Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 30

< November 29 December 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted as 'Lacks context' by Mike Rosoft. --ais523 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Woodstown dublin

[edit]
Woodstown dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable housing estate. 4 Ghits, including 2 from wiki, the other two not relevant. Not even worthy of a redirect. Delete. Ohconfucius 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Carpenter

[edit]

Isn't it obvious? DELETE! Debaser23 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England

[edit]
List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This very minor list is being misused as an advertising vehicle (causing it to have false information), and there is a growing concern that this list is non-maintainable and of too wide a scope to be useful. Were it to be pared down to its smallest incarnation, it would then simply be a rewritten copyvio of the official recognition page of UGLE. MSJapan 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it UGLE's formal policy to recognize any lodge recognized by those it recognizes? Can this be documented? (Sorry; with so much "secret", and thus unverifiable, information related to such organizations, and with so much false information put out over the last several centuries by Templar-hunters and propagandists, we need to be especially vigilant about citing reliable sources and checking seemingly reliable ones for bogosity.) Barno 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe so; as a matter of fact, there was a lodge added to the list that was recognized by the Grand Lodge in Scotland (which is recognized by UGLE), but was not itself recognized by UGLE. I would like to point out here that there's actually quite a lot of good (and verifiable) information available on Freemasonry - you just need to look at books in commercial bookstores more than at Internet sites and self-published pamphlets. MSJapan 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only a very small number of private material in Masonry (about 9 actually), unless you believe the conspiracy theorists. Recognition isn't secret, but it's complex and heavily influenced by political machinations. In principle should one GL recognise and unrecognised GL then either the third GL would be recognised by the first, or recognition of the second should be ceased. That should illustrate the maintenance difficulty.ALR 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence High School (Alabama)

