Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noridasu

Noridasu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A manga from a non-notable author that has yet to be published, and has absolutely no sources. Article is written by User:Rei Hirashame, also the name of the main character which draws WP:COI concerns as well. Long story short, it's vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR, non-notable —The Great Llama^moo? 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete A quick google search only turns up self-published sources by the author. Unpublished fiction is rarely notable. Delete the article for now, consider restoring it when (& if) publication actually occurs. JulesH 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR, NN, unverified, possible COI. -- Kicking222 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- W666 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and as crystalballery. When published, if he's notable, I'd go with it. --Dennisthe2 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Looks like it was made by some random person.--SUIT 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ballism. Create the article when and if the manga is published. Shimeru 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Fred McGarry 10:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article appears to have been written by the manga author himself. Also not notable. -Pingveno 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. User:Sd31415/Sig
• Delete per nom. To the above user, I suggest stubsting your signature.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--John Lake 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Man the first manga's nose is huge! What's his powers? Vacum cleaning? ;) Spawn Man 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.MightyAtom 06:47, 30 November 2006 (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 and cleanup. Evidence suggests article needs cleanup, but nominator provided no reason for deletion. Almost all other editors agreed this was a topic worth keeping.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Teletubbies episodes

List of Teletubbies episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Come on, people. This article is pretty pointless. It's incomplete, and simply a mess. Not wikipedia quality in any way, shape, or form. Chaz 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It obviously needs a great deal of work, but that's not a deletion rationale. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, with a LOT of cleanup. Yes, it may be very messy, but it could be expanded and cleaned up. —The Great Llama^moo? 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Teletubbies. Article isn't too large to have an episode list in it. And remove the apparent future episode. JulesH 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just because it sucks doesn't mean it shouldn't be here †he Bread 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Bread.  :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bye-Bye! If any real content happens to come along any time soon, merge it to Teletubbies. Aside from the obvious errors here, (two pilot episodes, and an upcoming 2008 season?), I seriously doubt there's actually enough distinction in the plotlines of a show aimed at one-year-olds to merit documenting each individual episode, much less a list of them. Wavy G 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Teletubbies, I agree fully with JulesH. PKT 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to the originator. I wouldn't mind seeing it stand alone once it's closer to a complete sea of blue. Anybody want to AfD the already blue-linked articles in the list? B.Wind 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the main article. Dahn 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Teletubbies. Purest evil, but it's notable enough. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete- not nearly complete enough to merge, let alone keep. Sfacets 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted or merged. Having a separate episode guide list for such a popular show is perfectly encyclopedic and obvious. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just because an article is in bad shape that means you can just send it to AFD or prod. Needs lots of expansion and cleanup. Terence Ong 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the individual episode articles. Teletubbies episodes are most definitely not notable enough for seperate articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with individual articles? I'm confused by this. Wavy G 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Teletubbies. Episode guides on a minor childrens TV show does not warrant own article. Article contains no real info other than names, since the pages about the episodes themselves have not been created (and should not be). --Fred McGarry 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor children's TV show. The bloody thing is shown across the world and translated in I don't know how many languages. That's not minor. If you meant minor as referring to the children (children are always minors) I don't see any reason to treat it different than a show for adults. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Teletubbies until it contains enough information about the episodes in question (merge episodes to the list if that is needed to get some substance). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per precedent. There's an entire wikiproject devoted to television episode lists, and there are episode list articles for shows with only a few episodes. Expand and clean-up, obviously. 23skidoo 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Although it would be perfectly ok as a stand alone article, Would be best as a part of the main article.Dolive21 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent towards having episode lists of notable shows. While it was a silly kids' show, it certainly was successful in a number of countries. The current article is a total mess though, with several obviously fake episodes ("The Death of Po") and wrong names for some of the real ones. I deleted a linked hoax article about a supposedly "adult" episode with sexual content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The show is notable enough to warrant a seperate episode list.--Tom^{I edit my userpage too much}, 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Update Okay, after looking into this, I discovered that, not only is this list here completely inaccurate, but it is about 1/20th of the actual list. Tv.com lists a whopping 340 episodes! Most of the titles given here are wrong, and it is clear the article was written in jest. I suggest a complete rewrite, and changing my vote to Keep. Even without descriptions, I think with 300-some episodes, just a list of the episode titles/airdates/etc is enough to warrant a separate article. Wavy G 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, I am suggesting keeping and rewriting the list, NOT redlinking 340 potential episode articles.

  Agreed. What rivetting plot concepts could you actually have on the episode articles?? Eps 1 - Lala & Twinky run around a large green field. Eps 2 - Lala & Po run around a large green field. Eps 3 - All three run around a large green field jumping into holes. Eps 4 - The same three wonder where the gay one has gotten to... Etc etc etc... ;) So yes, only rewrite the list... Spawn Man 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can I argue for keep and for the page to be blanked? Nothing on this page is verifiable, and I suspect much of it is made up. WP:V is the "threshold for inclusion" in Wikipedia, and nothing here meets that standard. The topic is worthy of a page, though. There are episode guides for far less prominent shows. --Walor 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Change to full keep now that edits have been made. --Walor 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  The article can be edited, and its contents completely replaced, during the next seven days while it is on AFD. Alternatively the outcome is unlikely to preclude a list of this type, merely this incarnation of it, as several comments above object to the inaccuracy more than the subject matter. That will be up to the closing administrator to clarify, though, if needed. -- nae'blis 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep lists of episodes seem to be common enough, and are better then actually having 320 teletubby articles. *shutter*. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Awww, big hug keep - Man I could have really gone to town coming up with ways to say to delete this article, but alas, I must settle for a keep as it was a pretty famous (although absolutely rubbish) show. Spawn Man 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and blank. Incredibly notable television show, should have an episode list on Wiki. Cleanup is needed of course, but being shitty is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I fixed up the list some. Threw it into a table and got some better data from eofftv.com and tv.com. I'll leave the date wiki-linking to someone with AWB running. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugg... I feel wikidirty for working on a teletubbies article. *shutter* ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it *shudder*? Unless there's a new emotion I don't know about lol... ;) Spawn Man 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good work, J.S. I think that's pretty much all that can be done at this point, other than maybe breaking it down by season. And somebody track down the joker who put up the original 16-episode list and give him a smart pounding for duping an entire group of adults into wasting this much time discussing it on Afd. Wavy G 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, mechanically engineer a television into his chest & make him watch days of our lives performed by teletubbies. Will certainly drive him & anyone near him in a 1 kiliometre radius completely mad... ;) Spawn Man 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it was this guy, well known for adding false information, focusing primarily on child-oriented subjects (kinda creepy). Wavy G 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or split individual articles. Poeple above said what I needed to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it's a notable show, and if we're going to have things like List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes and (more analogously) List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos, there's no reason not to keep this. Heimstern Läufer 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD was suggested before the current content of the article--when it was nothing but a list of 16 or 17 episodes, most of which were worded wrong, or just outright joke entries. The article has since been fixed. Just FYI Wavy G 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep except there are a few mistakes on this page. The second episode of the show is called Our Pig Winnie except when you click on the page it comes up as being called Piggy Winne. This makes no sense... Debaser23 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Currently completely unreferenced, and thus unverifiable. Weak keep, based on precedent, if verifiable, reliable sources can be provided; otherwise delete per WP:V. -- The Anome 10:06, 5 December 2006 (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. --Coredesat 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Avenue

Stewart Avenue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This street (allegedly a thoroughfare in Bethpage, New York does not appear notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• This article hurts my eyes when I read it, it's so non-notable. Delete. WMMartin 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Bethpage, New York per WP:LOCAL, the town article needs more content and this article isn't really about the road itself, it's about a lot of stuff about the town (the local school, big local businesses, etc.); information that should be kept, just not here. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move anything useful to Bethpage and Delete. Glendoremus 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't do that, under the GFDL we need to keep the article history to properly attribute the authors. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If it remains, we should ensure that Stewart Avenue does not redirect to any particular location, as the name is quite common. Perhaps move to Stewart Avenue, Bethpage and delete the redirection, then merge to Bethpage, New York? Would that comply with the requirements of the GFDL? JulesH 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It would, as the article history would now be at Stewart Avenue, Bethpage. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. --PKT 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Much information can be moved to Bethpage but I believe that Stewart Avenue also runs through Garden City and perhaps some other villages. Or is that a different Stewart Avenue? In any event, a straight redirect to Bethpage might be misleading. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Nothing notable worth merging, and a redirect would be inappropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Roads (excluding highways) do not warrant their own articles, no matter the size. --Fred McGarry 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh ... Wall Street? Yonge Street? WilyD 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Are you honestly comparing Bethpage to Manhattan and Toronto, and can you not see the differences between the world's financial center, a former Guinness Book "world's longest street" and a street whose only apparent claims to fame are having the HQ of a Fortune 500 company, an old grocery store, and a Subway restaurant? Geoffrey Spear 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I am honestly saying that Roads (excluding highways) do not warrant their own articles, no matter the size is false, by providing counterexamples - you may note I already argued for deletion of this article. WilyD 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although 4 lanes might come close to notable as a transport route, I don't think it quite gets there. I didn't vote merge because I can't find anything useful in it.Dolive21 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless it was actually desginate as a state or U.S. Route, I can't see how this road is worth an article. Merge local roads to the town would be impractical.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Most opinions here are based simply on a hatred of an inclusion of streets in Wikipedia. Note Fred McGarry's comment above. However, clearly streets can be notable content, as there are many articles on streets on Wikidpedia.Therefore, arguments based on that motivation are invalid. If we don't want to include Stewart Avenue, it should be because it does not warrant an article, not because we dont't like articles on these topics. This appears to be a main thoroughfare, that would be comparable to major streets in any other city. I think this can be either merged or renamed to Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, and would do it the most justice. Nlsanand 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already voted delete, so I won't double-dip. The article doesn't claim notability and doesn't say anything to establish it. I don't see some kind of bias against roads in (most of) the above comments, just an appraisal of the lack of notability for this one. Glendoremus 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article lacks relaible sources - if sources are added, then Keep WilyD 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure, the main thoroughfare of a tiny town might be notable, but I'm going to have to see some evidence of its notability if you want to convince me it deserves an article here. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Just because things exist (utility poles, streets, 2 lane hiways, mailboxes, fire hydrants, bus stops) is not sufficient reason to have articles about them. Edison 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably created by a student at the externally-linked college. Of no interest outside of Bethpage. DrKiernan 10:30, 2 December 2006 (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, but merging to Maine United States Senate election, 2006 does not appear to be ruled out, either. Sandstein 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Slavick

Bill Slavick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Failed candidate for US Senate in Maine who got 5% of the vote. A previous version of the page also discussed his academic career, but he does not meet WP:PROF, as he is not a noted expert in his field and hasn't published a well-known work. He was a Fulbright lecturer, but the Fulbright Program funds dozens, if not hundreds of such lecturers each year. JChap2007 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see any standing arguments for notability. -- Shunpiker 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 5% for third party candidates is not unusual (or notable, for that matter) in races where there is not a competitive major party challenger. I'm all for a generous definition of notability while an election is under way: People need a real-time reference. But after it's over, if the subject of an article's only claim to notability is that they lost an election, and not even a close one -- how does that article serve the readers of Wikipedia? Who is possibly going to look it up, and to what end? 5% of Maine voters is more than enough to overwhelm "rough consensus" here, but not enough to warrant what would be, in effect, a memorial. If this article is going to be kept, then we need clearer guidelines that will be applied across the board to protect the articles of similarly non-notable candidates that get deleted every day in the absence of a Wiki-literate fan club. Otherwise, a keep decision would enforce an arbitrary bias. -- Shunpiker 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I still think this article is more of a memorial than a useful reference, but I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the fact that the bar seems to be lower than I imagined: I found more than a few unchallenged articles for candidates who polled significantly worse in the 2006 Senate elections, and who also appear to be notable only for their lapsed candidacies: Ralph Ferrucci (0.5% CT), Robert Fitzgerald (3% MN), Michael Cavlan (0.5% MN), Ben Powers (0.3% MN), Stan Jones (3% MT), N. Leonard Smith (0.3% NJ), Bill Van Auken (0.2% NY), Emory "Bo" Heyward (0.2% TN), Ed Choate (0.6% TN), Cris Ericson (0.6% VT), Bruce Guthrie (1.4% WA). My main concern regarding the application of AfD to political matters is that the criteria be applied fairly. I don't think it is being applied fairly, but it's probably better to err on the side of inclusion since that bias is at least more obvious, and more easily corrected. -- Shunpiker 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, what's more than a candidate in the US Senate election. He didn't make enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Actually, 5% in a major election is considered a major accomplishment for a 3rd party candidate in the US and is frequently considered past the threshold of "factor". In California it was the case with Peter Camejo in the 2002 Gubernatorial election where he got just over 5% of the vote (that's why he was allowed to participate in the 2003 recall election debates). --Oakshade 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, this discssion is about this person in particular. Arbitrary thresholds are just that: arbitrary. If this person was a factor in the election, it will have been reported and documented, and you will be able to point to non-trivial published works that discuss this person. If this person was not a factor, then the percentage is irrelevant. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• KeepAs the original contributor who fought to have him stay on here for the election, and then shrunk his bio down to mark his relevance to the national election, I would say, he has a place. A small place, but as a third party candidate running against the most popular incumbent in the senate, and still getting 5%, I would say it is worthy of note...small note yes, but noteworthy.--Mitchsensei 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That was a mis-use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for candidates to have candidate summaries published. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you advocate keeping a stub that you think should not be expanded and that, looking at the article history, you appear to have shrunk from a longer article. If we do not have a proper article on him (and by your own admission we shouldn't have one) it is better for our readers to discuss him in a larger context. JChap2007 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a place people go to seek information. I can think of a lot more useless information on here than information on a third party candidate for one of the most relevant political institutions on the planet. Now, having said that, I don't think there will be much extended discussion about Mr. Slavick. In fact, this deletion discussion is perhaps the biggest post-mortem his candidacy will get.--Mitchsensei 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• In principle we should merge (per proposed guideline) to U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006, but that doesn't exist. I would not object to that outcome. As for the sentiment toward deletion, I'm ambivalent about the 5% threshold being cited -- to me, an inclusionist, it feels just enough. Nolo contendere, then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an arbitrary figure and should not be a criterion. As stated above, if this person was a "factor" in the election, that will have been documented, whatever the percentage of the vote. The documentation of this person is the argument. Vote percentages are not. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mitchsensei.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 5% seemed enough to be notable, even before i found out he was not one of the main teo parties. Definately notable. I can definatly see someone wanting to look him up. Dolive21 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Definitely? Really? Whatever for? -- Shunpiker 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as a long standing editor on the article, I believe he is fairly notable. He finished in third place in a major election for one of the most important positions in the American government. --Thomas.macmillan 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So cite sources to demonstrate that he satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, and actually warrants an article instead of a single line in an election results table, which is all that what you have stated actually justifies. You have not cited any sources at all, not when you edited the article nor here. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Create U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006 and merge there per Dhartung. It's clear that multiple non-trivial published works are harder to find for a third-party candidate, given the systemic bias of the mainstream media. The notable story here is the election, which obviously needs the element of characterization. --Howrealisreal 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Maine United States Senate election, 2006. There isn't a need to create the article because it already exists.--Bobblehead 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah. Okay merge there please. --Howrealisreal 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Five percent is nothing, no matter how the keep voters try to redefine success. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with and make a redirect to the Maine Senate election article. Even before the mass deletion the only reference for this article was Bill Slavick's campaign website. That fails WP:C&E, not to mention the failing of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Bobblehead 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 5% is miniscule Fledgeling 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Any serious candidate for national office in the US should have an article. Even ones that are not so serious probably deserve one too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. It is an absurd notion that winning 5% of the vote in a state-wide election is a trivial feat. Getting 5% of the vote implies far wider notability. This article has significant potential for growth, and the subject is clearly notable. JDoorjam Talk 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Just above the threshhold of notability. DS 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 5% in a national level election is definitely notable enough to justify being on Wikipedia. Sprhodes 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. 5% is a good result, etc.
• Weak Keep notice the Washington Post article on WP:AfD policy. It mentions this person's article and the television debate. [1]SYSS Mouse 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Oakshade and SYSSMOUSE. I don't think that getting five percent is a priori notable. For major party candidates it is almost impossible to field below 10% because partisans will automatically vote for their party's candidates. However, it is somewhat impressive for a third party candidate he does have election coverage from very faw away so he wasn't just a local phenomenon. JoshuaZ 04:45, 5 December 2006 (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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Very few Google results, none of which are indicative of a book which is notable on its own. Should maybe be merged into the currently nonexistant article for the author. Rampart 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is a little thin and sales-like but the book is listed on some sale sites and seems notable. [2]. meshach 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the book is notable and with reliable sources such as Amazon, this article just needs an expansion as well as a cleanup. Terence Ong 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of Information An Amazon.com listing is not a reliable source. It's not that hard to get - whether through vanity publishing or other means. Still there after a year (yes I've emailed Amazon about this - twice. Nothing happened.) Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to stub as per nom There is no substantive claim made in the article that this book is encyclopedically notable. There are numerous authors and books - most of them academic - on the history of the English language, the effect of new media on language, styles of internet communication etc etc etc out here. Not every one of these is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a book catalogue and having a listing on online bookstores is certainly not evidence of notability. What needs to be shown is that this book is regarded as "smarter than the average bear", so to speak. Amazon.com sales ranking is currently above 1.02 million. This does not rule out that the book is influential, but the Amazon listing is not a persuasive argument in favour of such an assertion. No prejudice against merging some of this content to a stub for Naomi S. Baron, although whether she passes WP:PROF is a matter for later debate (Baron does not have the profile of say, the British linguist David Crystal). Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Merge to what stub? Make up your mind. Delete and merge are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "/" means "or". Also see nom. Stub can be created Bwithh 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like a nice little book with reviews in professional circles but not a very notable work. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, not sure this meets WP:BK and the article is in pretty bad shape but Worldcat shows that this book is in many university libraries which is indicative of some interest. However, it's important to remember that database listings such as Amazon's are not reliable sources. Yes, they confirm that the book exists but beyond that they are of no use since the book description is most likely written by the publisher (not reliable because of conflict of interest). What would convince me is some indication that the book has been cited as reference often enough to merit a mention here. Pascal.Tesson 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree as above. --PremKudva^Talk 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pascal.Tesson and professional reviews mentioned. They just need to be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails the notability test --Orange Mike 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a conversion table for Amazon rankings [3] a sales rank of 1,000,000 out of the 4,000,000 books for sale would indicate about 3 sold every 500 days. Was it ever relatively popular, like a ranking of above 100,000? I could not find any published reviews. But I would take a look at it if I saw it in a library. Edison 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just because its on amazon doesn’t mean its notable Fledgeling 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The deletionists are arguing either that its not high enough on amazon, or that an amazon listing is meaningless--two contradictory propositions. Serious book, importuant publisher, likely to be of interest to WP people. DGG 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published book, reviewed in notable publications. Needs references, but they are available. Proto::type 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, non-vanity book by well-known publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not a book directory. Books that change the world in a meaningful way maybe merit an article. Catalogs don't. --Improv 21:20, 30 November 2006 (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 Simeon Jackson, delete Eyre and Wilson. Majorly 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicky Eyre

