfully Afd-ed yesterday, Richochet, Max Boyer and Beef Wellington don't have articles, what does this tell you? Find some non-trivial, non-Spam links for Chuck. Darrenhusted 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article cites no reliable sources which support notability. --Haemo 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Thompson (sound artist)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable musician. Bigdaddy1981 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. From article history this has been raised before; creator is possible WP:SPA EyeSerene^TALK 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Neil Pryde. Wizardman 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS Racing

Fails WP:ATT. There is no reliable third party coverage of the product to support its notability. Nv8200p talk 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Neil Pryde which already has similar single sentence entries for particular sails e.g. Neil Pryde#RS1 and Neil Pryde#RS3. CIreland 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above comment. If additional info (eg technical specs, design history etc) is ever added this may be worth a separate article, but not as it currently stands. EyeSerene^TALK 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notability not established as stand alone article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 June 2007

Merge, an orphan article except for Neil Pryde. John Vandenberg 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Krupp

No assertion of notability in the article. Fails WP:ATT. No reliable third party media coverage. Nv8200p talk 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered merging to Krupp, the article about the famous family of German industrialists, but I can't find evidence of a Henrich among them. So, per above.--Ispy1981 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. JJL 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I can find no evidence of a Heinrich Krupp associated with that great family, much less one who ended up in Louisville of all places - possible hoax(?). Bigdaddy1981 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Seems like a big old hoax to me...FireSpike 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability; possible hoax. Acalamari 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only evidence I find for this man (spelled "Heinrich") is a query on RootsWeb by his GGG Grandson (who is, not coincidentally, MTuck3 - the author of this article). No evidence of notability. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Reed (Jazz Musician)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe no, but this kind of comment does not belong in the AFD. Try the WP:Village Pump CitiCat 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep searching for '"eric reed" jazz' on Google pulls up 52,000 hits. One of the top hits was a New York Times review of a performance. He has a long entry on allaboutjazz.com and allmusic.com. He had three albums chart on Billboard's Top Jazz Albums chart. Quite notable. Chubbles 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles and WP:MUSIC, but rename to Eric Reed (musician) per naming conventions. He has reached the top 10 on Billboard's jazz album chart and should be deemed notable at least by chart performance. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending copyedit to better comply with WP:ATT (using the sources above given by Chubbles would be an excellent start). EyeSerene^TALK 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have worked with important musicians in that domain. JForget 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above comments. Also, rename per Metropolitan90.--JayJasper 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magwayen Creative Scholars' Guild

A University theatre group. No assertion of notability in this article, no external sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to the article, a prominent screen writer, a leading university in the country and claims of "citations from award-giving bodies" might be enough for notability. Premature to delete -- Steve Hart 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sancho 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT, WP:NOTE etc. The notability of the subject is not established by the article, and the screenwriter/award notability is not established either. In as far as there are indirect sources (via "External links"), they are self-referential, and the prose violates WP:SOAP (admittedly not an AfD criteria). EyeSerene^TALK 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The university itself seems notable, but individual student organizations would need documentation of their wide recognition, which has not been provided in this case. EdJohnston 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, this is major news and will become the subject of multiple non-trivial news sources. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Haymarket bomb plot

Under WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper or current events website. The opening says it all "On 29 June 2007, an unexploded car bomb was discovered near the Tiger Tiger nightclub", this doesn't describe a plot, it describes an event. Propose deletion or merging. Hera1187 10:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep IMO, if they've had to call COBRA in, it's notable - and the AFD is premature given it's only just happened - give it time. Will ^(talk) 10:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because only limited details are available about the plot at the moment as the bomb was planted less than 12 hours ago. In time as more details come out about the plot the page can be developed. I agree at the moment it describes an event but i think you are jumping the gun a bit here, wait a few days and more facts will be available to make a more complete article.--Yini3 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Gates

Non-notable webcomic and its main characters. No secondary sources, Google search for "World gates" and "webcomic" gives 7 hits including Wikipedia, mirrors, and the original comic. Huon 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I flagged the notability issues and they were never addressed (instead those extra entries were spun off) and, as the above suggests, there seems to be no potential to demonstrate this at the moment. (Emperor 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Without any independent sources mentioned in the article, I can find no evidence of notability. Deli nk 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are no WP:RS (which a quick specific search indicates don't yet exist [57]) the articles must go. Murgh ^disc. 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Misterdiscreet 17:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GARR