[edit]
Florence High School (Alabama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Small high school. No assertions of notability. Prod contested. ReverendG 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there seems to be a general consensus on Wikipedia that high schools are always notable, and that middle and elementary schools are not. Any high school of any reasonable size will eventually generate mainstream press and notable alumni. --Hyperbole 01:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually recent trends seem to make that claim difficult to accept. Among other issues, more highschools have been closed as "no consensus, defaulting to keep" than "keep" and recently some have even been deleted. There is therefore no such general precedent. Furthermore, I am unable to find much in the way of mainstream press on the matter. JoshuaZ 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no general consensus on Wikipedia that high schools are always notable. Vegaswikian 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I disagree that middle and elementary schools are not always notable. Currently all towns/cities/villages/communities are automatically considered notable - even if they're just a spot in the road. It stands to reason that a city's municipal functions - such as public schools - are included. Until there is an official policy/guideline on schools (currently there is not), there's no basis for deleting this, nor is there any basis for saying "No assertations of notability" when no one knows what constitutes notability for a school here yet. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (after edit conflict) Even as I am not at all certain that I concur in the extant consensus that high schools are presumptively notable (toward the existence of which, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education), and even as I think the present proposed schools policy likely properly delineates the fashion in which we ought to treat high schools, there is surely not yet a plain consensus for the promulgation of WP:SCHOOL qua guideline, and I don't think any individual AfD to be the place at which we ought to broach the issue. Joe 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, AFD is exactly where you should apply the criteria that you support. You've explicitly stated that you support WP:SCHOOL, yet you haven't actually applied it here at all. Indeed, your rationale makes no mention of the actual subject at hand whatsoever. You've done nothing but give a bare vote, in effect. Please stop voting and start discussing the subject at hand, with reference to our policies and guidelines. This is not a vote. Uncle G 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our high-schools-are-notable precedent. --- RockMFR 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another school notablity question. I'm one of those people who believe all schools are notable. Atlantis Hawk 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NO school (other than colleges) are inherently notable and nothing about this school stands out. No notability is asserted. People should stop thinking that all high schools are notable. TJ Spyke 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. No independent reliable sources. No actual content beyond a directory entry. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and even WP:SCHOOLS. No policy- or guideline-based rationales for keeping have yet been presented. Finally, the "consensus" cited by most keep !votes above clearly does not exist when the AfD record is examined; a significant majority of school AfD nominations are either deleted or kept via no consensus. Actual keeps are a minority, and the "all schools are notable" argument self-evidently lacks consensus. Would not oppose a merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or locality article, however. Shimeru 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe that at least all high schools are notable. Terence Ong 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-Another interesting conflict that certainly has happened before and will again. Person A says "there is no way all high schools are notable. People should stop thinking that." Person B says "I believe all high schools are notable." Where do we go from there? Is there actual policy here? There isn't, right? So it has to get duked out again and again?--Dmz5 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why closing admins should look at the comments and not just votes. Voting Keep and just saying that you think all schools are notable isn't enough and should pretty much disqualify your vote since that isn't a reason to keep an article. That wouldn't fly on any other AFD, so why should it be allowed on school related AFD's? TJ Spyke 06:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument is made when places are put up for AfD, and no-one seems to think that it's a problem there. Anyway, I see "delete because it's a school" arguments too so I don't see "keep because it's a school" as being less valid. JYolkowski // talk 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of us aren't happy with the attitude towards places and in any event if someone did argue "delete because it's a school" that would be just as invalid and should be given correspondingly low weight by the closing admins. There seems to be an almost two wrongs making a right attitude towards the above comment. In any event, the closest I've seen anyone come to "delete because it's a school" are people who when pressed actually mean "this is a school, schools have no inherent notability so delete as default setting" or something like that which is more of an issue of poor phrasing and shorthand than anything else. JoshuaZ 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All schools are notable to the immediate community and those attending them--my elementary school was the most lasting positive experience in my life. But this article does not assert notability,nor could it prove it. Many many other high schools, including some of perhaps equal intrinsic merits, are more fully done, and demonstrate the reason they're here. I do not think we have a procedure for article on probation--improve it by this time next moth but that may be what we need. In its absence, the best we can do is delete, with a suggestion that the resubmit. The school district idea is a good one, but I think the se articles are inspired by local patriotism or perhaps school projects. DGG 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I fail to see how intelligent editors and administrators can advocate for a policy that says "all high schools are notable". This simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. How is a high school automatically notable? It would be notable if, for instance, an important legal case was fought regarding a policy at said school---for instance, Brown v. Board of Education. And, certainly, there are a whole host of other reasons a high school might be notable. But, automatic notability? Please! ---Charles 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be a school. Trollderella 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Schools3 looks good, and this article doesn't meet that standard. -- Alan McBeth 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Florence's article. I think almost any USA high school can be shown to be notable with some research, but WP:V trumps editors' personal all/none standards. This article has no claim to meet any criterion except WP:ITSASCHOOL and no verifiable sources at all, not even a trivial "local paper reports board meeting". Given the ongoing lack of school-guideline consensus, we need to apply basic policy, starting with verifiability. Barno 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Articles can be merged without coming to AfD, as normal editing. Septentrionalis 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, when there is consensus or little likelihood of objection. But merging a school stub into its community's article is almost certain to be controversial to those who consider all schools (or all those of a certain level) to be automatically notable, so the nominator did right to bring it here for discussion. Sadly, little of the discussion is focused on how this specific topic and its current stub meets or fails to meet WP policy (as compared to either side's proposed guideline which lacks consensus). Other than an unencyclopedic "two schools merged", nobody has presented either a single reason that this particular school might be notable, nor a single source showing actual coverage by reliable sources. What's there to merge? Barno 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the notability of high schools in general. Sharkface217 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • High schools are not notable in general. No where on Wikipedia has that been established and your personal opinion isn't enough. High schools have to proove their notability, which this one doesn't. TJ Spyke 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just another run-of-the-mill school, nothing notable about it. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools are notable in and of themselves (Heck, who knows...someday, they may graduate a future President!--though, Abe Lincoln was homeschooled).