Nicky Eyre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played a first-team game for a professional team. For this reason I also nominate his team mates Glenn Wilson (footballer) and Simeon Jackson HornetMike 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Simeon Jackson as he played for Rushden & Diamonds 17 times when they were in League 2, when R & D were a fully professional team. As for the others, a weak delete.Daemonic Kangaroo 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Aren't Rushden & Diamonds still full-time pros despite relegation to the Conference? (Although that would still not make the league fully professional, there's at least three or four semi-pro teams in it). - fchd 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wilson and Eyre only per WP:BIO.Catchpole 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jackson, weak delete of the others. WikiGull 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Woops, re: Jackson. My mistake. Re: the other two, whilst Rushden are presumably still professional, the Conference isn't as standard. As they've only played for them in the Conference, and don't have any other League appearances, they fail WP:BIO. HornetMike 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Rushden and Diamonds are Conference North but professional. Many teams in the lower Scottish Leagues (SFL 2 and 3) are both semi-professional and have lower crowds. I think this should stay. Gretnagod 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Eyre and Wilson, weakest keep possible for Jackson, as I don't feel League 2 players to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia. --Angelo 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Simeon Jackson, he has made appearences in the Football League, a professional league, which is worthy of notability. -- Mattythewhite 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jackson - and Delete the others Kingjamie 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Rushden & Diamonds are still fully-professional, as is 75% of the Conference Superlinus 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - So we're keeping Conference players now, are we? Blimey. HornetMike 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All R+D are still a professional club, I really dont see the harm in allowing fans of the smaller professional teams to make squad navboxes. Thousands of people go to see teams like R+D every weekend and its not like Wikipedia is short of space.King of the North East 02:34, 4 December 2006 (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 transwiki, since that's already been done. --Coredesat 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing for pike

Fishing for pike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as nom. Article reads like something which should be on an uneditable enthusist's website or a fishing wiki. Offers no information as to the subject's notability and does not seem to follow the manual of style. Seems to be a perpetual target for spamming. This is simply not the kind of article for a free encyclopedia. If a more appropriate sister project would be a better location, Transwiki. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is original research (since it's not cited well) and is a how to. -- Mikeblas 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge whatever relevant info is left to Pike (fish) after a MAJOR overhaul. Right now it reads like a Field & Stream article, but once all the POV and "how to" garbage is removed, there actually seems to be some decent content. PS: this article has been around since 2002, and this is the best we've got? Wavy G 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or delete as a how-to, which Wikipedia is not. MER-C 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to pike. How to fish it should be in that article, not outside. --Fred McGarry 10:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to WikiBooks and leave link in Pike. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - merging this kind of stuff would simply disrupt a perfectly good article on pike, which are more than "things that swim around waiting to be caught". --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks. It sounded like wikibooks material the moment I saw the title. Confirmed by the article. Dolive21
• Delete As per Elaragirl. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is a how-to guide. -- Whpq 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's original research and how-to; by no stretch of the imagination encyclopedic. --Orange Mike 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom, unencyclopedic fishing lesson.--John Lake 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki-After consideration I change my vote to Transwiki to WikiBooks.--John Lake 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I sent the delete voters a message and I would like to ask anyone who makes a comment after me to explain why they prefer not to transwiki if they vote to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. The content doesn't fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but it would be a shame to lose it. Fits Wikibooks remit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Now imported -- has been transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Fishing for pike). In the future, if transwiki is urgently needed, please list on b:WB:RFI. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:16, 3 December 2006 (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. No consensus to redirect/merge. Majorly 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meghan Markle

Meghan Markle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable model who appears on a gameshow with a non-speaking role. This model has a few other credits on IMDB, but none appear to be substantial (that is, plot-involved) roles, mostly appearing as an irregular guest on series shows. Mikeblas 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deal or No Deal (US game show). She appears to be one of 26 models designated to hold up cases. I'll remove the redlinks from that article as well - the last thing we need is someone coming and filling them in. Ultra-Loser

^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to Delete per Dolive21. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) opened the case at 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC): redirect and fold into Deal or No Deal (US game show).
• Redirect and merge to Deal or No Deal (US game show). Terence Ong 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If I found this on new page patrol I would tag it for speedy deletion. A redirect would be confusing, as she does not belong in the article for Deal or no deal. Dolive21 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. and not other work of note to base an article on. -- Whpq 15:35, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kesse Wallace

Kesse Wallace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. The contestant was eliminated fairly early, and didn't go on to do any notale work -- she's now just another struggling fashion model. Mikeblas 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Not notable on her own. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. 15 minutes are up. meshach 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable reality TV reject. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough notability for an article of a reject. --Terence Ong 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Per reasons stated above.--SUIT 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Nothing that would be useful in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Dolive21 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom nn-notable, non winner contestant on a reality show.--John Lake 19:05, 29 November 2006 (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 speedy delete. Mindmatrix 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beirut Spring

Beirut Spring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is on a blog with no notability and no verification. There is no press that has featured Beirut Spring, thus it violates WP:WEB. Diez2 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - there is nothing to redeeem it. LittleOldMe 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, there was a short mention on German chanel 1 TV in a program called Weltspiegel, but then again, that does not acertain notability- only that somebody noted.Rough 15:06, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansonite

Its been three years since this article was started, and after all that time we've yet to receive any reliable sources for this article. It also reads much like an over-glorified dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. Of the two external links provided, one is for Encyclopedia Gothica (not reliable) and the latter is a BBC article which does nothing to support the existence of this neologism. My suggestion would be to delete as unsourced original research. RFerreira 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dahn 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It really doesn't matter how long the article has been lacking good sources (I've seen pages tagged with notability since 2004), but it does fail WP:NOT, so delete this sucker. Diez2 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 10,200 Ghits, so it should be sourceable. Lack of sources is not presently a deletion criterion. The article goes into more detail than a simple dictionary defintion would, so does not fail WP:NOT, as claimed. dryguy 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You cite the speedy deletion criteria, not the regular deletion criteria. Try again. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm, it's a proposed criteria, and the point is that it is failing to muster consensus. There is no regular deletion criteria that says lack of citations is grounds for deletion. If there was, the majority of Wikipedia would be up for AfD. The closest existing regular deletion criteria I can find to support those who want to delete this, is that unverifiable articles should be deleted. Since this term has 10,200 Ghits, it may be verifiable. If someone wants to argue otherwise, I'm all ears. dryguy 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  What? Lack of sources can well be a valid deletion criterion, if the article cannot be transformed into something verifiable by the close of this discussion it can and should be deleted. RFerreira 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiability is a criterion for deletion. Simple lack of sources is not currently a guideline for deletion. If I'm wrong, then cite the guideline that explicity says this and I'll change my vote. If you want to argue that Mansonite is unverifiable, you should do so, and lay off the spurious argument that lack of sources is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are citing Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which is not really relevant here. My reasons for deletion are clear and I'll stick with them, thanks. RFerreira 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clear, but contrary to guidelines. dryguy 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment For the last time, speedy deletion has nothing to do with the Articles for Deletion process. Stop citing policy that has no bearing on this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I referenced the talk page, not the proposal (it isn't policy). If you read through the comments, you will see that there is not a consensus that lack of citations is a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. There is no relevant policy to cite, simply because there isn't an existing policy that states that lack of references is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The page is up for AfD as "unsourced original research", not for lack of citations. See the criteria for deletion for more details. Lack of citations is grounds for putting a banner that says there are no citations for the work. Your policy cite still has no bearing on the discussion, and you've been asked by Danny above to please stop doing this. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring my point. 10,200 Ghits is likely to be evidence of the existence of external sources, which might well show that the subject of the article isn't OR. There may be parts of the article that are OR, which is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. dryguy 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Now in some articles it might be that the sources exist but haven't been added - given that it's been three years, this seems unlikely here. If someone finds a reliable source for mansonite in future, they can always add a new article based on that. Mdwh 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Just H 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Almost a Transwiki. Almost. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism with little to no sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a subtype of Marilyn Manson fan? Almost BJAODN, except it isn't funny. Besides, we had some mansonite in our kitchen and it was really hard to get out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Per above. Kukini 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even though I've contributed to the article. Although I certainly believe that everything in the article is true, unfortunately, it is very hard to find documented sources for these kinds of things. Although I believe that the information in the article deserves to be on Wikipedia somewhere, perhaps as a segment of the Goth subculture article, AFAIK the term "Mansonite" is not even in widespread use-I can rattle off a half-dozen alternate terms for the same thing which I've heard both on the Internet and in local scenes, whereas I never heard "Mansonite" until I came to Wikipedia. The behaviour/stereotype described in the article is not limited to Marilyn Manson fans, either. Perhaps a more useful, similar article can be created in the future. --Halloween jack 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep Lots of google hits. Seems to be in common usage in some groups, and the article provides useful insight into that aspect of the culture. Per proposal at WP:ATT it could probably be sourced with less reliable sources than we would require for most articles, too, which might make some sources become available. JulesH 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Strong keep The more I think about this, the more I feel we shouldn't be deleting stuff based on a lack of sources, when a proposed policy change that looks likely to succeed will make the sources we do have acceptable. JulesH 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC):

What policy change is that? If you mean WP:ATT, that still requires "reliable, published source". If anything, I'd say that policy strengthens existing policy, and would be all the more reason to delete this article. Mdwh 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if WP:ATT becomes policy, the "Encyclopedia Gothica" would seem to be what it calls a "questionable source". The BBC link doesn't contain the word "mansonite" at all. Demiurge 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Yes, Encyclopedia Gothica may qualify as a "questionable source" (although I'm uncertain; it seems to have an editor independent of the content creators and to require a minimum standard from its articles, but as to what fact-checking processes they employ it is hard to tell), but I feel this particular source would still be usable on this article despite these reservations, due to the exception for subjects "where professional sources offer shallow coverage". I don't think there are many professional quality sources on attitudes between different subsections of the goth subculture. JulesH 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Encyclopedia Gothica is probably about as questionable as the Jargon File - even if the JF has been around longer. It kind of becomes one of those things that are questionable only because it's something that documents particulars of a community. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Not having sources is not a reason for deletion. Reliable sources not existing is. The first needs cleanup, the second is a violation of WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. dryguy 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable evidence that it exists as a term outside the article creator's head, in which case it's a neologism and/or Original Research. --Orange Mike 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The term does exist outside the author's head (it's not rare in the goth community as a disparagement) but this is stuff for a slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia; at best, it rates a small mention on Marilyn Manson, but not sure it rates even that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The term certainly exists, but it's already mentioned in Goth slang, and I'm not sure what else we can say about it that would be notable and verifiable. Mdwh 23:39, 30 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian National Vanguard