Fails WP:SOFT Misterdiscreet 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable add-on for a blogging software suite. Fails WP:V. Caknuck 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parnell Habersham

Clear autobiography and conflict of interest as noted by User:RJASE1 at WP:COIN. Notability is borderline. There are no references. Yechiel Man 08:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither WP:AUTO nor WP:COI are cause for deletion. Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines as an actor (which guidelines I believe are way too strict, but maybe that's just me). Seems even less notable as a journalist. But article is new and well-tagged, so I'd like to see if editor(s) can show references that establish notability before I weigh in with an opinion. Capmango 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, I guess Delete, because 6 days have gone by and no one has edited the article to establish notability~~. Capmango 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And on the seventh day, the article was fixed quite nicely. Change my vote to keep. Capmango 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without neglecting its need for references and cleanup. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Except for the unreferenced "Journalism" section, the article is up to NPOV snuff. — Athaenara ✉ 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is borderline, but it is now well referenced. John Vandenberg 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There was another deletion request fewer than twelve hours ago, resulting in speedy keep. There is no need to have an unsightly and unnecessary deletion request again so soon. Wait a few days, please. -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 London car bombs

I find this incident to be remarkably unencyclopedic. Car bombs explode elsewhere (daily in Iraq) and we don't have articles on them. Indeed it is a "WoW!/OMG!/BBQ!" kind news and there is a fine wikinews entry on it. An article on it is completely unnecessary. -- Cat ^chi? 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep But car bombs are not found every day in London. --Peter Andersen 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats why its wikinews worthy. -- Cat ^chi? 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Yes they do go off in Iraq, but this is history and people want to know about it. --AxG ^@ ^►talk 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"people want to know about it", yes let news stay on news specific wikis -- Cat ^chi? 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of why Wikipedia is so great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.229.204 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep Story getting world wide coverage. PS IF "Car bombs explode elsewhere (daily in Iraq) and we don't have articles on them" is really your reason for deletion then create those articles because i can't keep up with terrorists. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in violation of WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information). -- Cat ^chi? 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I think that this story will be referenced in the future, and Wikipedia is a good resource for bringing together a neutral POV in this story. Chip Unicorn 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a terrorist act against the United Kingdom. This is a major event that caused a the highest possible alert level in the UK.Bobby Hall 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it you don't live in London?

taken from the talk page from earlier today:

You mean all the bombing articles in Category:Iraqi insurgency? Or if you want the list, look at Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War, or for the template, look at Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism.

Actual car bombings where there were casualties are listed at List of mass car bombings and also have individual articles if enough people are killed, such as Al-Khilani Mosque bombing or 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings

At the moment, beaqring in mind it is an event which is still unfolding, yes it is perhaps not as polishewd as it should be, but give it a bit of time, and it will settle down, like many others. I say Speedy Keep Regards, Lynbarn 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Airplanes collide with structures in New York on a regular basis. That doesn,t stop us fromhaving articles on all of them. Circeus 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - it's clear to me that there's no community vision for what should happen to this article, yet widespread agreement that it has some value. Cheers, Wily D 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang names for poker hands

A few concerns have come up recently about this article. First, it is more appropriate to wiktionary, as it just gives list of slang names. I believe there is some precedent for deleting list of slang articles. Second, whatever encyclopedic usefulness this article has is way overwhelmed by the ungodly amount of spam and vanity this article attracts. Developing an appropriate standard for inclusion has proved quite difficult. If you think we should keep the article, PLEASE suggest how we can objectively limit the scope of this article. Otherwise it becomes a maintenance nightmare. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything appropriate should be moved to Wiktionary. None of these terms are standard usage for technical terms that would appear in articles. List of poker terms acts as a glossary for technical terms in articles. Wikipecia is WP:NOT a dictionary, or a slang or idiom guide. (There could be hundreds of more entries that are in common usage regionally all over the world that have a few reliable sources mentioning the use of the term.) 2005 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to disagree that this is dictionary type information, and I think it is the type of information an interested person might go to an encyclopedia to lookup. At present, the more obscure ones are explained, which prevents the article becoming too unwieldy. CitiCat 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you be more explicit? Why can't someone who's adding a vanity entry "explain" the name they just made up? Why can't a linkfarm website do the same? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are infinatly many different poker slang terms regional, international etc., should be moved to dictionary or better still just deleted --Greatestrowerever 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this is Wikipedia's 74th-most-viewed article, according to [58]. Λυδαcιτγ 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In large part because vanity edits are normally added and reverted several times every day! 2005 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be an anomaly. It doesn't appear on March's list, April's list, or May's list --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also been around since 2001. Λυδαcιτγ 04:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I use the page all the time when I'm playing online poker. If this gets deleted it should be moved to wikitionary. 82.21.67.38