--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if they do graduate a future president they might become notable then and then we can have an article. Under this logic we should have biographies of all little kidss because they might grow up to be president. JoshuaZ 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm confused by the idea expressed in several of the above comments that there is precedent or consensus that all high schools are notable. This particular article doesn't establish the notability of the school and of the dozens or even hundreds of articles on Wikipedia considered for deletion (AFD, speedy or otherwise) every day because they don't assert the notability of their subjects, I don't see why this one (or any other article about a questionably notable school) should be kept. Anybody could make a similar plea for their pet subject. Two schools were merged - so what? This happens quite often. Extraordinary Machine 22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have always felt that this is exactly the danger in making the blanket statement that "all schools are notable." We don't allow the statement that all structures are notable, or all people are notable, or all books or all bands. Each one must prove its own notability. Why do we exempt schools from this? Now, granted, there are some categories that are granted instant notability, such as incorporated communities, regardless of size. This, however, is official policy. In the absence of official policy on schools, all we have to go on are the policies that DO exist, and one of those policies is that an article MUST assert its notability. "I think all schools are notable" is no better than "I think all people are notable." --Dmz5 03:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such policy that states that all articles must assert their notability or they get deleted. The solution to articles not asserting their notability is to reference them, not to delete them. JYolkowski // talk 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are notable per precendent. --Oakshade 07:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well written arguments by Dmz5, and by lack of arguments by keepers. Fram 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Florence, Alabama per WP:LOCAL (or keep if expanded), meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments given above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as schoolcruft that fails the notability guidline on schools. Just because it is a highscool deos not make it notable, something of interest had to have actually happened in connection with the school. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoFreak 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Wikipedia currently has no notability guideline on schools. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of opinions stated there, but where's the policy? Highfructosecornsyrup 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to forget that policy is not static but dynamic, consensus driven and constantly subject to reevaluation and change. I find minor Pokemon characters inherently unnotable and would vote to delete them on that basis alone. I find schools inherently unnotable and vote to delete them as such. You can disagree, but as fas as I am concerned, schools default to delete unless they are clearly and substantially noteworthy. It is quite simply a logical fallacy to argue that we somehow need to justify a decision to delete based on some reference to policy, when by the simple dictates of community-driven consensus mean that the accumulated weight of opinion one way or the other is itself sufficient. The problem, of course, is that there is no such policy regarding schools, as evidenced by the failed attempt to beat out a compromise at WP:SCHOOLS. I am happy for you to disagree with me, but don't pretend you can invalidate a large body of opinion, mine included, by demanding capricious substantiation when the very essence of the question remains a matter of outstanding debate. I don't challenge your good faith, but that smacks of hubris tinged by ignorance or dishonesty. Eusebeus 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Florence, Alabama. A delete will not work because the article will just be re-created by the students. If we install redirects in place of school pages, we can be sure that this sort of "article" will eventually fade away. DrKiernan 10:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Florence, Alabama - does not assert notability. There is no consensus that all schools are notable, there is consensus that some schools are notable but nothing in this article shows that this is one of them. Thryduulf 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if needed, Merge per DrKiernan. This debate has been going on long enough for the original authors or other interested parties to demonstrate notability with citations of famous alumni, historical impact, notable sports events, etc. The article has pretty much stayed the same and, as its currently written, does not indicate that the school has been involved in anything the larger world would require knowledge of. Endless blue 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article is most certainly notable. Florence High School is a wonderful school that provides excellent eduations to over one thousand students in Florence, Alabama. Anyone who has ever walked into the doors of Florence High School knows that it is a fine learning facility. It is apparent that all Florence High School students have a close rapport with one another. The percentage of Florence students who "keep it real" is astonishingly high. Florence High School is seen by its students as "extra crunk" and many graduates have been quoted as saying that they miss the days when they had the opportunity to go to Florence High School "every day of their lives." Florence High School is a top-quality high school that should be broadcasted over the internet so that the world may know of its existance.--Andrew Davis Price 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not really what wikipedia was intended for - please see the encyclopedia's guidelines. If you have any questions, don't be afriad of asking.michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't made up my mind on this school but there are some references I was able to find. First, note that since there are many schools witht he same name as this one it isn't easy to go through google searches (it appears that there are Florence High Schools in at least Alabama, Missisipi, Colorado, Montana, Pensylvania, Tennesee and South Dakota). The school has what seems to be exactly one student who has done anything resembling anything of note- one Jennifer Ann Taylor who was an Intel Finalist and seems very accomplished in a variety of fields(although this lists her at a different school everything else puts her here). See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The school has a smattering of minor awards and students with minor scholarships such as here and two of the school's athletes have been all-american [7](I think, I may be misreading that). The school also at one point had apparently one very talented teacher [8]. However, all media mentions of the school give us little or no information. In all cases the school is mentioned in passing such as [9]. JoshuaZ 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unless all high schools are automatically notable, this one is not notable. I commend the probable efffort of the students to join in editing WP, and, now they have mastered the mechanics, they should be encourage to learn about finding evidence. If Andrew DP is among them, I suggest he look for some famous alumni as a first approach. The thorough investigation by JoshuaZ is a model of diligence, and comes to about as strong a proof of non-notability as one could get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Clearly should have been a speedy as emptly. At best merge the few tidbits of information there into the school district article. There is no guideline that all high schools are notable. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Vegaswikian 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not clearly demonstrated. WMMartin 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to say that my own view is that having "famous" alumni is not per se notable, though I recognise that some people disagree with me. Since people have to be educated somewhere, the fact that some schools produce famous people seems to me to be a random event, and thus not notable. If a school consistently produces important physicists, say, or actors, this suggests that there is something non-random and thus notable going on - perhaps the school has a special teaching process for physics, or has special skills in training aspiring actors in voice production. Something like that is notable, but just doing a job isn't. Show us how this school does something that other schools don't, and I'll gladly vote the other way. WMMartin 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on some and delete the rest.
This discussion amounted to over 150K. Much of it (too much) was spent debating the merits of an AfD nominating so many related yet distinct articles in a single nomination. The prospect of 85 59 separate AfDs containing the same arguments from the same set of editors is even more frightening than the debacle that this AfD nearly became. I find no merit in the arguments against the form of this AfD other than the observation that historically these types of nominations become a train wreck with no consensus emerging after day upon day of discussion.