Romanian National Vanguard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entire article is obvious fascist propaganda copied from the official site (very likely, buy the very same person who created that site). There is no notability to speak of: the name will show on google searches only once outside of the wiki article (twice, if you count a post on a "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" thread...). The Romanian-language version of the name gives... no links whatsoever. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, if you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could just as well create my own couple of "Vanguards", and start wiki articles on them. Dahn 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fascist cells with only one proud member that don't even have a connection to the nation their name would imply that they're based in are not notable in any way. Of course the Romanian name gives no hits, it's one guy in Michigan.
• Delete Aside from the article making no assertion of notability, the organization makes no sense. If I'm reading this correctly, it was founded by some unnamed man, who is not accepting, nor has not accepted, any new members from its inception until the present. So basically, it's not an organization, but ONE guy??? Wavy G 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You create an article once you have notability; you don't create an article to generate notability. As an aside, how did you happen to choose the name of Romania for your inane project? Couldn't you sully some other country, like Lilliput or Oz? Biruitorul 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. A particularly ludicrous (if obnoxious) "one man and his dog" "let's hold our party conference in a phone booth" outfit. --Folantin 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not because of notability (which is, remember folks, not policy) but because of the complete lack of verifiability. Cynical 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. (If there's only one member, how does it have a vice-president?) It's interesting that the World Union of National Socialists website does list this, but under Romania, not USA, so perhaps they've been hoaxed as well!. Emeraude 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One man who believes that the jews are ganging up with the commies to come and get the whites is not notable. Dolive21 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete solidly per nom and Biruitorul.--John Lake 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for listing. Linuxaurus 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely vile. Non-notable advertising. Moreschi 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete TSO1D 20:19, 2 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berg-Munch

Berg-Munch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is about a "prominent" Scottish/English/Irish family. Hmm...A little vague? No notability and no verification. Diez2 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The author used the word "prominent," which means absolutely nothing, except that it can't be speedy deleted. Wavy G 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can't be that prominent if our article is the first google result. WP:VAIN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Sure it can. Saying the word "prominent" without explaining why something is prominent does not equate to an assertion of notability. Serpent's Choice 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article does not cite reliable sources WilyD 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Not really specific, and don't see how it can be improved.--SUIT 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. DrKiernan 18:32, 1 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betsy Bryan

Betsy Bryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is about Betsy, who is best known for leading an excavation crew somewhere in Africa. It would probably be better if she was best known about her Johns Hopkins employment, but there is no verification on that. Diez2 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Source or delete. MER-C 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article already cites a Johns Hopkins University page identifying her as holding a named professorship. I added some books that she has written and some other references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TT's good work as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per MER-C's request, it got sourced. --Oakshade 22:21, 30 November 2006 (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 speedy delete. Mindmatrix 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stick It Comic

Stick It Comic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Recreation of previously deleted Stick It! (comic). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Should be tagged with db-repost if it was a recreation. Warn the author about the 3RR rule. Diez2 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 02:27, 29 November 2006 (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, and discuss possible merging on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashgrovian

Dictionary article (and the etymology) that should belong in WikiDictionary. Diez2 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. It stands for improvement, as far as noting what constitutes Ashgrovian. --Dennisthe2 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a unique style with regional notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm no architect, but if this is a distinct style of building with definable qualities (as it seems to be at the moment), then it seems notable enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum, I've never done the image-uploading thing before, but if it will help move this beyond the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument, I've got a good enough idea (courtesy of Google and a whole series of photos I don't want to try to get copyright details of) of what this looks like to find an example and upload a photo thereof. It's the sort of thing this article will need anyway, so it can only help in the long run. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Fred McGarry 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - May be more appropriate to merge as a section highlight on the vernacular architecture and/or Ashgrove, Queensland articles. I've placed a note on the apparent creator's talk page giving him/her a heads up that this is up for discussion. --Keesiewonder 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with either Architecture of Australia or Australian architectural styles or most likely, Australian residential architectural styles. Notablility established Here. This is clearly a recognised 'style' in Australia. The article in its current form is very stubby though and a merge with either of the above articles seems appropriate. The 'dictionary article' rationale doesn't really bear close scrutiny, the article is much more than a definition. Popularity is discussed, the relationships of the parts are examined and we are told how the buildings were adapted, that's encyclopedic in my book (if too stubby for an article on it's own). If it's significantly expanded in the next seven days (more than just adding a photo though) then I'm a keep. If the decision is keep then the article needs renaming to Ashgrovian style. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep given references as it seems to be an architectural style of some significance. Possibly rename as per McGinley. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:30, 30 November 2006 (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 Speedy delete (G1). Renesis (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Books

Better Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL. This is borderline nonsense about a bookstore somewhere in London. Diez2 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and tagged as such. This article is nonsense because there was no bookshop of that name at this address. The confusion is with 84 Charing Cross Road based on a bookshop with a different name, Marks & Company. TerriersFan 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per TerriersFan. Even if there were a bookstore at the address later, it wasn't individually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Might I add: we're not the Yellow pages. Pascal.Tesson 07:50, 29 November 2006 (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. Majorly 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xwrits

Xwrits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deleted on A7, undeleted per request. Concern is WP:SOFTWARE. - crz crztalk 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep with waffle, but solely on account that it's in Debian Sarge. --Dennisthe2 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems like a decent enough article. But why is the software's name spelled Xwrits instead of Xwrist? JIP | Talk 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting article, and notable.Dolive21 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Did google search and found it in MIT's database as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)
• Keep as per above. –– 30sman 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cool, but not yet notable, web content. This isn't the place to spread the word about new software, only to write about it once it becomes more entrinched. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I created the article. Of course I think it should be kept. :-) --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 07:34, 4 December 2006 (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. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erdős–Bacon number

The concept is total original research, only discussed in jest by unreliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. Deco 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOR broken here. Just H 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally useless, as per Deco. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Sr13 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOR vio, if one can call it "research". Belongs in WP:BAD - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - appears not to be OR for Wikipedia, but an in-joke among mathematicians. The article has a reference to the Daily Telegraph so it's not completely made up just for here; and the table is interesting information not available in this format anywhere else, which is always a plus for me. But we lost Yellow Pigs Day, so I don't suppose we'll save this one either. Newyorkbrad 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This article has been around for a long time and is interesting. I've greatly expanded it with what seems like "original research" to someone who hasn't actually read the policy WP:NOR. All "research" is taken from known sources and compiled, just as any encyclopedia article would be. If people want to use a stricter definition of OR and scale this back, that's fine. If people want to contribute specific criticisms about the tone or layout of the article, those criticisms can be addressed. But the actual reasons given for deletion are perplexing. Are Bacon numbers used in any fashion other than "in jest"? Why not delete that article, too, or any of the thousands of other articles chronicling humorous phenomena? And I've yet to see someone describe how this is OR or what the sources lack in terms of reliability. The sources are IMDb, the Erdős Number Project, and the like, which are very reliable, and the references as to notability are the The Daily Telegraph and Boing Boing, not exactly obscure sources themselves. Please, base your recommendations on actual policy and actual facts, not on a knee-jerk reaction to an article about a phenomenon unfamiliar to you. Calbaer 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in Erdős number, though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of WP:NOR this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD call. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. Calbaer 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge with Erdos number. Danica McKellar made a circular reference to our article so that's not really a citation. Even with Mayim Bialik doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Erdos number, I don't know what on earth this thing is talking about. Not notable in its own right imo. Terence Ong 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and I think notable. Dolive21 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced, ecyclopaedic. Goofy is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calbaer.Trystan 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Enough is enough, and the only sources are unreliable. Voretus^talk 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Can we get a better reference for the Daily Telegraph? Like what day it appeared? Morwen - Talk 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be nice — I don't know myself — although note that Simon Singh's website should be a reliable source in and of itself, given that he is a top popular mathematician. Calbaer 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find a link to a Telegraph article (I don't have a searchable database handy), but both the article and Singh's site only assert that the reference was written for the Telegraph; not that it was published there. I'd call Singh a science writer rather than a mathematician. Still, I think this one is a weak keep. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It was published in the Daily Telegraph.[4] Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--Trystan 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Good, thanks for the link. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - A trivia enough notable, but at the edge of enclyclopedicty, - Cate | _Talk 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not a great deal to be found, but what I find on this is often of high quality. It's in a scholarly article on the Small World Phenomenon put out by the University of California, San Diego--T. Anthony 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • T. Anthony, that seems to be a poorly-researched undergraduate paper, because it misuses "Erdos-Bacon number" where it clearly means "Erdos number". --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Surprisingly, this does meet WP:RS. --- RockMFR 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Although the sources may be reliable I think this I see no signifcant support for this being a notable widely used neologism. Yes, it is out there but I would say fairly non-notable. No dispute about the various Erdos-bacon numbers just about the notablility of the subject. Gets 334 ghits with many wikipedia mirrors. Kind of weak. --Nick Y. 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I would merge into Erdős number or Bacon number if either had a clear claim. But as it is, better to leave it in one place and have them both link here. I see no reason why WP cannot explain jokes; and there is no reason why anyone interested in the handful of examples should have to regenerate the figures from the separate articles. Septentrionalis 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is reliably sourced. However, this topic isn't notable nor encyclopedic. This is the equivalent of something made up in school one day for math professors, one of which happened to convince someone to write about the subject. VegaDark 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it is often notable - convinced someone to publish it is the most obvious sign of notability. WilyD 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you implying that everything published is notable? VegaDark 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but published isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. WilyD 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. VegaDark 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not suggesting you assume anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting being published is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) WilyD 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. VegaDark 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
              • On what grounds did you make that decision? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
                • I thought to myself "If a (non-paper) encyclopedia could choose to include this or not, would they?" Common sense told me no. VegaDark 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, no matter how well it is referenced. --- RockMFR 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:N, those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--Trystan 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Erdos number per flamingspinach. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable, OR. Jonathunder 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Amusing, interesting, and perhaps unique in its tying together of history, statistics, and cinema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.10.203 (talk • contribs)
• Comment I've made the references more obvious for those thinking that this is OR on non-notable. The topic has been the subject of BBC radio, a leading British newspaper, a notable blog, and blogs by a notable persons. Again, any advice on improving the article would be appreciated, but please don't vote it down on aesthetics rather than policy. Calbaer 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with either Erdos number or Bacon number. (in fact, Bacon number itself should be merged with Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but that's a discussion for another day.) Spebudmak 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : I heard of this concept outside of WP, thought it was notable hike395 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Newyorkbrad and Septentrionalis. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. OR claims have been debunked. As for notability, it's notable enough. --C S (Talk) 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Newyorkbrad and Calbaer (though without the vehemence). --bainer (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per VegaDark. WMMartin 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a funny and interesting curiosity and I enjoyed reading it. I think it's a fine piece of trivia and should be kept. KDevaney 21:54, 4 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rain Day

Rain Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Trivial, unsourced, unlinked Robotsintrouble 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per all of the above. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though the term is not entirely disputable the lack of links to the article may not justify it to stay.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Here is evidence that the holiday is real, at least. But I don't think it's really significant enough for an article, and would at least need a substantial rewrite not to look like a poster for the holiday. The part about "rain day" as opposed to "rainy day" seems trivial and not necessarily true. Heimstern Läufer 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, despite being real. Not notable enough to have an article. Terence Ong 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the festival can be mentioned in the town's article (after considerable rewriting), but notability for one town's festival is not established.-- danntm ^T _C 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn notable, unsourced. The first draft consists only of a description of a rainy season or monsoon time and could have took a redirect. The edits added about the festival are poorly written and seeing that it ends with a drunken lifeguard smells like vandalism and is magnum unencyclopedic, nor does the festival seem notable enough for keeping in any event.--John Lake 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Rain Day is an accepted definition as used by the UK Meteorological Office and features in their Meteorological Glossary (ISBN 0 11 400363 7}, as an accepted measure in climatology. See AMS Glossary. Article could definitely be improved however. Yorkshiresky 03:20, 1 December 2006 (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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ISKCON devotees by status

List of ISKCON devotees by status (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable list of members. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sfacets 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep: most list members appear notable, which leads me to believe that the list itself is. -Drdisque 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete: There is a catagory for ISKCON, having a list as well, though adds slightly more detail with the person's status, isn't required. Also, ISKCON has over 100,000 members - Being a list of "ISKCON devotees by status" it certainly could get very long. Chopper Dave 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to List of notable ISKCON devotees. I hope there isn't another list that isn't by status out there, but we only need one. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge notable members to ISKCON Sfacets 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The article seems against the basic aims of Wikipedia - I can't see that it suits any purpose more than a simple category list would. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep An organized list of notable members in a relgious succession. If a list of bishops can get in, so can this. DGG 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:05, 4 December 2006 (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 Speedy deleted per CSD G10. Xoloz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable frat house Bm gub 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -Drdisque 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per about 100 different criteria: the article asserts little-to-no notability, and could fall under db-club. The first half of the article is an admitted copyvio (though I guess this is not speedyable, as the article has existed for more than 48 hours). The second half is nothing but a blatant attack. -- Kicking222 04:34, 29 November 2006 (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. --Coredesat 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Sheehan

Sam Sheehan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-Notable youth amateur driver -Drdisque 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN driver who fails WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. To the closing admin, don't miss the redirect, Sam sheehan. -- Kicking222 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable, fairly succesful in his field.Dolive21 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, 5th place in a small amateur series is not notably successful. -Drdisque 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kicking222. --Simonkoldyk 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being the best 11 year old kart driver in a London suburb is not notable. If he's good enough, he'll qualify for an article for real in a few years. In the meantime, NN. WMMartin 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems like a pretty average racing record. Not notable. Glendoremus 19:59, 4 December 2006 (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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hethersett Middle School

Hethersett Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. Jacob1207 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is nothing more than a directory entry. The school's name also gets only 100 total hits on Google, and most of these are also directory listings (if not even more trivial mentions). -- Kicking222 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hard to see notability here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am unable to find any independent non-trivial sources with which to expand this article. No assertion of notability. Directory entry. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and even the more-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS. Would not be opposed to a merge/redirect to the village's article, though there's no significant information here. Shimeru 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Shimeru. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SCHOOLS and per previous debates.--WaltCip 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Article was originated by the Chair of the Governors, so possible COI. Emeraude 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Redirect or mergewith Hethersett - useful addition to that article. Emeraude 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:SCH, more like a directory. Terence Ong 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another sad little school article which can barely speak its name. Denni ^talk 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hethersett. Article fails WP:SCHOOL, with little near-term prospect for expansion. There's no viable content to merge, but there's no valid reason to delete the article without changing to a redirect. Alansohn 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the village. redirects are cheap. But otherwise agree with sentiments given by Shimeru, Terence and others.JoshuaZ 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hethersett article per Alansohn. Redirects are cheap. Use them. Silensor 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hethersett. -- Satori Son 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hethersett. There is nothing notable in this directory entry masqurading as an article - it gives the school's name and location. It then gives the age range the school serves and its location, both of which would be better in the Hethersett article. The address and headteachers' names are not relveant to an international encyclopaedia. Thryduulf 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very obviously written by some middle schooler who goes to that school. 2Pac 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I fail to see why that is a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ 23:49, 3 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)

Mark Harris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsuccessful candidate for State House in PA. Non-notable person otherwise. Holds no other office. I actually supported the guy and sent him a few bucks. But the reality is that he won't be running for any notable office until 2008 so maybe in two years, he can be brought back. Montco 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and don't bring him back until after he's elected to something. Candidacy is not, in itself notable. Fan-1967 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Thousands of people run for their respective state legislatures every two to four years. That fact alone does not make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia Jacob1207 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, failed candidates are usually non-notable, unless they made something very well known or assert notability before. Terence Ong 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being an unsuccessful candidate does not notability make.-- danntm ^T _C 18:04, 29 November 2006 (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 redirect. W.marsh 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Island Elementary School