Comment I use it too. The problem with it is that it has become a shit magnet. Look at the history - 99% of the past 500 edits are vanity garbage edits and reversions. It shows up in my watchlist more than any other article. Those of us who edit it regulary have been unable to come up with a threshold for inclusion of terms. If you have any ideas, please suggest! SmartGuy 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should limit the list to those phrases heard on notable televised poker tournaments? 82.21.67.38 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am fairly knowledgable in poker and poker slang, and have not heard of many of these names. However, some of them can be useful to new players. Having a good basic knowledge of card room slang helps a lot when first starting. I agree that the terms should be moved to Wiktionary if the article is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iowa13 (talk • contribs).
~~Keep~~ It's useful, and there's no reason an encyclopedia can't include such lists. I've added on citations from two more websites, and I'm sure there are more out there to get the rest of the terms cited. Λυδαcιτγ 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is it is Wikipedia policy to not have such lists. Your inclusion of a useless website in terms of multiple citations is a perfect example of what a garbage dump this sort of inappropriate list is. There are thousands of minor websites that would could be cited for literally many thousands more vanity terms. Such terms have no place in an encyclopedia, and just because something can be cited by some anonymous website doesn't mean it should. Wikipecia is not a slang or idiom guide, period. But as long as the article festers here, we certainly are not going let every trivial website in the world come along and cite specific words in the text. 2005 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've added it to my watchlist; spam and vanity additions should never be a reason to delete a good article. Λυδαcιτγ 04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the lack of objective inclusion criteria for a list certainly is. Mere citation isn't sufficient because of the spam/vanity problem. Can you think of one that won't make it impossible to prevent spam/vanity additions? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of people have it in their watchlists, so that isn't a relevant issue here. The point is policy says such articles should not exist, and the fact this one exists makes it a nuisance to regular editors trying to care for the subject space. 2005 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding it to my watchlist was an attempt to help with kzollman's worry that "whatever encyclopedic usefulness this article has is way overwhelmed by the ungodly amount of spam and vanity this article attracts". Kevin, why doesn't a citation requirement preclude spam additions - because users will link to their own websites? If so, just establish that citations should not be from personal pages. That said, 2005 does appear to be correct that per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide"; it seems like this article falls squarely under that definition, so I must reluctantly switch my vote to delete / move to Wiktionary. Does Wiktionary have such lists? Λυδαcιτγ 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My concern is that making it clear what counts as a "personal website" is very difficult. Because of the (very liberal) policies of revenue sharing by online poker sites, there are literally millions of link farm/low content poker websites. I think it's exceedingly difficult to establish a clear line between good and bad websites in this arena, and so any standard will be arbitrary and unenforcible. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And move to the Wiktionary. It's no less useful if it's located in the appropriate place. Rray 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just requested semi-protection for this article so that it can later be moved to Wiktionary without all of the garbage edits. SmartGuy 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth the maintenance effort, as this material is mostly trivial and in my opinion doesn't serve any practical reference purpose. would wikibooks be a better home than wiktionary? —Kymacpherson 04:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged (website)

No evidence of notability. The creator may have some very minor notability with other things he's worked on, but no evidence has been provided that this website is notable. Crossmr 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above; no notability.Galactic Explorer 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Website becoming a public menace. Accurate info like this very useful - as you can see the article is not shameless self promotion so much as a concerned Wiki member giving a PSA. Kiangshi 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your opinion on whether or not its a public menace is original research. Wikipedia isn't a proper venue for public service announcements.--Crossmr 04:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:NOT; notability not established by the article EyeSerene^TALK 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pov/or with "notorious", no refs or even an attempt to demonstrate note. MrZaius^talk 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.