Fortunately, some progress has come from this AfD. Reading through this (yes, every word of it) consensus was clear (yes, clear) on several issues:

  1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
  2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
  3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.comview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Main_Page
  4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

Now, if this were a vote, then the result would be "no consensus". However, consensus here does not mean consensus that WP:ILIKEIT, but consensus that the material here meets established guidelines and policies that have been developed through consensus. In this regard there were strong arguments in favor of deleting everything, however, I find that there is no consensus whether the following articles meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT, and are thus kept by default:

Note that among those arguing to keep the articles, there was consensus to merge the above articles in some form. Deciding how to merge these article is left to the WP:CE project, of which 4 of its 11 members participated, albeit peripherally, in this discussion. There was no consensus to delete yet consensus among those arguing to keep to merge, delete and redirect the following into a single article:

There was also consensus that all 14 of the above articles need to be significantly edited to address the issues in points #1 and #2 above.

That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above:

The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

You can do the math on the box below to see how long I spent reading, investigating and weighing this decision, so think about it before you come and yell at me. —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series

[edit]

ATTENTION: CLOSING IN PROCESS
I am in the process of closing this AfD. I am reading the entire thing (yes, every comment) and evaluating all 85 referenced articles. I expect this will take a couple of hours to do right. —Doug Bell talk 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To other admins: please talk to me before considering closing this AfD.
To people here to comment: you may continue to comment. I will find and read all comments up until when I complete this closing.
CLOSING COMPLETED: —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not only nominating this article, I am nominating every page all 84 pages in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons. They are all listed and lightly mentioned on Cosmic Era Mobile Units, therefore a merge is not required. All of the information has already been transwikied ([10]). The information appears to be stolen from MaHQ.net. Deletion is the only option. Before you defend the existence of these articles, please observe how these articles defy WP:NOT, an official policy.

  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
    There are no sources on most of the articles. Therefore the articles break this rule. Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam, it will violate this.
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
    The policy states "works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". None of the articles have this.

There we have two policies that the article clearly violates. If that's not enough, here's a violation of the WP:FICT guidelines:

  • Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." The main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.
    Seeing as most of the articles contain mostly trivial information, they are minor, and therefore violate the guideline.

Now, on various articles for deletions, these points have been raised to keep:

  • it would be nice to keep these articles
    That's not a reason for keeping them.
  • there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first.
    That's irrelevant. This one has to go, it doesn't matter what order it's done in.
  • they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of.
    Yes they are, I mentioned the policies they're violating.
  • If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles
    That seems like a very good idea. Just because that hasn't been done yet doesn't mean this can't be done first. Furthermore, a main character in Star Wars is a lot more important than every single quartenary robot.
  • 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless.
    There are various rules and policies that state the articles are useless.
  • Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions.
    Those are primary sources. Articles require secondary sources. If there aren't any, the articles should not exist (in most cases)