Cedar Island Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. Just a directory entry and nothing more. -- Kicking222 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kicking222. Denni ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. I'd love to include a merge, but there is no useful content to move over. Article fails WP:SCHOOL with little prospect for expansion in the near term. Alansohn 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't developed an opinion on this one yet. The school appears to be a Blue Ribbon school [5] but I can't find any other detail about the school at all. I would suggest making of note of the ribbon in the school district article. Can someone else possibly find more sourcing about the school? JoshuaZ 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279, which I've already done. Care to close this or should we drag this on forever? Silensor 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:08, 4 December 2006 (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 Speedily deleted Viridae^Talk 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F.F.F Los Unicos

F.F.F Los Unicos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No clear assertion of notability; no sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Doesn't seem to meet the sports inclusion standards. Crystallina 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - I'd say this falls under CSD-A7. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP: RS, V, NPOV and AWW. Sr13 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy red-card per Nuggetboy, 5-a-side amatuer street football team inherently NN. Article doesn't even say what country they're in, no way to verify anything. Tubezone 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per db-club. Hell, I'm not even sure if we're talking a group of real or fictional players, but it doesn't matter either way. -- Kicking222 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - early shower for this one, I think. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Roese

Neal Roese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:08Z

• Delete. Wikipedia has a guideline WP:AB about autobiography. This article may violate it, since the user is named Nroese and this is the only article s/he has edited. The danger with being too permissive here is of course an escalating self-promotion phenomenon. --IslandGyrl 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:COI. Just misses a speedy recommendation with its unsourced assertion of notability. B.Wind 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't consider WP:AUTO or WP:COI to be deletion criteria in themselves, but if the book he'd written had been reviewed seriously I'd consider whether he met WP:PROF. I don't believe he does even with this particular book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Autobio + no serious indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 29 November 2006 (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 no consensus. --Coredesat 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ennis National School

Ennis National School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Significant enough to warrant a page? Sad mouse 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear so. Unless anyone can show that it is, delete. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've added a few points to the article, including a link to media coverage of the campaign to rebuild the 100 years-old school. --Mereda 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Despite Mereda's impressive job of sourcing, the article still makes no real claim to the notability of the school. In its current state, fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and, ignoring the ridiculous age criterion, WP:SCHOOLS. Do not oppose a merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Shimeru stole my answer. Denni ^talk 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WIthout an official policy or guideline, there's no basis for stating here what is and is not "notable". I think the article as it stands now is sufficient for inclusion based on the aforementioned sourcing and the obvious historical nature (over 100 years old) of the place. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's located in Europe, where 100 years isn't that much, historically speaking. Certainly not enough to call it "obvious" without any supporting sources. And while there are no formal guidelines in place, it remains true that the article does not assert notability. Regardless of what may or may not constitute notability, it's general consensus that a claim of such is required. Shimeru 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some (like me) would find stating that it opened in 1897 is stating notability. Some would even find simply stating that it is a school is stating notability. Until a guideline/policy exists, we're all talking in the dark here anyway. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:NN. This school has not been shown "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Shimeru 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight a bit, it should be pointed out that WP:N is a "disputed" page that is directly part of an ongoing RFAR and arbcom has expressed concerns over its status [6]. Regarding your comment about sources, it is clear that you have not looked very deeply into press coverage of Ennis. In fact, Ennis has been at the heart of a national scandal involving sanitation and dangerous health conditions in the schools that has been extensively covered in the Irish press for years. --JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about any sources. I merely pointed out that none of them were cited in the article, and subsequently that the school cannot be called "obvious[ly] historical" without such sources. As for your source... I suppose "one of the most dilapidated schools" in the area could be considered noteworthy, on reflection. It's not the sort of accomplishment I tend to look for, personally. As for WP:N, it may be disputed, but it is not (yet) rejected, so, to the best of my knowledge, it remains a guideline. Shimeru 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Shimeru actually meant WP:N not WP:NN which is what the dispute centers around. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My link and comment directly concerns the disputed WP:N. For further info, see the WP:N talk page and the entire arbcom case. --JJay 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep With Mereda's efforts at expansion, sufficient additional sources have been added to demonstrate compliance with WP:RS and WP:V necessary to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS. Alansohn 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above and WP:SCHOOLS which this article now meets, verifiably. Silensor 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my comment above. Article needs to be developed to include the health scandal, the threatened teachers strike over the issue and the church's windfall from the rezoning of a new site for the school (registration or pay required to view articles but google news gives an idea [7]). I shouldn't have to remind people that we do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Finally, to answer Sad Mouse's question: yes, this school is more than significant enough to merit a page--JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay presuming someone adds the sources. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete on the absence of sources at this time, which is when we are commentingDGG 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to me like every single sentence is sourced. --JJay 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons cited above. WMMartin 17:09, 4 December 2006 (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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company)

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:32Z

• Speedy delete as spam, corporate spa Wowzamedia (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. You would think that living in the same city as they supposedly work from, I would hear something about them if they were notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 29 November 2006 (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 and merge to List of films by gory death scene. Merge has already been performed and the other article is an entirely appropriate place for the material. If that article is not appropriate then a second AfD nomination is required. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've undeleted the article and redirected to the page where material was merged, so the contributors are attributed as the GFDL requires. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies that feature head explosions

Movies that feature head explosions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-encyclopedic list. Not only is this a list of dubious value and unlikely to ever be comprehensive, it also suggests having similar lists for every other type of death or similar event depicted in a movie. Next we'll have List of movies that feature talking babies, List of movies that feature bears, etc. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of movies that feature talking babies and List of movies that feature bears would be far too large to be useful compared to this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really...hmmm. There are 10 movies listed for exploding heads, how many times more can you come up with that have talking babies? :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. My head explodes at the cruftiness of this list. MER-C 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:MER-C. Additionally list does not conform to the Manual of Style -- wtfunkymonkey 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing, but a new low for listcruft. Slightly leaning towards BJAODN. —Cuiviénen 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I feel it should be added as a section to List of films by gory death scene, which technically already covers a few of these.--Tenka Muteki 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Kinda makes me think that's another list that ought to be deleted, but if it is to stay, then the merge would make sense. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Your head a splode. Danny Lilithborne 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as comprising an indiscriminate collection of pointless information. Vizjim 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not required. --PremKudva^Talk 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fred McGarry 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep exploding heads are uncommon enough to have a short to the point list about the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nom that this would set a precedent. Also, looking at the list the criteria is shaky -- it includes a head being blown off by a shotgun and that happens in a lot of films and that's not a head "Explosion". Plus there are a couple of examples that appear to be speculative or at least uncited. 23skidoo 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yay for WP:OR. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, listcruft, nonsense. Terence Ong 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I am the creator of the article and I think if anything, it should be merged either to List of films by gory death scene or exploding head. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so that was actually my first article. I was unaware of any list rules, but now I know. Lemmy12 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that List of films by gory death scene had already been up for deletion, but survived. Lemmy12 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Already done, in fact.--Tenka Muteki 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Explode the head (delete). Seems a bit obvious, actually. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable crufty OR list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been merged, I don't see how this debate should be continued further. I'll edit the newly-added section in List of films by gory death scene to be in alphabetical order. Lemmy12 00:54, 30 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marakay Rogers

Marakay Rogers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable candidate. Ran once for PA office as a green in 2002. Wasn't on the ballot for governor in 2006 even though article claims she was a candidate. Holds no other office. Montco 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:56, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Featherman

John Featherman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable candidate. Did not even appear on GOP primary ballot in 2006. No other notable factors. Montco 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Wofford

Dan Wofford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, are we going to start deleting the pages of every candidate that lost a Congressional election? That could be quite a task if we're setting such a precedent. User:Bruceberry
  • Comment You don't think its a poor precedent to have pages for every single candidate under the sun whether or not they are notable? I have no proposed deleting every single losing candidate. Some individuals are indeed notable outside of their failed candidacies. Some are not. Montco 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a major-party nominee for Congress is notable, ipso facto. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 4 December 2006 (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. --Coredesat 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infra-progression

Infra-progression (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Original research with no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Not a dog 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:V. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as article clearly indicates it is OR. WMMartin 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete - Author basically admits it is original research.Glendoremus 20:27, 4 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotobo

Cotobo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nom - Prod & Prod2 removed without explanation; Prod read: This topic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. "Cotobo" has not been mentioned in any third party sources, and there also isn't any proof that "Cotobo" isn't a password-stealing program. There aren't pages for the several RuneScape bots that exist. As a minimum, this should be merged with Conquer Online; it certainly doesn't rate its own article Rklawton 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per mer-c meshach 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no google hits from useful third-party sources, clearly not notable. JulesH 10:11, 29 November 2006 (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. W.marsh 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Avillo

Phil Avillo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Took only 33.5% of the vote. Non-notable otherwise. Montco 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep- Slightly notable, he got some votes... Could be worked on, though.--SUIT 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Getting "some votes" would be a rather extreme loosening of notability guidelines. I think its generally prefereable that candidate wither win an election or make a big enough stink during an election that he gets tons of press coverage. Montco 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Now that the election is over, this entry seems to have very little valuable information. If we don't want to delete, maybe we could even redirect to another page dealing with the Pennsylvania 19th district congressional elections for 2006? Lois Murphy, who ran in PA's 6th district, did way better than Avillo, and she no longer has her own page. Instead, trying to get information on Murphy will redirect you to the Pennsylvania 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. --WayneNight 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Losing political candidates seem to represent an interesting challenge for the notability policies. By virtue of running in an election, a person will inevitably garner some media coverage. But, will it matter in five years? So, I think losing an unremarkable election is insufficient grounds, in and of itself, for inclusion. I might have suggested merge to Todd Russell Platts, but almost the entire contents of this article are already there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:58, 3 December 2006 (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 redirect. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Romanelli

Carl Romanelli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable political candidate, briefly ran for Senate in PA, never even got on the ballot. Nothing else in background suggests notability. Montco 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006. —Cuiviénen 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable because of the unusual circumstance that an opposing party tried to get him on the ballot. JamesMLane t c 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That can be covered briefly in the election article. It doesn't make Carl Romanelli notable that Rick Santorum tried to use him to save his skin. —Cuiviénen 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006, given that what's in there is warmed-over campaign-speak and stuff that belongs in the campaign article. Non-notable beard, otherwise. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 30 November 2006 (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 Speedy Keep Alex Bakharev 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Foundation for Civil Liberties

From speedy. It is a marginally notable fund, I have heard its name a few times. Besides it might be involved with Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The organization is mentioned by legitimate news sources. [8] [9]. It also has 518+ Google hits [10],some of which are encyclopedias [11]. The organization appears to be quite wealthy and somewhat influential. Let it stay. --Ineffable3000 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's no Amnesty International but it easily meets notability. Article should be expanded and sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 29 November 2006 (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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emilio Vedova

Strong Delete - Completely devoid of almost any information; valueless; poor grammar and spelling ("Espressionism"); what is "corrente"?; no links or explanations of terminology; etc. 216.194.4.255 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: this nomination was found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Foundation for Civil Liberties. It's now in the correct spot. MER-C 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, Emilio Vedova was not only one of the most significant figures of Italian avant-garde art of the immediate post-war period but also an artist whose continuing experiments with a wide range of diverse techniques and media exerted an enormous influence on subsequent generations of Italian artists. Demiurge 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for God's sake! I have added a link to his bio at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection's site. I may add some more material, but anyways the guy is certainly notable. Just to give an idea of his fame and prestige, Luigi Nono composed an "Omaggio a Emilio Vedova" in 1957. Stammer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Terence Ong 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, all of nom's reasons are now invalid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see any valid reasons to delete presented.--Nick Y. 00:52, 30 November 2006 (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 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42...delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of flashbacks on Lost

List of flashbacks on Lost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is unencyclopedic fancruft and does not present information better than List of Lost episodes or individual character pages. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ADDED FLASHBACK SUMMARIES TO ALL EPISODES - WORK IN PROGRESS --SilvaStorm

No that won't solve the issue...and that is strange logic seeing as nobody has presented lack of material as an argument. It's the nature of the material, and adding more doesn't make it better...quite the opposite in fact. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, check user pages of yours, mine and Spawn Man - somewhere there they mentioned lack of material! I have added details to every flashback episode. --SilvaStorm

No, you're confusing lack of material with uselessness, (from before you added the details in any case anyway...). As I said before, every episode has a flashback, so you may as well see the list of episodes list. Whatever the case, the article is fan cruft & its contents can be seen in any of the episode articles... Spawn Man 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Information already present in other articles, such as the list of episodes, anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Redundant, not in keeping with Wikipedia, etc. Better suited to lost.wikia -- PKtm 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly before it multiplies. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a really useless list. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notice for deletion was removed by SilvaStorm and replaced with a Underconstruction label.PremKudva^Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I restored the AfD notice on the page. Rafy 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Lost. Flashbacks do not warrant their own article. Please keep Wikipedia's high standard by not creating pages that cover minor issues. --Fred McGarry 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Those flashbacks are already covered in the individual episode articles. I don't see why we need a list of them. What would it be used for? = Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination... also interesting to note when I asked for some justification for having this article on the talk page yesterday, SilvaStorm blanked my request... guess that meant he/she didn't have any.--Isotope23 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another piece of fancruft, and non-notable, unencyclopedic material. Does not warrant an article on Wikipedia, isn't there a Lostpedia? Terence Ong 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lumaga 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --theDemonHog 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Lost WIKIA thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are multiple flashbacks in every episode of Lost, making this unremarkable. --Canley 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Unnecessary in my opinion, and as stated above, it's unencyclopedic.--SUIT 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• OMG! Delete! - Ummm, the whole show is a flash back. Shouldn't there be an article called "Shows on Lost that actually show present events"? It would be a stub too... ;) As per nom... Spawn Man 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: redundant information - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Lost. Just H 17:06, 30 November 2006 (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. W.marsh 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Scoles

Paul Scoles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable candidate. Ran unsuccessully for Congress in 2004. Nothng else to suggest notability. Montco 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this article is deleted, the title is a plausible misspelling of Paul Scholes, and should redirect there. Oldelpaso 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Paul Scholes. Vizjim 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because he fails WP:BIO. Sure to the redirect, as well.--Kchase T 18:16, 5 December 2006 (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/withdrawn. Well, the articles definitely need to be improved, but I'll take all of your words for it that the book and person are notable. —Cuiviénen 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Riesman

David Riesman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

with The Lonely Crowd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Author and lawyer, doesn't seem to quite meet notability requirements. Tagged as unreferenced for over a month with no edits whatsoever, but really the lack of references makes it difficult for me to see notability. Google and Amazon don't turn up much. Also nominating The Lonely Crowd, the article on his book that reads like a book review and has also been untouched for a while. Neither seems to manage notability, though I'd be happy to see otherwise. —Cuiviénen 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The book was influential and popular in its day; the title has been re-used as well. --Orange Mike 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks like he was quite notable, espeically from his book. [12] (ref inserted into article) --Oakshade 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep- This book is a biggie in academia - I am too lazy to find citations at the moment but I assure you 3/4 of my classmates in different disciplines in college had to read this thing.--Dmz5 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep per Dmz5 DGG 06:47, 30 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional cities

List of fictional cities A-M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of fictional cities N-Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

What reason is there to have these huge unwieldly lists of things that are entirely unrelated, other than being fictional cities? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, potentially endless. The goal is more easily accomplished with categories and subcategories. Category:Fictional towns and cities already exists and can be further subclassified even by book or series or universe (e.g. Category:Fictional cities and towns in Middle-earth or Category:Fictional cities and towns in RuneScape). —Cuiviénen 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the benefits of the category outweighs the benefits of a long, messy list in this case. Cuivienen's suggestion is a nice one, too. riana_dzasta 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per those above. This is something which is much better served by one or more categories. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but I'd rather not see it used to populate equally useless categories. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, but only because it is redundant with the category. Otherwise I see no problems. JIP | Talk 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is unmaintainably long with little additional value over categories. In this case, I think categories are better. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, categories are better for such stuff, its going to go on and on. Sigh. Terence Ong 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this list appears to be too arbitrary and unmanageable.-- danntm ^T _C 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to Setting (fiction). It's the thought that counts with this page, but yes, it's getting to be too much. A mention on the setting (fiction) page (perhaps using one or more of the fictional cities as examples) would make more sense. --Dynamite Eleven 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If there isn't already a place, I think there should be a list of fictional cities by the topic type, for example list of fictional cities in middle earth etc... At present it is too unwieldly & too impossible to maintain... Spawn Man 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is. You can check the category mentioned for subcats.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - a category would suffice. Axem Titanium 22:05, 30 November 2006 (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. --Coredesat 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fat frog

Fat frog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Only reference is for the recipe, no other claims in article are sourced. Prod removed with comment that this drink is popular in Ireland, but that fact is not in evidence and wouldn't in itself make the subject encyclopedic anyway. Quale 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibook Bartending. --Howrealisreal 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, which seems to be quite literally "made up in school one day." The ridiculous "popular drink ordered by students" comment was a big tip-off, along with that goofy picture. "Dude, I just invented a drink!" "Dude! Let's put it on Wikipedia! Get the camera, dude! Score!" Wavy G 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - COI obviously, & OR too. "It has been known to cause the sensation of sugar coated teeth in the morning but remains a popular drink nonetheless. The drink is rumoured to have originated in Ireland, inspired by Fat Frog ice lollies" - I think the original writer is very aquainted with the drink, & this section stinks of bad writing & OR. What ever the case, the fat frog looks horrible; the guy drinking it in the photo looks as if he's gonna drop dead any minute now... Spawn Man 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. WMMartin 17:13, 4 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money manager ex

Money manager ex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested PROD. No evidence that subject of article meets notability criteria proposed at WP:SOFTWARE. Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about every single project that happens to be hosted at Sourceforge. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio from here. Not all of the text has been copied, but none of it is original. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - As per copy vio rasied by Ultra Loser... Spawn Man 23:33, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salo in Space

A not notable dead webcomic, kept the first time. It had only two dozen updates and then since February, it has been pinning for the fjords. bogdan 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Join the choir invisible. Would be pushing up daisies if it hadn't been nailed to the perch the first time around. BTW, it's pining, not pinning, and if it's Ukrainian, it's pining for the steppes, no fjords in the Ukraine. The Ukranian Brown prefers to lie on its back and remain non-notable! Tubezone 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tubezone, I'm sure people love being corrected on every detail... ;) Spawn Man 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Haaallllloooo Polly! Sorry, was just using that as an excuse to work in some gratuitous Parrot Sketch references... ;-) Tubezone 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Petition accepted. Alas, it had to end this way ;| - Francis Tyers · 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it has joined Francisco Franco in his valiant (and successful) attempt to remain dead. B.Wind 22:59, 29 November 2006 (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 transwiki. --Coredesat 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flaming engineer

Flaming engineer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. The only source is a drinks website that solicits reader submitted recipes and shows scant evidence of editorial control, so WP:RS and WP:V are serious problems as well. Quale 07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete simply non-notable. Khatru2 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki then delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Now that I've copied the recipe so I can take it to bar and see if it's as good as a Michelada, you can delete it. I have my doubts that anyone at Ryerson University really wants to take credit for this. Beer and Amaretto...? Tubezone 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibook Bartending. --Howrealisreal 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki this enjoyably post exam traditional drink. Blackpgt1994
• Now Transwikied --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki then Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:16, 4 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Jesus

Purple Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references for any claims in article despite being tagged {{unreferenced}} since June 2006. Prod removed with comment that it "isn't a neologism", which doesn't seem to address the point. Quale 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO so non-notable. Jayden54 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Linuxaurus 11:09, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate cake (drink)

Chocolate cake (drink) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, the only reference given appears to be a blog, failing WP:RS. Prod removed with the comment "doing research". Quale 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Linuxaurus 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--John Lake 00:32, 30 November 2006 (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 merge to Doom source port, which has already been done to the extent such content can be encyclopedic (which long features lists are generally not). Therefore, redirected. This outcome is most likely to be at least acceptable to most of the earlier commenters. Whether to expand or to reduce this content on Doom source port is now an editorial question. Sandstein 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZDoom

ZDoom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's about a source port of Doom; but, there is no evidence it meets the notability guideline WP:SOFTWARE nor official policy WP:V and WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the most popular (if not the most popular) source ports of doom, over 100,000 google hits on the name, including coverage on IGN, Gamespy, sourceforge, and freshmeat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have any particular links of said coverage? All I can find is the game's name on IGN et al. (no reviews or anything), and the standard news posts on Sourceforge / Freshmeat that every project that registers there gets. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr - Vicer 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although there are pages about this game on IGN, GameSpy and other websites, they are nothing more than the basic information about the game, such as a small description and some details. GameSpy hasn't even given it a GameSpy Score. WP:SOFTWARE explicitly states:

  This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
  - Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.

  Note the bolded part. So I'm going to have to go with delete. Jayden54 10:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, they were covered by PC Gamer in the print edition way back in 2000. I read it when it came out, and the story is mentioned here, but PC Gamer content isn't online so I can't give you a link to the article itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have all the PC Gamers from 2000, and the only mention of ZDoom was in a column about Doom source ports in general. ZDoom was listed as one of those ports, but was not the focus of the article, making that coverage trivial. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not what trivial means here. Trivial means something like an entry in a directory, not an article specifically about a handful of programs Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Unless they actually make comment on the thing, then it's trivial. --Simonkoldyk 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I have the entire article right here. It's a small sidebar column that's mostly about how Doom source ports make the game look better. Here's what they say about ZDoom:

          "ZDoom. http://zdoom.notgod.com/ Includes console, jumping optional OpenGL support, and support for 'dehacked' mods like the Aliens TC"

          Basically nothing we don't already know about the port. This is nothing more than a trivial mention. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. EASILY passes WP:SOFTWARE. There is no question of this. --- RockMFR 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How does it "EASILY pass" WP:SOFTWARE?, you need to show proof not just you say so.--Simonkoldyk 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Both IGN and GameSpot contain content for this game. GameSpot even hosts the software, which generally would be reason enough to meet WP:SOFTWARE and/or WP:GAMES (both of which are proposed notability guidelines). --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• or listings on software download sites., having the content on GameSpot, unless they write an article on it, its trivial; it dosen't prove notability. --Simonkoldyk 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Precedent says otherwise. All interpretations of notability standards for games I've ever seen would point to keeping this article. --- RockMFR 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can you show me an example of this? --Simonkoldyk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I can encourage you to go through old AfD logs if you want to see past precedent... --- RockMFR 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, ZDoom seems to be one of the first and largest projects to come from the opening of the Doom source code but I'm not sure we need a page for every Doom port though. BJ^Talk 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Simply claiming it passes WP:SOFTWARE doesn't mean it does, or that it's notable or even verifiable. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, meets WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Terence Ong 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:How does it meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria?--Simonkoldyk 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, very popular and feature-rich Doom source port. BTW it's still alive. --Ysangkok 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "very popular"? Can you prove that with links to notable sources that have talked about it. --Simonkoldyk 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I beleave that the ZDoom is quite notable, because it has a lot of features, that other Doom-port haven't got. It is, as far as I know, the only Doom-port that plays Strife. Feature list --Andersersej 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just because it has a lot of features that other Doom-ports don't have dosen't make it notable, you need to show how it passes WP:SOFTWARE. --Simonkoldyk 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There are no claims of notability and appears mostly to be spam. Relatively little content. The only content I see is that Zdoom is an open source port of Doom with many features. (one sentence article) It seems that it would be worth mentioning it on the Doom page however. To those who want this kept I would more explictly say as others have: Clean it up, establish notability, improve references, remove the spam/features section. It does get 100K plus ghits so it may be possible to fix these problems.--Nick Y. 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • features section != spam. Phrased a little too much like an ad, but that doesn't make the thing spam. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete No notablility, and no coverage from good sources. HarrisonHopkins 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doom source ports, possibly merging evey info that is verifiable there. The general issue of source ports appear notable (see the cited article above), but this invidual one has not been proved so. Still, a redirect would be useful as a plausible search term. Tizio 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doom source port. In fact, I'm working on merging the info (and of related articles ZDaemon, GZDoom, and the former Skulltag article) to that page. Bloodshedder 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  Addendum: The merging is complete, for all source port articles already on Wikipedia. ZDoom can be safely redirected to Doom source port. Bloodshedder 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Doom source port. I helped a bit with the rewrite of this page and I think that the information there, along with links to the corresponding info on the Doom Wiki, is more uniform, more useful, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia.--QuasarTE 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge into Doom source port Lakn 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the Doom source port page dosen't make sense to move them all too, they are all non-notable, not verifable things your just putting in to one article. Still delete. --Simonkoldyk 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  "Not notable enough for an article" does not mean the same thing as "not notable to be worthy of mention at all". Bloodshedder 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as above, since ZDoom is only notable as related to the Doom source port project. --Alan Au 01:41, 5 December 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technomancer

Technomancer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is completely original research which violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a fanfiction essay. Here, Google the word. Tubezone 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I knew what I would say on the AfD from the first sentence I read on this article, an essay. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Blank but Rewrite The term Technomancer has some usages, and as such, probably at least needs to exist as a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The best we're going to get on this topic is a non-notable neologism dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom original research .--John Lake 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suppose I should clarify where I think the Technomancer disambig should cover. [[First, there is GURPS Technomancer and there's also Technomancer Press, Technopathy, and possible groups such as Order of Hermes and the Technomages of Babylon 5. And that's just what I can come up with easily. Anybody else agree with disambiguating? (Current content need not be kept) FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Would have said "keep" if it had been in any way related to RL uses of the term [per FrozenPurpleCube] -- Simon Cursitor 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok...new here. My first contrib. I guess I am confused about what is definable as orginal research, even after reading the description. As pointed out, the term has been used in many publications- mostly role playing games- therefore, it is an accpeted term- it is the (my) definition that should be at issue.. But then you see my conundrum is that role playing games are made up from the imagination in most cases. I fail to see how a term in a made-up RPG can ever be accepted...but obviously, according to wikipedia's rules, that is allowed. I also have personal issues understanding the policy, since it seems that for something to be an 'accepted term' either someone on wiki has to have heard of it, or it can be googled or something. If those are the rules, those are the rules- I'm not complaining- just fail to completely understand the rationality. Let's say I write a book, and completely make up a new word. If I can reference it in a book, apparently that makes it 'wiki-able'- is what i am understanding. That makes me want to dig up that old book of sniglets from the 80's....would sniglets be rejected, if referenced from a publication? They are clearly made-up words. This is an honest question- not trying to be a smart-aleck. I don't have any vested interest in this term being on the wiki, except that some people actually follow these philosophies, and call themselves that. It is an underground subculture of sorts- a sort of modern-day religion that is very new...but since it is not referenceable, yet in books or the net, I will concede that my contrib meets OR as defined....my mistake, which i realize in hindsight. However, again since i am new here, I thought I was just *starting a page, that other people would come along in and add the GURPS defs, et al. No big deal- delete if you feel the need.Romshadow 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply the problem with your definition is that it is pretty limited to your ideas, and you did not demonstrate those ideas as shared by anyone else. That may be valid content for many places on the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. That is expressed in WP:OR. To take your sniglet example, I don't know what they are, but if they're in a book somewhere, it's at least possible that said content would be worthy of an article (though if the book isn't all that notable, it might be best just to have the book, and not all the possible things within it). However, you shouldn't create sniglets for Wikipedia. It's like Jedi Knights. Wikipedia isn't the place for George Lucas, or anybody else to write stories about them. Now we can write about the stories with Jedi Knights in them, and have completely valid articles. Do you see the difference? In this case, you seem to have produced thoughts on Technomancers, but haven't related them to any real-world content. My suggestion if you want this article, would be to discuss them in say, the terms of the RPGs they appear in, and the other stories where they are present. If somehow, it became real-world important, then you could have something like Jedi census phenomenon. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I think an entry on Technomancy and Technomancers would be useful, as a term used in RPGs, fantasy, etc, the current version contains nothing salvageable. --HarrisX 15:06, 2 December 2006 (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 no consensus to delete. A merge seems complicated but it seems to have some support. W.marsh 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of deus ex machina examples