Thank you. Please, base this on importance, not your liking of the series. Adhere to the rules, not your opinion. TheEmulatorGuy 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Many people in this discussion are stating that they think some of these articles should go but some should not, or complaining that individual AfDs should be created for each separate article. What they are neglecting to state is which articles they think should go and which should stay and stating their reasons. It is perfectly within process to nominate a group of related articles in a single nomination, and the above referenced template lists the included articles. That means that if your position is that not all of the articles should share the same fate, then this is the time and place to make your case for the fate of individual articles. —Doug Bell talk 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per very thorough nom. --- RockMFR 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refer to a relevant WikiProject for how to best merge, transwiki, or otherwise organize this information. Yes, we have a situation where numerous articles of questionable value exist - but trying to deal with that situation with one gigantic AfD almost guarantees throwing some babies out with the bathwater. Major elements of notable fiction do generally receive articles on Wikipedia, and that is in no way incompatible with Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It has already been merged and transwikied. There are no babies in the bathwater. Using that comment is simply an excuse to keep the articles, and until you actually find a "baby", your claim is incorrect. Look through every article in the template and I guarantee none of them are of importance. These are not major elements of notable fiction, as I have stated, and it does violate policy. Please read my nomination next time. Your keep vote is simply invalid. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to take your word for it that a group of 85 articles contain no information that are important to a clearly notable anime. There is probably no group of almost 100 articles I'd vote a blanket "delete" on, especially when a dozen or more of them have already undergone the AfD process - and survived. It seems disrespectful to all those discussions to try to supercede them by having the entire category deleted. --Hyperbole 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any robot in Gundam is non-notable. In a very popular series, Metal Gear, the Metal Gears are the star of the show. They are the most important, and each one serves a very important aspect of it. However, they are all in Metal Gear (weapon). This is good example to compare to, because Metal Gear articles are actually representative of a good set of editors, not a group of fans. I realize it seems disrespectful to previous discussions, but I have already argued against all of the points mentioned in those discussions. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is literally no comparison between Metal Gear and Gundam. Gundam is a genre-defining show in literally the same sense that Star Trek defines the "guys in a spaceship fly around solving other people's problems" subgenre of television sci-fi. Iceberg3k 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You misunderstood the comparison. I was trying to say that in Metal Gear, the MOST IMPORTANT antagonist-related thing is in a list, while in Gundam, every single robot and his robot-dog has a full article. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Prove had been shown. You just ignore them to the convinience of your own argument. If someone have published a book to show others how to 3D model these units, if someone have published magazines on how to model real world models on these units, it is enough of a real world impact. It does not impact you, but the real world of the modeling industry and publishers and 3D modelers. No one went to improve the articles yet because you have listed too many and coined all of them to be the same. No, your ignorance is never an argument of you having good enough IQ to disrespect others. MythSearchertalk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Is this a nomination for everything in the tamplate or only CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series? I don't see current AfD templates on the others... BCoates 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I am nominating everything in the template. It has to be realized that we cannot keep these articles just because one might be useful. That's simply a terrible excuse. Actually putting the deletion template on all articles would be a ridiculously lengthy task and a waste of time. The steps for AfD mention that to delete a group, a good idea is just to nominate one. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'd normally state my reasons here, but the nom summed it all up very nicely. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I agree, delete. Fledgeling 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and nominate individually or at least in smaller groups. These kind of blanket nominations are bound to end up deleting many worthwhile articles, resulting in another WP:DRV fiasco like Esoteric Programming Languages. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I realize your concern, but you have to realize that there are no worthwhile articles in the templates. They are all non-notable, and there are similar examples supporting this, far more relevant than the one you mentioned. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continually asserting that there are no worthwhile articles is not an argument. An argument would list each subject and give an explanation of why that individual subject does not warrant an article. Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series until such time that all articles on template are properly AfD'd. wtfunkymonkey 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - articles have all been updated to refelct the AfD, articles have been transwikied, nomination does well to counter any arguments. I will say, however, that I am disappointed in User:TheEmulatorGuy's conduct throughout a majority of this discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: That's a very extreme thing to ask. No one has shown notability for any of the pages, and to nominate each one would be utterly ridiculous and time wasting. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment [edit conflict] Wikipedia has procedures put in place for a reason, you cannot expect them to be ignored on the basis of your own personal laziness. You nominated the articles, you must follow proper procedure. Every article is granted the same rights and protection by wikipedia policy, regardless of what the content may be. wtfunkymonkey 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Personal laziness? I would have to edit two hundred similarly-related pages just to nominate them. That doesn't even count the constant replying and defending I have to do with doubtful editors. However, the reason why I am nominating them as one is because they are all cruft - I have looked at all of them, and even if I didn't, fictional objects similar to this don't pass guidelines. The only argument towards keeping it is your laziness - you are the one who guesses there might be important articles in the template instead of looking for yourself. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longest AfD nom I've ever seen. I have nothing to add but delete. --Natalie 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I have marked each individual article for deletion, so the argument of only one being marked is now officially out the window. In the process, I also got to look at them all, and I've surmised that all of them are basically an extension/copy/mirror of http://www.mahq.net/, which is not allowed. No sources = unverifiable, and as it stands, the articles are really caving in to undue weight. Take it to some other wiki/website please. --Wafulz 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though I'm not an anime fan, there probably are quite a few people out there that like this show. Atlantis Hawk 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Are... are you kidding me? Did you even read the nomination text? THIS VIOLATES POLICIES. You're unbelievable. I don't know what else to say. Its the equivalent of saying "well, a lot of people didn't like the guy he killed, so he shouldn't go to jail". --TheEmulatorGuy 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or break into smaller listings. Mass AFD's almost always fail, and you didn't even do it right since only 1 article was actually nominated. If you want to do a mass AFD, at least learn how to do it right. Right now, anyone who visits any of the other articles have no way to vote since they don't know you want to delete them. TJ Spyke 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear, very thorough nomination. There is nothing more to say than the points made above. Sr13 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very entertaining afd. TheEmulatorGuy, you clearly have a strong editorial (not fan-based) opinion on this. I have a question - you say above the AfD guidelines mention that a whole template can be proposed for deletion by nominating one representative article, yet numerous posters here strongly feel that all of the articles needed to be listed. What is the actual procedure here? I know that it has been rendered moot in this case, but there seems to be a policy conflict, no?--Dmz5 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I'm unsure. WP:AfD states "To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to "bundle" all of them together into a single nomination". I obviously wasn't going to create multiple AfD pages, so I adhered to this, but putting a notice on every single page seemed a daunting task. I went ahead with one page, and fortunately Wafulz mended my mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30 05:50:07
  • Question Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam. What do you actually mean? different series should be separated sources, or everything gundam related is a no? Does something like the sales of a gunpla count towards a source not dedicated to gundam, or someone writing a book stating the impact of specific gundam series to name anything here counted as dedicated to gundam? And what about Super Robot series? Just asking, because this is not clear enough. I limit the sentence to Gundam Seed and Seed-Destiny anime and official guide books for the moment.

    P.S. The WP:OR quoted here have been taken to a liberty of extending it to an out-of-reach limitation. Different authors writing different articles for the same series should not be counted as original research, like different authors writing different physics book should be counted as separated sources, both primary and secondary. MythSearchertalk 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per very good nomination. Mass AfDs are not often appropriate, but they are here, as all nominated articles do suffer from the same problems, and individual discussions would be process for process' sake. Just for completeness' sake, although not really a reason to delete, these articles also violate WP:WAF. Sandstein 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unencyclopedic fancruft. Terence Ong 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Second time people have tried to delete all this, and just as foolish as the first time.--DNAlpha 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply: Incorrect. I provided policies and a guideline the pages violate, as well as arguments to all of the "keep" points raised previously. Completely different to the previous nominations. Because of that, you have no argument for keeping the pages. Another invalid vote. Care to iterate on why they should stay, or are you going to dwell on ill-founded decisions? I should mention that this user's only edits are on the pages I have nominated to delete, spreading 23 edits over almost a year and a half. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: You fail to understand the scope of Gundam. How are Metal Gears anymore notable then Mobile Suits? Both are the stars of their shows. Your policy violations aren't actually as clear as you make them out to be. I could make a more full arguement aganst them if I felt it was needed.--DNAlpha 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect all. Can't delete them if they have been merged to another article. Ben Standeven 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) preceeding edit from IP 70.255.38.147[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, nothing more to be said. QuiteUnusual 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is flawed. The assertion is that these articles are unverifiable, and that the only way for readers to check them is to perform the primary research of actually watching the series directly. However, for an article to be unverifiable it has to be shown both that the article cites no sources and that the nominator looked for sources and didn't find any. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) The nominator has shown the first, not the second. Something is unverifiable only if no sources exist, not simply if the article cites no sources. (The tag for that is {{unreferenced}}, not {{afd1}}.) Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a good nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is horrible. There is no explanation made anywhere why any particular article of the set isn't worthy of an article. Perhaps they aren't, but in order to perform a blanket nomination, every single article's reason for deletion must be stated! You cannot simply call them all "non-notable" without an explanation. I hope the closing admin notices this blatant violation of policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These articles are all pretty much the same. All the complaints in the nomination/comments apply to all of them, in particular that there's no reputable secondary sources that provide the level of detail that would justify so very many articles instead of one or a few covering the whole topic. Are each of these lines of robots even central to the actual series? There's no hint of this in the articles, I don't even see episode/series/movie titles listed. It's just a dump of technical minutiae written as if they were real. BCoates 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then wishfully there will be someone with enough knowledge and time to modify them to better articles, one by one. I never have both and I have no interest in working extensively on CE related stuff and thus I only care about this deletion process and how much it really follows WP. From what I see now, the WP is explaint in a pretty twisted way to justify the deletion of all the articles. I am more for the idea of deleting most of them, but the arguement is not made in a good way. It only looks like any wiki deletionist's work instead of someone who cares about making articles better. MythSearchertalk 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per Dark Shikari and MythSearcher's detailed response below. Btw: The robots ARE the stars of the show in the myriad Gundam series. They've spawned an industry in Japan making amazingly detailed models and have a huge fanbase of their own. Kyaa the Catlord 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to alternative wiki for safekeeping until the articles can be sifted through properly to see what can be salvageable. Cruft or not, a lot of work seems to have gone into these; the infomation should be kept somewhere. Exception is if it can be proven that they are copyvios, in which case delete.--SeizureDog 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Please read the rest of my nomination. They are already on the Gundam wiki, and all of the information is directly taken from http://www.mahq.net
  • Keep All - (Edit conflict)I think these articles are fairly well written and if i wanted information on this stuff, I would more than likley come to Wikipedia. In that case, for me personally, I believe the article should stay per WP:IAR.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Incorrect. They're terribly written because they all maintain an in-universe style and fail to ever come out of it. The only people wanting to know that "CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion Unit 1 has a height of 16.9 meters and is used by the Earth Alliance" is a Gundam fan. That is not what the encyclopedia is for.
  • Keep all Per Dark Shikari Bigmog 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Bigmog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep all Per all keep noms so far. There's no reason to get heated up over this. Black-Velvet 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Yes there is a reason to get heated up over it. It clearly violates policies and guidelines, and nominations keep failing because of the stubbornness of Gundam fansboys and their need for fancruft. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Who the hell made you boss? Not to mention , the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor. If that is not an indicator of real-life reference and usefulness, I don't know what is. I second everything ever mentioned under the other Keep votes. Zeromig 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — ZeroMig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor" Huh? What kind of work do you do exactly? --SeizureDog 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ZeroMig works for a comics and anime magazine, I hesitate to say more because of personal details policies. Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Lets keep the tone a bit nicer! Nothing to get heated up about - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What.the.fuck? My tone was completely fine, it was a simple question asking for clarification to a confusing statement. Now I'm pissed though because it's late and hate it when people pull that "tone" crap on me. As if there are really tones online anyways, it's all how you read it. Gao. --SeizureDog 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok! It was not meant as an attack on anybody in particulars behavior. The comment was just meant to remind everbody involved that it is not that big a deal! Yes, it all how we read it. The comment was more directed at :Who the hell made you boss?". I apolagize if you took it offensivley! Thanks for your work on AFD discussions. If you have any futher issues with my comment, you are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a keep vote. I'm honestly asking a question. _dk 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I may vote merge for some closely-relate article or some minor articles, but all of them into single article? Nah...L-Zwei 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: For starters, the necessary information has already been merged. Secondly, these are minor articles, as they are about quarternary objects in a fictional world. Thirdly, the information has been stolen. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as above. This nom is nonsense. Trollderella 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the excellent and thorough nomination, which points out numerous policies that these articles violate. A vote to keep is a vote to reject WP:NOR and WP:NOT: good luck with that.
    Given that the information all exists elsewhere, a mass deletion will not destroy anything in any case. — Haeleth Talk 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to alternative Wiki per SeizureDog. However, this nomination is in bad form, and as much as I don't like the "tone" thing much, TheEmulatorGuy is actually being a dick, which is bad for someone so keen about policies. Oh, and if we are looking into the backgrounds, all the deleters have created their accounts about a month ago top, and all around the same dates. From what I see here, this is a "Keepers vs Deletionists" thing. I personally hate to throw good material to the garbage, and I feel like there should be a procedure of creating alternative wikis for cases like this. Additionally, it seems like a good part of this articles coul be made encyclopedic easily by adding a few lines of "the introduction of these suits had this and that impact on the series, as ----- commented in an interview." I never watched Gundam, and I'm no fan of the genre, but I know a major anime series when I see one, and coverage should abund if someone takes the pain to look into it.--SidiLemine 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It is already in an alternative wiki. Please read the nomination. Don't bring the decision onto my actions, make the decision based on the CLEAR POLICIES IT VIOLATES. It's not good material, it's stolen in-universe material about fancruft. It's already in an alternative wiki, as I said, PLEASE READ THE NOMINATION NEXT TIME. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionnal comment: Haeleth, when you say "Given that the information all exists elsewhere", o you mean that there is a source to it, and as such it's not OR?--SidiLemine 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: There's a thing called a "reliable source" and an "unreliable sources". These pages are stolen information from an unreliable sources.
  • Keep all as per Dark Shikari. Kagurae 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to alternative wiki as per SeizureDog. Kerochan no Miko 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Montco 18:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: why delete all infomation we ave articles on us pop culture scifi we have pages on doctor who a uk scifi series just because this is a nich thing we should remove it from the wikipedia unless we are removing all article on fiction. also mahq has made it known that they give permission to repclate here info if you source them.128.118.124.3 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - There is but one catch to this deletion process: People voting here do not know what they are voting for. There is no direct link to all the pages that are nominated. Yes, there is a function called What links here however, it is almost certained that most people would not know its exsistence and still vote on the subject. And thus making the nomination not reputable just because there is no way to tell if people even know what there are voting about other than a bunch of supposedly OR pages. If users who voted above saw this comment, please edit your vote to reflect you have at least looked through all the pages and know what they are about, to show that the vote is reputable. The list contain 2 pages.