List of deus ex machina examples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Every single one of these is an item of original research literary analysis, and the list as a whole is utterly indiscriminate in scope, considering how widespread this device is. Recently closed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series, as delete. This is just as original in its research with an even more indiscriminate scope. I would like a shorter list of examples that have sources to identify each, but without sources this fails WP:OR and WP:V. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pointless and never-to-be-completed lists. Vizjim 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V (no sources, if that's even possible with an article like this), fails WP:OR and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a subjective, and thus infinite and indiscriminate, list which ipso facto contains original research and is therefore unverifiable (how's that for a collection?). No need even to merge, since the article on deus ex machinas (deii ex machina?) already names a couple. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Deus ex machina after having trimmed 80-95% of the list, I don't think anyone wants to read over 200 of these --WikiSlasher 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Suddenly, without any warning, a giant zorg monster beamed down and deleted this list! Grutness...wha? 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • hahaha --WikiSlasher 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'keep though I see i shall be overruled. This is a major plot device, and notable as such, and a list of works which have them, though long, should be useful. Im not sure A-Z is the bast way to go, but rather by genre. DGG 06:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all true, although the point that's been raised a couple of times here is that this list is somewhat original research-y. What I know about literature studies can be written on a biscuit, but I'm not convinced that scholars would agree that each of these is a deus ex machina. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps that very statement is OR on your part--the criterion is a little slippery. :)DGG 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. If literature theorists 1, 2 and 3 all argue that some of the contents of this list are legitimate deus ex machinas, then all that remains is to hunt up citations for that and call that part of the list verifiable (what to do with said verifiable list is anyone's guess, but it's verifiable at least). If, however, the only reason that a particular deux ex machina is included here is because an editor acting on their own behalf felt that it was one, then it's Original Research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Return to the past now! Delete Danny Lilithborne 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as by WikiSlasher Alf photoman 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have the originator of the article pick 20 or so examples, from classic and modern fiction, merge it then lock it. 144.87.143.3 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the list should be copied to a subpage of the talk page of the main page of the topic so it can be discussed further which ones are valuable, if 1 person picks the 20 someone will scream "Hey why didn't you include that one!" and stuff. --WikiSlasher 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep : Per WP:IAR, a useful article that I have used several times in the past. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs)
  • Usefulness is not a keep argument. Lots of useful things violate WP:NOT. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I have no opinion on whether this meets the guidelines for keeping. However I find this article very useful because examples are the best way to learn just what is a "Deus Ex Machina". So, it is a very useful article. As others have said above, though, it may not meet the guidelines. so I don't know.Spebudmak 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've copied it to Talk:Deus ex machina/List of deus ex machina examples in case it gets deleted so we can extract some examples for the main article. --WikiSlasher 01:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just remember that whatever gets included needs to be sourced, so none of these can be used as-is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into deus ex machina and remove all but the most important and significant examples. Jeff Silvers 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per WikiSlasher, 144.87.143.3, and Jeff Silvers above. --130.126.80.219 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Jeff Silvers. WMMartin 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I was the person that originally split off the list from Deus Ex Machina in the first place in order to make Deus ex Machina a better article. The problem the article had before was even if someone with some sense cut down the list to a few notable examples, people would add in their own pet examples from their favorite work of fiction. You can look at Talk:Deus_ex_machina to get some background on that discussion. I think the list page could be ok if certain guidelines were honored for any examples added to the list, such as those in the previous discussion. Regardless, I hope that the list does not get blindly merged into Deus ex machina, since that article already has a couple of very strong examples in the text. The demiurge 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't there be a comment or two (to make sure people see it) in the edit window like <--DO NOT ADD ANY EXAMPLES TO THIS ARTICLE UNLESS APPROVED BY OTHER EDITORS ON THE TALK PAGE--> and just revert anything without a source? It might be too much to ask people to keep track of every change though I guess. Maybe a strict rule of "no source, no mention in article" might be a good idea. --WikiSlasher 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I should also add that I don't mind if the article is kept, but then all disputed examples need to be shown the door. --WikiSlasher 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, So because a list can't be completed we should just throw away all the information gathered? This list should be kept, the list is not entirely pointless and wikipedia is a collection of information which may regard fiction, so this list should be acceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.212.221 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATF Hire Group

ATF Hire Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prolific link spamming Richard W.M. Jones 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The users below have created a complex set of redirects designed to raise the Page Rank of this company for various phrases, including: Security Fencing, Deck guard, Deck Guardrail Australia, Fencing Hire, Deck Guardrail Group, Australian Temporary Fencing, Deck Height Safety, Aotearoa Temporary Fencing and more. They all eventually point to this page.

The following users are involved: User talk:FrankyTheMan, User talk:BillyBob79, User talk:TraceyMcDonald6767, User talk:Sd85478547, User talk:218.215.3.179, User talk:202.86.214.14. All these users have been only, or largely, involved in editing just ATF-related pages and spam terms.

Full list of linkspam redirects: Special:Whatlinkshere/ATF_Hire_Group

• Delete, and redirect pages too. Richard W.M. Jones 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as spam. MER-C 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - fails WP:SPAM and adds nothing to Wikipedia. The company itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included. Jayden54 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, spam. Terence Ong 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all sneaky spam. Azate 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Booh to spam. --Lijnema 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Three sockpuppets (did I say that?!?) users who have, suspiciously, only edited this page and ATF-related pages, have been adding keep votes here. The users are: Special:Contributions/Charlie_Xu_1975, Special:Contributions/IanThompson1 and Special:Contributions/TotalWikiFreak. Luckily these linkspammers (not again ...) users are too dumb to edit this page, but have put their comments on this page's talk page. Richard W.M. Jones 09:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the result is delete, then someone needs to check the edits the spammers and the sockpuppets have made, since the "what links here" page might not give a complete list anymore. --Lijnema 12:20, 2 December 2006 (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. --Coredesat 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Eternity

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Kim Eternity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This minor porn actress does not fulfil any of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), and as such falls foul of WP:BIO. Vizjim 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - why are porn star bios always deleted? I think there are too many christian zealots tearing pages out of history on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator MacReady (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2006

I voted Delete, and I'm not a "christian zealot" at all, and in fact welcome any kind of pornography related articles, and have worked on a few. But this pornstar simply doesn't pass the notability guidelines to be included, because she has done nothing notable. No awards, no shoots in well-known magazines and nothing noteworthy in her niche. Jayden54 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I nominated the article, and I'm an atheist. Vizjim 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO as she doesn't seem to have any awards, hasn't appeared in any well-known magazines and isn't particularly notable in her niche. Jayden54 10:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject has appeared in several issues of Voluptuous, a major pornographic periodical over the past several years. --CJ Marsicano 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the criteria call for a bit more than "has appeared in several issues". Specifically, "2) Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." I note that Voluptuous magazine's entry is also being disputed, and nobody has produced evidence for its notability as yet. Vizjim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - she has appeared in over 100 porn films, which does fall into WP:PORNBIO. Check her iafd profile. Don^MEGĂ|60645 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, who went and changed the criteria? >:^( Don^MEGĂ|60645 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind, it's under Dubious methods of establishing notability. Don^MEGĂ|60645 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actuually number of films if under 100 is there. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, check her afdb profile. She has done over 100 movies. Don^MEGĂ|60645 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails all criteria outlined by WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to pass WP:PORNBIO 12 years in the business is unique. Vegaswikian 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tonybuzan 13:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — Tonybuzan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep She's notable within her niche (busty black porn stars), so she fulfills criterion 6 of WP:PORNBIO. 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's well-known within her genre, satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please notable in the busty black niche and meets pornbio too erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more than 100 movies, notable for having large real breasts. so she passes at least criterion 6 of PORNBIO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 4 December 2006 (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 closed: this is a redirect, not an article, so it belongs at RFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game)

Ruff n' Tumble (Computer Game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The disamiguation in parantheses is unneeded because the article (without disambig) didn't exist. And it is wrongly capitalized anyway. Michael Drüing 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - seems like a fairly unnecessary article, and there are no internal links so I don't see why it can't be deleted. If others don't agree it should be deleted, I suggest we simply leave the redirect in place. Jayden54 10:31, 29 November 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Saperstone

Jeff Saperstone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article essentially is a vanity piece. While the subject may be a fine reporter, he has not achieved enough fame or notoriety to merit a Wiki entry. Burghboy80 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources or references to show notability, so fails WP:V, and probably fails WP:BIO as well. Looking at the history, it probably fails WP:COI too. Jayden54 10:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayden got it right. RampageouS 12:06, 29 November 2006 (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 merge to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales. Sandstein 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Cargelligo Central School

Lake Cargelligo Central School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non notable school in Australia Vicer 10:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable and no sources or references whatsoever. Jayden54 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, As this is a high school (it states that it goes up to Grade 12), it automatically qualifies. This is a standard known basis for inclusion. Nlsanand 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - doesn't the school have to be notable in some way? Otherwise every high school in the world would be able to get an article. Jayden54 15:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - As Jayden points out, there is no such guideline that "automatically qualifies" high schools. WP:SCHOOL has kicked around a bit but is not policy. →Bobby← 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, I am saying that every high school automatically qualifies. At least, that's what I've noticed the policy to be in a bunch of these AfD debates. Notability is theoretically established by the fact that it is a high school. Nlsanand 05:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article needs cleanup, but with a little tweaking it can be a fine article. I'll do a little tinkering now. →Bobby← 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm having a bit of trouble finding good info on the school at the moment since I'm at work and I have limited access. At the moment I would recommend that we wait a while to see if anyone comes along with some notable alumni or events to spruce the article up. Keep in mind that it's only been around for a couple of weeks, and the original author might be planning on adding much more. I would also propose thinking about a possible merge to NSW. We could create a new section for education and start collecting school data. Just a thought. →Bobby← 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales where it is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Does not appear more notable than any other high school. Stammer 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to school district, if possible. Otherwise, delete. This article needs more than cleanup (there's precious little to clean up) - it needs information. It's also been my experience that few people who create a school stub ever come back later to add more. Denni ^talk 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mate this is about an Australian school. DXRAW 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• So? JoshuaZ 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• We dont have school districts. DXRAW 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, that's a good point. Then it should be merged with the locality as some others have discussed. JoshuaZ 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales or school district. I have come up with a couple of references to it namely a ranking as the top school in its region in the 2005 HSC [13] and a visit by the Governor of NSW Marie Bashir in 2002 but nothing that would warrant a standalone article under the relevant guideline. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales. Despite the fact that it's a high school, there is not enough meaningful content at this point. Redirect will allow history to be retained and allow for expansion to a full article in the future as sources and additional information become available. Alansohn 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I've added a sourced note about the school being part of a program to help students from low income backgrounds but the school is merely mentioned on a list of 74 schools that are part of the program. There really isn't anything else I can find to say about the school. JoshuaZ 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lake Cargelligo, New South Wales until it can be expanded on its own. Silensor 07:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Any reason for that opinion? JoshuaZ 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes 20:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It would help if you explained what it was. JoshuaZ 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, does not seem to meet WP:SCHOOLS3, but probably worth a mention in the local town's article. Lankiveil 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
• Merge per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons iven aboveDGG 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:24, 4 December 2006 (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. The persuasive argument that the article fails WP:WEB has not been adequately addressed by those arguing otherwise. RockMFR's merger suggestion on account of the site's tools being notable would imply that content on the tools be merged, not on the site. The site, at any rate, is already mentioned at Utopia (online game). If anyone strongly wants to merge more content there, the deleted text is available on request. Sandstein 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utopia Temple

Utopia Temple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a non-notable fan forum. No assertion of notability is made, no reliable sources are included, it fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom: definitely fails WP:WEB and WP:V as well. Jayden54 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, only assertion of notability is user count. MER-C 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. --- RockMFR 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/merge to Utopia (online game) per the notability of the tools created and hosted by the site. --- RockMFR 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep if you are going to delete this article, POINT OUT EXACTLY which points that it fails on. I cannot see that UtopiaTemple "definitely fails" certain criterias on links that you have provided. IMO, you have clearly misunderstood, and to an fact, underestimated the influence of this website on the Utopia, in particular tools used for the game. NeoDeGenero 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - as others have stated, it is THE tool/accessory for the game. NeoDeGenero 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster--RWR8189 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - although I have participated in editing this article, I feel that the manner in which most of it is written makes it sound more like a fan site to Utopia Temple than an actual encyclopedic article. Please consider the following (which I also mentioned in Utopia Temple's talk page) from What Wikipedia is not / Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." --- Starfriend 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, rewrite: In Utopia, nearly everyone uses Angel from Utopia Temple simply because they are at such a huge disadvantage if they don't. While I agree the forum itself is not-notable, the community as a whole at Utopia Temple is very notable because it's widely held that the Angel software is what keeps Utopia as the top web-based MMOG. To delete this article out of notability is to delete the largest community in the largest web-based MMOG. Utopianheaven 12:57, 2 December 2006 (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. Agent 86 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Judge Certification Program

Beer Judge Certification Program (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the article fails to mention the source of the information it contains.Patto1ro 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note:This article was prod'ed and prod2'd. Both tags were removed and this AfD was listed, although the tag wasn't added to the article. I've done that now. Note, however, that "BJCP" redirects to "Beer Judge Certification Program", which explains the slightly odd syntax of the AfD tag at the article. I've assumed that the nominator intended to nominate the article and not the redirect. No opinion on the AfD itself, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed to reference article instead of redirect. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. As far as I can tell, the only body set up to standardize judging at brewing contests. Several of the larger beer brewing software applications use BJCP style guidelines. Competition program is shared with theAmerican Homebrewers Association, who also "enthusiastically support" them. Some news and other references: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Further, check out the site for virtually ANY brewfest or brewers' guild in the U.S. and you'll find most competitions judged by BJCP-certified beer judges and many members touting their certification. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all relevant to the WG:ORG requirements. Secondly, the links you provide are for home-brewing, not for the BJCP. Thirdly, why not just move some of the information to a home-brewing article? This article serves no purpose. Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Published sources are essential in determining notability. While a few of the blog entries are irrelevant, the newspaper articles listed are relevant per WP:N. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly notable. AFD nomination is part of a crusade by two editors to re-write all of the beer articles in order to bring them in line with a website which is run by one of the editors (note url). In edit summaries, they call BJCP beer style standards "fictitious". Another relevant conversation. I actually support having correctly sourced style guidelines from multiple sources. But I do not support the deletion of guidelines and articles because two editors disagree with them. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we argue this with facts rather than personal attacks. I've actually given up trying to correct the many errors I find in the beer articles because of this kind of response. Just check my recent contributions: most have just removed vandalism or added references. As I said before, I have more constructive things to do with my time than get involved in petty arguments like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patto1ro (talk • contribs) .
    • What did I say that was false? — goethean ॐ 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, you are making personal attacks, and ignoring the question of validity of the article. Secondly, the question is not whether the attacks were false or not, the question is why you made them. And, although this has nothing to do with the proposed deletion of this article, the other editor was and is correct that the Märzen article is mostly inaccurate. If you are interested in accuracy, look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rzen_%28Bier%29 Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Added 8 print references, including the Wall Street Journal. Clearly a notable organization. Edison 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Take an article about an improbable idea, allege that deletion of that article is part of some crusade or censorship and, when asked for reliable sources, throw up a lot of entries to blogs. We've all seen how this ends, right? Well, actually, it should end differently in this case. In addition to the WSJ piece that Edison found (I'm still on the fence about Zymurgy), there are an article whose main subject is the organization and an article that focuses on describing the Program's course of study in the Anchorage Press, a piece in the Baker City Herald that spends several paragraphs discussing the organization and two books that appear to provide some discussion as well. Thus, Keep. JChap2007 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That first Press article is now quoted in the intro to the article; that now explicitly meets the requirements of WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not on a crusade. If the article is backed up by reputable references, I have no problem with it being retained. I was arguing against the article as it stood. Adding proper refernces is the correct way to defend its retention.Patto1ro 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Unreferenced can be added to articles to which references need to be added. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Based on a citation given here which I have now included in the intro, organization has press coverage. It's also been mentioned in books by independent authors, so it satisfies WP:ORG handily. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though originally unsourced, the article now has multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. Sounds notable to me! --Jayron32 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the now included non-trivial sources. Original deletion reason now void. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sourced, notable, what else is needed? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- primary standards organization for United States homebrewing, and widely referenced in the hobby press. What, you want them to be as influential as CAMRA before they're included? Haikupoet 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Haikupoet, and in response to some of the earlier comments. DGG 05:00, 4 December 2006 (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. I'm going out on a limb here, and I fully expect this to be challenged at WP:DRV (see y'all there). This has already been through one AfD, which closed sans consensus. The issue then was reliable sources. The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

Ali Sina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Zakir Naik.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As a point of order, the article should not have had the prod template used by User:72.75.93.131 as that specifically is used for article that have not previously been up as AfD. Are the comments within the "prod" proposal relevant as linked to above or do they give an undue weight to what User:72.75.93.131 says ? Ttiotsw 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not really notable. We can evaluate the lines that are used to establish some sort of notability in his article:

1. An Asia Times (online-only newspaper) editorial mentions him/his website in two lines. Does that really make him notable?
2. He has been mentioned on Frontpage Magazine's website, a highly conservative source. The magazine itself isn't particularly notable nor is there enough material in the article to write about him. The symposium in which he participates includes several other non-notable people.
3. He has been mentioned on WorldNetDaily. This is, again, a highly conservative blog, and the article that mentions him is unattributed to any author; it is unlikely to be a reliable source considering that.
4. He is the author of a non-published book. That doesn't make him notable either.
5. He is the owner of a website that itself is non-notable. That doesn't make him notable.