Secondly - The WP:OR does not extend to fictional characters that appears in an anime(Seed and probably Seed-Destiny), in manga(Seed Astray, Astray-X, Destiny Astray), in settings(Seed MSV, Seed-D MSV), Official guide books(Seed data file characters 1~4, Mechanical file 1~4), and a Gundam Mobile Suit guide book for most Gundam series instead of Seed and Seed-D dedicated(MS encyclopedia 2003 and 2006). Some even appeared in the Super Robot Series(Super Robot Wars) that is not dedicated to Gundam but almost every single major mecha anime. Yes, it is very likely that these pages will recieve a lot of fancruff and OR in it if left unattented, however, this is not a reason of deleting any article just because they may contain OR.
More reasoning could counter arguments made by the nominator:
  1. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - No, this is not publishing an original thought, the page is not created by the author of said characters(mecha), and there are more than one source backing them up (I know not all the pages include their sources, and I have no will in doing). No, they do not have to be not dedicated to Gundam, They just have to be not dedicated to the series, i.e. not a comic retelling of the anime, not a novel written by the same author, etc. If someone published a book talking about these characters, in a different way than the story plot itself, it is justified to be a secondary source. Which actually means that the articles not just justified the WP:NOT test, but can also be written to justify the style of an out-of-universe view.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Yes, but per WP:FICT, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. and The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters. Here, in the list of AfD, I see quite a lot of important mecha that major characters used. Therefore, at least some of the articles here should not be deleted under this rule. In fact, a citation needed is what you need in these articles.
    And yes, I agreed with the fact that There is no reason for keeping them, most of them, at least. However, some of them should be kept, but the nominator indiscriminately list everything here, and thus it is too generic to vote for a yes.
    And another yes, it does not matter which one goes first, but it should always be done in the correct way, with correctly informed voters, with correctly listed reasons.
    Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. This is not an official policy, but a consensus. If they appeared in Super Robot Wars and SD Gundam G Generation, than it cannot be tied to a particular work (It is not Mobile Suit Gundam Seed's Cosmic Era anymore) and thus deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. The fun thing is, there are a few listed mechas actually showed up in series that are not related to gundam at all, like freedom in Magical Nurse Komugi and Comic Party and various units appeared more than once in the magazines Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby as iconic model kits. If the nominator is going to do anything similar (I mean this kind of mass deletion) to the UC timeline of Gundam, be informed here that most units in that timeline is also showed in Keroro Kunsou, Genshiken, Plamo tsuguru(TV show teaching how to build plastic models).
    I am all into deleting most of the pages listed, however, due to above reasons, this nomination did not completely followed the rules and is just too generic and took too much liberty in explaining the wiki policy, I am going to vote a:
    Keep per above reasons. However, after the voting period, if the articles are to be kept, I will be bold and merge(redirect) the ones I see that are not suitable to have its own page when I have time. MythSearchertalk 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: This is quite bluntly incorrect. If you actually read the nomination, you'd realize I linked to a template AND list of all of the articles. You seem to misunderstand the policies as a whole, and seem to be judging it from the one-liners I wrote instead of the whole policy. I'm not enjoying the lack of literacy and comprehension in this nomination. There are about two people making a FALSE decision, and then we have a bunch of sheep saying "keep per above", even though the argument is wrong. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not separate my section as a whole, also, different opinion does not mean it is a FALSE decision. Some see your argument is lacking its credibility and thus voted against it. Even someone like me who is all for deleting most of the articles thinks that what you are saying here is simply your own point of view instead of what is said in the policy. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in light of transwikied process. Suggest ELs be used to prevent recreation (at least enough to point the reader to that "level" of information). -- Ned Scott 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's clear that some should go, some should merge, etc (some being... most..), but we'll likely need further discussion to help organize the cruft-cutting. One thing is clear, things should not stay as they are. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has this initiative not failed once already? Too much potentially valuable information for a blanket delete. You might consider individual nominatinations for a less heated VfD. FWIW, I am not an anime fan. SuMadre 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The initiative previously failed because of a lack of information. I have provided everything required, making the decision much more clearer. I am trying to argue against this "potentially valuable" information argument. You're only assuming the information might be valuable because of ignorance, but I have looked through all of the articles, and none of it is valuable. For you to decide whether it is valuable or not, you will have to look at the articles. Otherwise, voting "keep" is just as foolish. You can't base a vote on ignorance - whether it's "keep" or "delete".
      • Follow-up: To do as you are asking is to delete dozens of articles which probably have not been read individually by us editors. I will read each one on a case-by-case basis, but I don't have the hours required to sift through each article in a blanket VfD. Are we to simply take your word that each and every article has no potentially valuable information AND is in violation of WikiPolicy? To vote based on such would be irresponsible & the height of ignorance. Once again, and without malice, I suggest that you consider individual noms. SuMadre 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I will be doing individual nominations if this results in a no-consensus. I am determined to get these horrible articles off of Wikipedia. It was clearly a mistake to bundle them, but nominating each one separately is going to be an extreme task. If this results in "keep" (as opposed to "no-consensus"), I'll have to give the administrator a refresher regarding the decisions on AfD. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Follow-up: I think you will have much better luck in that regard (individual noms). You clearly have a firm resolve to rid the world of these literary abominations, so I see your hard work coming to fruition if you change your tack. (Please sign your comments with four tildes in the future so I'll know for sure who I'm talking to - Thanks.) Best of luck. SuMadre 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to comment on how irritating I find it that so many of the people who have chimed in to this debate did not bother reading previous postings or even the original nomination. Yes it is long, but how can you expect to participate in a discussion if you are only aware of the previous three things that have been uttered? Not to select any particular editors for chiding, but I am especially surprised at how many people demanded the articles be transwikied even as TheEmulatorGuy was responding to each such comment individually saying "please read the nomination."--Dmz5 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CE.--Ojaulent 12:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — Ojaulent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That there exists a project is not a reason to keep them. Do they follow policies, especially WP:V? That is the main question, and one I haven't seen any of the keepers address yet (although I may have missed someone in this lengthy AfD). Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is right on this one. The fact that there is a project devoted to a subject does not mean we should start writing articles on everything that falls under that subject. We have a Wikiproject on libraries and librarians. Does it follow that we should then write and keep an article on every library and librarian in the known universe? Please, for the love of all things good in this world, recognize that the answer to this quesiton is no. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the Delete admin stated the following (roughly): The only ones who wants to know said gundam is X meters high is a gundam fan! THIS is an ultimatly wrong statement, and if this was to be the rule, than wikipedia all encylopedias worldwide would be EXTREMELY narrow. To say that unless proven to be useful to everyone, it should not be part of an encyclopedia. Encylopedias, and wikipedia for that matter, does not contain info that is useful to everyone, however, shouldn`t the fact that it is useful to SOMEONE be a decisive factor?
No, the nominator (not a "delete admin", just a regular editor: anyone can nominate articles for deletion) gave numerous reasons for deletion, one of them being that these articles violate one of our core policies, WP:V. Since these articles seem to be not only not verified but actually unverifiable (from secondary sources), they are a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and should be deleted. It doesn't matter if anyone likes or dislikes the subjects (we have many articles on subjects I utterly dislike), we should only look if these articles are conform to the policies of Wikipedia. They are not, and thus should be deleted. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per good nom (although he should have given them all an AfD notice from the start, but that has been fixed) and per mt reply to the previous unsigned post. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No matter your qualms with the procedural value of this nomination, there have been no arguments made that successfully defend against the charges leveled by the nominator. The current poll of votes shows 16-19 "keep" votes, but digging beyond the numbers game reveals a clearer picture of what's going on here. Eight keep votes reflect reservations about the way the articles were nominated, and say nothing about the content of the articles. Four "keep" votes are simple WP:ILIKEIT statements. Another "keep" vote is a regurgitation of the "worse articles exist, therefore this should be kept" fallacy. That means that 68.42 percent of the keep voters are ignoring the actual policy arguments, and chasing their tails in some rhetorical netherworld instead. It is my sincerest hope that the closing administrator realizes this. How on Earth is information like the following a worthy inclusion to the encyclopedia?
  • "Their main feature, however, is the "Armure Lumiere" mono-phase lightwave shield system. This system consists of 7 emitters, one on each arm and 5 on the backpack." CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
  • "In addition, an amphibious variant of the Forbidden was created, the GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue. It utilizes a Natural-use OS rather than OS intended for Biological CPUs, and has weapons optimized for underwater use, including torpedo pods and a photon laser energy cannon in close combat mode." GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
  • "The Chaos is initially tested at Armory One by former Proto-Chaos pilot Courtney Hieronimus. However, before ZAFT can bring it into active service, Sting Oakley of the Earth Alliance's 81st Independent Mobile Battalion steals the mobile suit and escapes with it to the battleship Girty Lue, where it is given the new model number RGX-01." ZGMF-X24S_Chaos_Gundam
  • "For example, the Kimera piloted by Kisato Yamabuki is equipped with a large scoop-style shovel, while that of Lowe Guele mounts mobile suit-style arms, one with a conventional hand and the other with a heavy drill bit. Kimeras could also be fitted with caterpillar tracks for construction work on Earth." MAW-01 Mistral