All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates. There simply isn't enough reliable third-party material about the subject to write a good article about him, which is further an indication of the lack of notability of this person. Azrak 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how is his website not notable? --Matt57 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it particularly notable? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr, how exactly being "highly conservative" makes the sources mentioning him unreliable? What does the political leaning of a source has to do with credibility? Had he been mentioned in a "highly liberal" source would you then consider him being notable? 80.179.36.5 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if the articles are attributed to a writer or not. The articles are unattributed. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A website that has been banned by Pakistan's IPS's is surely notable.--Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, we would then be able to say that each and every blog on blogspot is notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs werent targetted individually. FaithFreedom.org has been targetted specifically by Pakistan's ISP's and has been banned there. Now you're saying any random blog XYZ is as notable as FaithFreedom because they're also banned? That doesnt make sense, sorry. --Matt57 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the logic you applied. Not I. You would be hard-pressed to prove that every website mentioned here is notable just because it's banned by Pakistani ISP's. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Being banned by a country's IPS can be ONE of the reasons why a website may be notable. Another reason is that the website ranks in the top 30,000 according to Alexa. Another reason why his website is notable is that it seems all Wikipedias who edit on the subject of Islam know about this website. If all of them know and almost all do, his website is notable enough. Everything else combined makes him and his website notable. As I said, people who want this page to be deleted belong to the group that disagrees with his opinions. And again if he has caused so much discussion on Wikipedia, he's DEFINITELY notable. In summary Ali Sina is much more popular than the average college professor and hence is notable.--Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not really notable

1. Nobody is sure that this person really exist. As his existence cannot be proved how can be he is notable. --Mak82hyd 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader is pretty notable and I'm sure he doesn't exist (right?!). I'd also like to see you either prove the existence of [[[God]] or claim he isn't notable. Rune X2 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Just because an article has turned into a soapbox (which is temporary anyway), does not mean the article should be nominated for deletion. Revert Wars also do not imply that an article should be deleted. In case of a bio, the only rationale for deletion can be non-notablility. Here are some reasons why he is notable in my opinion:

Ali Sina passes the Alternate "Professor test" at WP:BIO, which says: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.". The following two points support this:

1. He passes the "Search engine" test: His name comes up 80,000 times, not counting the results on his own websites and this one. Search engine popularity is one method of the Alternate tests of Notability (see WP:BIO).
2. His website is within the top 30,000 websites according to alexa.

So he is definitely more well-known than the average college professor and so according to WP:BIO he is definitely notable and so should not be deleted.--Matt57 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Bogus argument --- that "test" only applies to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ... is Ali Sina a college professor? Where does Ali Sina teach, so we can compare him with other academics? ... I mean, I've published more than the average college professor, but that doesn't automatically make me notable! —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its not only for college professors. Read it carefully! It says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor". If the test was for college professors only, they wouldnt say that. The term "average college professor" is used as a meter to gauge popularity. --Matt57 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• See the talk page (under Alternative tests) for the rebuttal. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

mate, read the definition properly it says an individual, which means a person and how do u know he exists do have any proof? have u seen him. he is an entity created for some hate purpose. think open minded rather than being islamophobic. 88.108.181.18 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is an entity created for hate purposes? Are'nt you being anti-Islam-ophobic yourself? --Matt57 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the proposed policy only applies to academics. Ali Sina is not an academic as far as we know. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy does not only apply to Academics. The Professor Test is a sort of "Meter" to gauge the popularity of any person. That can even apply to a homeless man if he's become that popular. This point was also raised by 72.75.93.131. See the Talk page of this article. --Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Azrak. This person is solely an internet personality. He is not known anywhere else. A large amount of Google hits, therefore, isn't necessarily indicative of notability. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not only known on the internet. His testimony of leaving Islam is present in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Plus lets remember the fact that he was threatened with lawsuits and death threats. Also, he's debated with famous figures of Islam like Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. The fact that he has a pseudonym does not mean he's not notable. All these things together reflect that he is a notable ex-muslim. --Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot about his mention in that book. Though debating with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri doesn't necessarily make him notable. Montazeri has spoken to thousands of people in his life, but that doesn't make them all notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is non notable and his existence is not proved. he might not exist. so how can we have a article on a person who has not been seen by anybody. 88.108.181.18 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: I suspect this IP user is user:Mak82hyd who has already voted above. New IP's should be discarded for these votes. --Matt57 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Zakir Naik There does seem to be an effort to censor content from some factions of this afd (especially looking at the previous afd). It is true however that the article itself stinks of being a soap box. I would mark it with clean up tags. She does appear to be a contraversial figure with much written about her in many places. Certainly seems to be one of the more notable critics of Islam although from a more firey than academic bent. Most of the english language coverage does seem to be internet based and often end up back at her web site. The extraordinary level of contraversy however lends quite a bit to the notability claim. Among the 100,000 plus ghits "roughly" a third were about her and many of them were critical to hateful. She seems to have pissed off a large portion of the world. I'd say that makes her notable.--Nick Y. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject is male, not female. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if its male or female. Infact non-biased votes are the best becuase they can see the situation objectively. Plus they made good points. --Matt57 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep The article needs wikifying, but the subject is notable, as the amount of adverse criticism indicates. and as the amount of debate above illustrates. If we can argue so much about him, he's notable. To me, a very obvious instance of what we want in WP. DGG 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I voted a conditional keep at the first nomination. I wanted the article to follow wikipedia standards but there was no single enhancement whatsoever. There are more than 100 sources and all of them refer to his/their own site. Unbelieveable! his (if he's one real person indeed) notability is so highly questionable. I also have BIG doubts about the involvement of Ali Sina or Ali Sinas in the article. They are campaigning for edit warring and they come all together from a few Anti-Islam forums. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I considered delete in one of the first VfDs (is this really only the second?) because I didn't think he was notable. However, I think anyone realizing the trends of Wikipedia over the last year or two should realize that notability standards are dropping. He may be less popular than most internet memes but we're even allowing pretty much any book published (even by relatively NN press) have an article. Is Ali Sina notable? Not particularly... but, look at Wikipedia standards... and compared to them I think the answer is he's notable enough. This and the Naik deletion seem like bickering to me... I don't mean the nominator. His intentions seem noble enough to me... I just think that we've gone too far down the road of inclusion to get rid of either Ali Sina or Naik. gren グレン 10:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep This article offers valuable info IP's first edit— 72.83.152.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete This person does not exist.how can we have his biography. 84.9.233.19 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

since when was an AfD a "vote"? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - just a terminology issue so it is not "VOTES" but "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.". Matt57 is highlighting suspicions regarding multiple recommendations of what he feels is a IP sock puppet. Ttiotsw 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete He is no academic. He is someone like me and you. There is no reason why an *encyclopedia* should have a page for him. --Aminz 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um yea, unfortunately, muslims like you and infidels like me dont have a website that ranks in the top 30,000, or have 80,000 hits on their name in google, are prospective authors of a book and have their testimony included in Ibn Warraq's book. I guess he is like us after all. --Matt57 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep . The sheer hatred and bigotry that he engenders in others makes him notable and also make it wise of him to be somewhat untracable: his Pseudonymity is not grounds for deletion. The google hits also help his notablility. I've done a few edits to this page, some stick and other get reverted. I don't like my edits reverted on any page as I feel I research each edit reasonably well but I'm happy to admit I am wrong when I'm wrong but with the reverts done to my edits on this page I don't feel I'm wrong. Even if it is proven later that he is simply a meme then I feel he represents an archetype of an apostate muslim - thats notable. Ttiotsw 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Ali Sina is a highly notable founder of Faith Freedom International, which states on its web site that it is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims whose goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity[25]--CltFn 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep With a review of sources, this article has the potential to provide very valuable information. The very fact that so many pro-muslim vandals are around signifies the importance of this person.
• Comment: Nominator, you said: "All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates." Remember that some people are smart and make sure news articles don't disappear when links go dead by keeping copies on their own pages. The location where articles are stored are not relevant. Who wrote them is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is about a person whose real name we do not know, we do not know if he exists or not. He (supposed to) run hate websites and write there. People who hate Islam use him as reference on wikipedia Islamic articles. What degrees he had? We have no idea. We live in a world where every hater of Islam is appreciate on wikipedia and outside it. No one cares if he use Quran Ayats out-of-context or if he really exist. Shame!. --- ALM 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per CltFn's comments. -- Karl Meier 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Is that even his real name??? Wikipidian 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - He seems to be an important person, has also written a book. His website has been banned in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That makes him very notableOutsider2810 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Interesting how almost everyone who wants him deleted belong to the group of people who disagree with his views. Looks like this is going to be a no-consensus again and so the article will stay. --Matt57 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per everyone above. Peace, please. Arrow740 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per Szvest This person's notability at one end, but this article has become a ground for gross violation of WP:RS, which says: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." And there seems very little hope to improve the article with abiding all these policies. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think that the issue of "notability" doesn't apply since there are tons of articles on wiki about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets. As for the soapbox issue: If there is edit-warring or inappropriate editing going on in the article, it can be dealt with according to wiki guidelines and policy. It has been long-established that POV issues in the article are not the basis for an article's deletion. I agree that there is some suspicious/bad faith nom stuff going on, all the argument's put forth center on his views etc, it wouldn't surprise me if the delete votes belong to people who share an opposition to his views like Matt57 said. Baristarim 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - This is an example of Wikipedia being used for getting more visitors. Its deletion will do more good to Wikipedia than lot of editors wasting time on reverting/correcting the advertizing campaigns for the site of a (fictional?) person. --Soft coder^Talk 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Fortunately it is not the case that all people who claim to be ex-Muslims are liars. Arrow740 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentFortunately, all who claim to be ex-muslims are so ignorant of Islam , that calling them an ex-muslim sounds like "propagating a lie".Not to mention their levels of hate & phobia . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Svest and Azrak. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: what matt said.--D-Boy 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Is one sure if this is a single person or multiple persons with assumed names publishing a website MerryJ-Ho 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: 'His' website is notable given the Alexa rankings. Questions about existence of such a person may be genuine but they are certainly no grounds for deletion of this entry. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete no education, an article with only linkes to himself... i might have missed it, but were is the third party source that gives notability`? TerrorStorm had 300 000 google hits and was deleted as NN film, since it was a internet only film, considering that 80 000 seems totaly non-notable. 30 000 Alexa rating = notable? Do we really want 30 000 webpages here? Prisonplanet was deleted as non-notable, and it had far higher Alexa ranking, round 10 000 if i am not wrong. --Striver 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He is a self created, self sustained myth. With no face, no education, no credibility, no decency ....no nothing . The article copies his own views about himself . He also sends his worshipers to keep this article , his well known friends/clones include CltFn & Karl Meir . The only reason this article is kept is to increase his site's hitrate . Is wikipedia open for marketing ?? F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FaithFreedom has a forum with hundreds of thousands of posts. The site itself is often linked to by other sites. The website is definitely notable. That makes an article on the owner worth having. Weather the name is real or a pseudonym, is really immaterial – except that if such doubts exists it should be noted in the article. Rune X2 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete : Firstly because he's anonymous, secondly anyone can send an email to the pentagon/whitehouse/state department/president of the US or any other country for that matter and claim to have 'debated' when they get a reply. He's not-notable. A simple search on google trends for "Ali Sina" will verify this [26], and since some people want to link this AfD with the Zakir Naik Article, just take a look at the people searching for Zakir Naik compared to Steve Ballmer [27]. Anyway, coming back to the article, I think it worthless enough to be deleted, and create a seperate faithfreedom article if that site is popular. Why not make articles about users that have 10000+ edits on wikipedia then (just for reference). thestick 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many forums in Indian Express online for example where they post their links - like Want to find the truth (?) on Islam ..Click www.faithfree***.com.In short..spamming.MerryJ-Ho

• Keep for all good reasons stated above, especially by Matt57 72.136.43.94 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~anonymous 09:10, 4 December 2006 Eastern Time

• Keep though perhaps Merge with the faithfreedom article. Notable personality (even if through a nom de plume) like Ibn Warraq and others. He uses a pseudonym to avoid death threats (unlike poor Irshad Manji). The fact that his name is unknown is not enough reason to delete the article.His only association is with faithfreedom so perhaps merge both articles. Hkelkar 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Expected,seeing your voting patterns MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• On balance, I'm going with Keep. I think it's important that the tone of the article be as close to NPOV as possible, and I hope interested parties will monitor this. If this means lots of rewriting, frequent edits and reverts I don't mind, so long as everyone involves assumes good faith and acts as constructively as they can. Debate is healthy, and this guy does appear notable enough. WMMartin 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article seems to assert notability.Bakaman 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Expected,seeing your voting patterns. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:TROLL. Also I voted keep at the other dude as well. Nobody needs your fundywatching either.Bakaman 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alexa rankings are among the most controversial methods of website measurements.Working as a Webmaster of an Industry Magazine, I have tested and discarded Alexa as an accurate tool.MerryJ-Ho 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? How come? If thats so, why is Yahoo #1 and Wikipedia #12? --Matt57 21:12, 4 December 2006 (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, even discounting problematic "votes". That goes for the rewrite and cleanup tags, too, however - those stay. --Coredesat 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

Zakir Naik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Ali Sina..

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Naik. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep even though the article is a problem magnet. There are some good sources on his notability, like [28] from 2003, [29] from 2005 and [30] from 2006. Mereda 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, he's obviously "world-famous in Pakistan and India" (at least in the English language press.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, this article is more of a battleground. Moreover the "His Views" part is no where according to Wikipedia standards, citations are not verifiable, also most of the article is quoted out of context proving a certain POV which is not neutral, good or bad depends upon who you ask, but atleast not neutral. Akeeq 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral right now. Is there any substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources on this person? I could find none on first review. If no such sources are provided, delete. Sandstein 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, sources found by Mereda indicate notability. Still needs WP:NOR/WP:RS cleanup, of course. Sandstein 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete After doing a Google search, there seem to be some third-party sources about him, but none that can be easily considered reliable. Azrak 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He is very famous atleast to a third of world population. he had very successful big debates and he works for universal brotherhood which is very good for humanity. Mak82hyd 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Article is very well written leading me to believe that he might be notable. But all the references and external links are from blogs, youtube and secondary sites. Google News just gives me two hits, [31]. If anyone can provide references from newspapers or scholarly publications, I'll change my vote to Keep. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think the three news sources I cited above are in line with WP:RS. What do others think? --Mereda 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It depends which version you read ... it flip-flops every few hours because of the revert war ... some versions are obviously written by an English as a second language editor. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as for previous nomination. IMO blatant example of anti-Muslim bias. Stammer 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is very notable in South Asia. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but with a complete re-write and re-format. he is notable enough, but the "article" is just a war zone right now. I can't think of any wikipedia policy that hasn't been ignored in it! --khello 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but can be made nuetral I feel there are more anti -muslim bias written. as far as his notably is concerned u can check the links given by mereda above. 88.108.181.18 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Ali Sina Very similar to Ali Sina above except of the opposite political bent. I would suggest to the admin that the two be considered together since there is clearly strong factions trying to afd and edit each other out of existance in wikispace. This would cancel a large number of teh votes since they are based on politcal bias. This one also needs cleanup tags. These type of articles are a real problem. I think they need more of a heavy handed and quick admin with superpowers to bring them to the quality of an encyclopedia. Both could be dramatically shortened and perhaps protected.--Nick Y. 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That protection wouldnt do anything. These controversial topics are forever undergoing revert wars. Its ridiculous to give vandalism powers to anyone new who comes to Wikipedia. Just one example is Mak82kyd, who started to vandalize both of these articles (I will say that because of him, these articles were nominated for deletion, because he reverted the Deletion requester's good edits on Zakir Naik so much so that he nominated them for Deletion - this is the truth behind these two Deletion requests). Mak82hyd also voted twice for the deletion of Ali Sina - his writing style is similiar and his IP is similiar to what he has used before. At one point, he proceeded to delete huge amounts of information on Ali Sina while saying he didnt know he had deleted stuff. Currently, Wikipedia has no policies at all for dealing with vandals who jump into Wikipedia and start destroying articles with their own agendas. There is no mechanism to protect such articles from editors who wont stop taking part in revert wars. The 3RR rule does little. This is equivalent to allowing someone to terrorize Wikipedia. Its stupid to give such powers to vandals. There's a real need for a new kind of protection.--Matt57 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. There are, however, mechanisms to get vandals and even counterproductive editors banned for longer periods of time but they take a while. The reason they take so long is to be fair, however it is clear to me that certain spaces in wikipedia need a stronger sheriff that is less concerned with fairness and more concerned with order. Editors would need to tread lightly in these designated areas. I think it may be more productive to bring these articles to the arbiration commitee than to afd, even though it may be a burdensome process. These afds are likely to result in nothing.--Nick Y. 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete : If article can be converted to the wiki entry on Jerry Falwell, it might still be saved. But pro-Naik editors seem hellbent on whitewashing controversial viewpoints. --Punekar 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Very Negative) - From the lastest edit to the article, the section on Osama bin Laden has the following ...

Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden. [2]

The introductory screen for the video linked to the citation for that quote has the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik at the bottom of the screen (circled in red) ... does anyone else see that as a WP:COI problem? I mean, isn't the subject advertising that they have a Wikipedia article in order to gain verisimilitude (if not notability and/or notoriety)? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

... and when did a long-winded video soundbyte of the subject pontificating that's been posted on YouTube or Google Video become a credible 3rd part source? (Besides which, not everyone has a high-speed connection to be able to view them ... see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided if you are unclear on the concept.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'keep if only because the bias against the subjecs expressed in the above is evident. He is a notable commentator , like it or not. DGG 06:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep just like on Ali Sina... and I hope these AfDs will just go away. gren グレン 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• speedy keep query motive of nomminator: series of cut'n'paste afds with little specificity (is used as soapbox? which guideline says that makes for afd? if anything it's grounds for lock article). even if this is not some sort of pov campaign, this pro-forma approach to afd noms doesn't deserve to be taken seriously  ⇒ bsnowball  13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep He is very famous debater of comparative religion and he exist in real life...lol 84.9.233.19 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

^ DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would question though what the heck this nonsense edit by user:72.75.93.131 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Warraq&diff=91182779&oldid=90180972 actually means. I'm very suspicious of anything user:72.75.93.131 says now. Check their talk page history. 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, we either take all (even obscure) religious scholars or none, if our credibility is attacked everywhere we should not expose us to attack about our neutrality Alf photoman 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously Strong Keep, No, I mean it, I love this guy. Geologically speaking he's about as relevant to planet earth as my belly button fluff but I leave my idealogy at the door when I log-on so he feels notable and notability is simply a feeling with guidelines. I'd also like to say that it would be amazing to see his MP3 Playlists; he must go down like a ton of bricks at parties, boom, boom. (revised as someone mentioned bacon and wifeswapping) Ttiotsw 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If an article is being used as a soapbox it should be fixed and protected from abuse, rather than deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many of Pakistanies are real fan of him, inside Pakistan and outside it. Notable enough for me. As oppose to Ali Sina he exist and we know him as a real person. He speaks live many time and meet people. Not some imaginary person with imaginary name like Ali Sina. --- ALM 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - not again. There was resounding consensus from previous AFD, Dr Naik is very notable and his biography an important addition to wiki. Wikipidian 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This has already been resolved before, just about a month ago. The consensus was to keep it.Outsider2810 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep he is very famous in some regions. and i think we've been through a consensus to keep before. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I dont understand how stupid Wikipedia can be, letting someone nominate this article for the 2nd time when just 20 days ago, it had been nominated and the result was a definite keep: "The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)" . This just shows there's something wrong with the policies here. Requesting a needless AFD is disruptive. What now, do you all want me to nominate this for a 3rd time after 20 days now, huh? What do you think, everyone?? Lets do another nomination and keep doing this every 20 days - right? What should have been done is the AFD should have been removed and the nominator being WARNED for disrupting Wikipedia. Thats the policy that should be here. Instead we are here, discussing it again like people with short term memory loss. What is this, a display of our egos? Our power to nominate something for Deletion and then voting (or opinions) for this as well? Thats what it is. Wikipedia's policies regarding this are immature and undeveloped and its sad that no one can see this. If the policies are wrong and no one can see that, then there's something very wrong in Wikipedia and not with just this but some other things as well.--Matt57 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep; Yes, he is quiet famous scholar, he talks of universal brotherhood, he is peace loving, he deserves to be here.Will it be nice if a well known scholar in this present world and Wikipedia does not have his page ?

• Strong keep, if only for his brilliant comments on the undeniable link between pork and promiscuity. Wife-swapping, anyone? I've got bacon! Hornplease 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it was kept just three weeks earlier, per Hornplease, I dont see how he woul become less notable now. ITs till full of POVBakaman 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though I would like to see better and more generally neutral references. WMMartin 17:48, 4 December 2006 (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. utcursch | talk 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Prechter

Robert Prechter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the subject and their self-published books (New Classics Library) and newletter (Elliott Wave Theorist). Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's publications. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject engaged in revert edit wars that attempt to obfuscate the affiliation between the subject and the source of the citations. There is no credible, third-party verification of the subject's notability. See the discussion page.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Qualified KEEP

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of the people considered to be edit-warring on this page, but I don't think that is just in that I've always attempted to add things and not delete.

It is difficult to say that Prechter is not notable, since he has had an article dedicated to him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and all the following make significant reference to him (I can add several articles from the Financial Times as well - he is also notable in Europe)

^ ”The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck” by Colvin, Geoffrey, Fortune; 10/16/2000, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p84-84, 1p, 2c

^ "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late" by Power, William, The Wall Street Journal, Aug 19, 1993

^ “Lost Sheep Investors Find New Bo-peeps” by Kevin G. Salwen, The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 1989

^ “Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating” by Robert McGough, The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1997

^ ”Game Over” by Kurson, Ken, Esquire; Feb99, Vol. 131 Issue 2, p44, 4p

^ ”Advisory Newsletters Don't Seem to Be Providing Quality Assistance Traders Seek from Them” by Angrist, Stanley W, The Wall Street Journal, Feb 5, 1990

^ “Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears” by Constance Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, Dec 27, 1988

^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989

^ “Lend Half an Ear to This Doomsayer” by Barker, Robert, Business Week; 7/22/2002 Issue 3792, p90-90, 1p, 2c

The trouble with this article is that Rgfolsom (Robert Folsom), who confirms that he works for Prechter, refuses to let this material into the article. I don't know how to make Folsom not revert this material - perhaps it is impossible. But I think that the article should be kept, if material from reputable publications is allowed. Of course if only material straight from Prechter is allowed, then the article should be deleted.

qualified keep Smallbones 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Brief response to 72.75.93.131 below moved to TALK page

Moved comment from Punanimal to TALK page Smallbones 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Smallbones. Edit warring is not a deletion grounds. I tend to agree that promotional links should not be included. If it can be confirmed (the link given is broken) that the man had a NYT best seller and was mentioned on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, he seems to be at least borderline notable as a stock analyst. If the man's predictions got this much commentary, he almost surely merits an article. Argument about the content of the page should be taken to a dispute resolution process; it ain't a deletion matter. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the guy is not infrequently cited by writers for publications such as Barron's. (But I agree: be merciless with linkspamming, and don't let Prechter's people control the article.) --Orange Mike 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (negative) Let's look at the first paragraph, where notability should be established ...

Prechter has authored or edited 14 books, including Conquer the Crash, a New York Times bestseller.[1] He has also published monthly financial commentary in the Elliott Wave Theorist since 1979.[2] In recent years Prechter has supported the study of socionomics, a theory about the dynamics of human social behavior. [3]

[1] is a blocked website (you have to register to read the review) ... BTW, is having one of his 14 books on the list for only one week sufficient for WP:BIO?

[2] is a reference to his self-published monthly newsletter, Elliott Wave Theorist - hardly a 3rd party claim of notability; it's just support for the assertion that he's been writing his own tip-sheet for almost 30 years.

[3] is a reference to his book, published by his own company, New Classics Library - again, very WP:COI.

If someone should include Real Citations (with ISBNs) for that list of books he has authored, we'd see that they are self-published as well ... I could write a dozen books and start my own company to publish them ... does that mean that if I can get a periodical with a Wikipedia article to write a review of one of them, then I can have a biographical article, too?

So far, the only 3rd party references for him (including those mentioned above by Smallbones) appear to demonstrate that his noteriety (not the same thing as notability) stems from his failures as a stock prognosticator. Other than that, he's not very remarkable. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies — only 9 of those 14 books are published by his company, New Classics Library ... I should have said "they are mostly self-published." ;-) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP

Looks like I'll be the first editor who actually bothers to quote the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. That article says, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles," and I will show that Prechter is a public figure who meets several of the "items" in the guidelines.

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

1. Prechter was the primary subject of "Business books take a bearish turn," a USA Today article on Aug 23, 2002, p. B3. Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.
2. Prechter was the primary subject of "2 Theorists Split On Elliott Wave," a New York Times article on Feb. 6, 1989, p. D6. Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.
3. Prechter was the primary subject of "3600 on the Dow?," a Barron's front page article on Jan. 5, 1987. Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.
4. Prechter was the primary subject of "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," a Futures magazine cover article, Nov. 2004.
5. Prechter was the primary subject of "Why Bears Growl," a Kiplinger Personal Finance article, October 2005, p. 46.
6. Prechter was the primary subject of "Bob Prechter Interview," The Technical Analyst cover article, July/August 2006 issue.

• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

Contrary to the false claim that Prechter's books are all self-published, Elliott Wave Principle, At the Crest of the Tidal Wave, and Conquer the Crash were published by John Wiley & Sons, a large and reputable publishing house. Click on the links, the reviews are quoted on the Wiley pages.

Challenging the bestseller status of Conquer the Crash is silly. I'll remove the link that requires a subscription, but I also provided the page number in the citation for the NYT Book Review, which is for the actual list of best sellers with Conquer the Crash listed. It wasn't just on the best sellers lists for one week, either -- it was on the Wall Street Journal's bestseller list for 2 1/2 months, 12 July 2002 through 27 Sept. 2002. (Look it up online if you're a WSJ subscriber, otherwise you can hoof it the nearest library if you're motivated enough to check my facts.)

Prechter was also published in a scholarly journal, "Unconscious herding behavior as the psychological basis of financial market trends and patterns." Journal of Behavioral Finance, 2 (3), 2001, pp. 120-125.

• Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google…

A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those EXCLUDE results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language, so Prechter has wide international notability.

Finally, for the record, my edits to Prechter's bio have NOT included ANY links to Prechter's products or commercial web site. This claim is rubbish, as anyone who checks the list of my contributions will plainly see.

This AFD is unnecessary and a waste of time. Prechter clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Before this AFD, I had politely said I was willing to find and include additional third-party sources for the Prechter bio. Editor 72.75.93.131 replied with rude sarcasm to my offer. This didn't have to happen. Rgfolsom 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, we've read that Guideline (not an Official Policy), and please note:

"People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles"

I believe that the operative word is may, as in, "this is is not a guarantee, your results may vary, only one might not be enough" ... And please if your comment fills more than a screen of text, then put it on the Talk page and say, "See "such-and-such" section on the Talk page." —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You instigated an AFD on notability that has been steamrolled by the weight of the facts in every relevant Wikipedia criterion, including a few I didn’t even address -- such as the “widely recognized” and “professor” tests. You also made demonstrably phony claims about me using the article as a soapbox.

Yet in the face of this… you patronize me about Guidelines vs. Policy, the meaning of “may,” and where else to put all the evidence I offer? Oh my.

Oh, my. Rgfolsom 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- having no previous connection with the subject it is obvious that the amount of newspaper coverage is sufficient. I cannot account for the deletes, unless they are based on his profession or his views. People in his own field take him seriously, and that is enoughDGG 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP

The guy's marketing hype works overboard and lures in suckers by the day. He was ONCE good, in the 1980's when the waves were "easier" to read. Not any more. But the hype keeps luring suckers in. Despite having admitted that he's called 1998 to 2006 completely wrong (recent Elliott Wave Threorist said this period "has not been tradable using my tools"), the marketing machine works overboard.

The Traders Big 5 Flash service has produced such atrocious results that EWI hid them once people realised they were listed on their website. And they neglect to mention that this service has turned over 4 analysts in a year. But the marketing hyperbole continues: Whichever category you belong to, you probably don't have time to scan the markets for high-probability trading opportunities all day long, day after day, all through the year. That's what Flash does for you. In my opinion, even George Orwell would find such bending of the truth stranger than fiction.

Personally, I think the WP article, with it's fair criticism section, does a public service. There are few places on the internet where the other view can be heard. If Prechter's analysis was any good, the results should speak for themselves. Don't take my word for it, ask EWI for some statistics to prove the results that are achieved. They will probably decline and point to a trading contest win ... from nearly 25 years ago. Therefore KEEP. Punanimal 18:15, 30th November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ... what part of "neutral point of view" do you not understand? Any criticism, fair or unfair, has not place in a Wikipedia article ... Wikipedia is not a place "where the other view can be heard" ... that's the short definition of a "soapbox", BTW. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep simply because at first glance (I have worked in networks for trading rooms) it hits notability (though I think TA is herd instinct wrapped in expensive code) plus User:72.75.93.131 edits are feeling very odd and maybe they should consider reading WP:COOL. Ttiotsw 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Edit warring is not a valid reason for deletion. We have other ways to deal with that, like blocking an protection. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)