Please, by all means, explain to me how that information is notable? Our guiding policy here should be WP:FICT, which gives us this gem of useful information:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

These articles are written entirely in an "in-universe" style of prose, thus invalidating our first premise. They are unsourced, invalidating our second premise. They make no reference to their cultural value outside of the series, thus invalidating our third premise. In the end, they are a summary of Gundam-specific treknobabble, regurgitating plot specifics. What have we learned, then? Not only do they fail to meet any of the positive criteria set forth, they specifically violate the only negative criteria. Seriously. What's going on in here?

It has already been argued that the Gundam Wing series is a cultural staple and thus important to the encyclopedia as an article reflecting the significance of anime culture. Fine. That's why we've got an article called Mobile Suit Gundam. It covers the psychological and historical value of the franchise without vomiting up huge amounts of made-up statistics and histories for its myriad of plot-specific devices and characters. So stop saying we need an article about a futuristic backhoe to explain how the world is a better place because of the Gundam anime.

This debate needs to focus less on how much of a dick the nominator is (whether he is or not), and get to the crux of the issue: do these articles meet current Wikipedia policy for inclusion? I don't care how tight you twist your knickers up and wish it to be so, they simply do not. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to be a "dick" because of the general stubbornness of people voting to keep. I have seen one person give any sort of source to any of the articles, but the mentions are in a trivial matter and don't warrant an article for each robot. In any case, the matter has become out of hand, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll nominate some of the individual articles when this discussion is closed (if need be). --TheEmulatorGuy 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we're just saying that if you were a dick or not doesn't matter. User:Consequentially is supporting your position. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Personally, I don't think you're being a dick, you're just frustrated with the inane and misguided rationales for keeping these articles. Those kind of opinions aren't really relevant here, I think. We're here to talk about the article, not the people. If this debate is closed with anything other than "delete," then I suggest you go to the articles one by one and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, after all. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screw that. If the discussion is closed with "keep," which it should be given the nature of the AfD, the opener should leave well enough alone. Going back against the consensus that evolves is the very definition of bad faith. If the nominator has NO intention of abiding by the result of the AfD if it goes against his desired result, he should NEVER have made the nomination in the first place. Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it results in keep, it will only be because of the blanket nomination. Because of that, nominating individual articles would not be bad faith and it would not be going against consensus. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you're truly concern about quality of article, not just having bad faith. You would wait for some period to see if we manage to improve these articles after this AfD nom or not. L-Zwei 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles has existed for a year, they've had a WikiProject dedicated them, and they've been nominated for AfD over three times, and yet there's been absolutely NO improvement. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for nothing to happen. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irony, you appear to have self-confidence at moment. I'm not part of WP:CE (and in fact, hate it for narrow scope that limited to CE instead of whole fanchise) but the project seem to inactive. Many idea for improvement pop-up in this nom discussion, don't get overconfidence, but I think this AfD just drive people to improve their content, something previous AfDs fail (due to moronic element of previous AfDs). So I think it may worth to wait (AfD a soon-to-be-merge artcle is pointless anyway). L-Zwei 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on who know their exsistence and who voted. There are unfortunately too many Cosmic Era fans who just walk by and do random edits. There is no method in stopping these. I can foresee these pages be recreated again and again after every deletion if there are no redirects that led them to a list(At least that's what happen to a lot of similar page in the Chinese and Japanese wiki). Actually, this is already a sign of what level of impact those things are influencing our real world. MythSearchertalk 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are recreated after deletion, the proper response is to delete them again, and salt the earth from whence they rose. The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory. The standards in WP:FICT go beyond "real world impact," also, a fact which continues to be ignored in this debate. Despite the "hundreds of editors" who've worked on these articles, not a one of them has bothered to put any non-fictional context into the article. You tell me how big its fake guns are, how fast its fake engines can go, and how long its fake legs are, but there is absolutely nothing about the artist who designed these units, or how they play into general themes of the anime, or how they've influenced the realm of anime-robot-drawing. The reason for this is simple in some cases -- the subject of the article 'just hasn't done any of those things. Consequentially 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is you POV, not wiki's. People say this people say that. Your argument based on a lot of elements that could be called original research, without a source, and violate the NPOV rule. Where on earth does wiki policy states that wiki should be only hard science, math theory? (though I really like those, too) I agree they should have some level of real-world context, they should have information on who designed them and by the influence of what (of course, sourced information). Again, I must tell you that these articles just did not have anyone with the knowledge and sources to edit them, you cannot just coin that to they can never be improved. And face it, popular culture is a real world impact, and I have already included sources that show how some of these articles can be improved to show real world impact. MythSearchertalk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of your response, my friend, is a straw man, and I'd appreciate if you represented my positions accurately. I never argued that Wikipedia should include works only on math and hard science. I'll repeat myself.

The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory.

Show me where I argued the point you refuted. Now, after you realize that you can't, lets move on. Wikipedia policy does not require "some level of real world context;" it requires the entire article be written in an out-of-universe context. This is from WP:WAF.

Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.

For further explanation, lets look at what they suggest for information that meets an out-of-universe perspective.
  • the author or creator;
  • the design;
  • the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
  • real-world factors that have influenced the work;
  • for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
  • its popularity among the general public;
  • its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
  • its reception by critics;
  • a critical analysis of the subject;
  • the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
  • a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
Your sources do not address these concerns, nor do the articles that are currently being nominated for deletion. They are written entirely from plot summary and technical detail. Even if you want to argue that the treatments are "summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition," you have no basis to claim it is "treated briefly, and clearly defined as fiction." Consequentially 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have introduced this new term to me is ironically true that it can be used on yourself. You have strayed the discussion on saying how people critized wiki, without source, and expect me to say nothing about it? Back to the discussion. Face it, what I have listed are enough to write a good article on how some of these fictional characters made a real world impact, they have at least impacted someone to write a book on how to 3D model them, they have impacted people on writing published articles on teaching how to model using them as a reference. Even published POV critics can be included in wiki's article, therefore, a third party company publishing magazines and books referencing these fictional units, not talking about the plot, but just using them as a good tutoring material that a lot of people are familiar with, is a good source of indicating real world impact. If only I can scan a fan poll listed in magazine on which of these are more popular, there will be even more real world context, I do not have the magaizne, and I have no interest in finding one, therefore I never said anything about using it as a source. However, for a show having that kind of popularity in Japan, compared to any other anime, they always put up polls just to do a marketing research on which unit they can make a model kit and gain profit on.
No. A straw man fallacy is when you take someone's argument, and reconstruct it in a weaker, more-easily disposed form. I said, historically, there has been a bias towards popular culture instead of hard-science, and that caused criticism. The bias existed because people wrote about their interests, and not necessarily on what people deem academically "important" for an encyclopedia. That there are a lot of people interested in a topic does not make it important. Somehow, you transformed that into me saying, "we should only have articles on hard science and math," which is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong. Stop it. Even if you're only misusing the term straw man and instead arguing that I'm shifting the debate, it's still a non-responsive argument. I'm probing deeper into why these articles violate WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and you're regurgitating the same word-vomit that you have been all thread: "it's notable and important because people make models of them." What you have yet to address is the fact that, despite the hundreds of edits and dozens of eyes that have passed over these articles, no one has taken the time to meet the criteria for writing on fiction. No matter what might be, we're here to deal with what is. And unless you can prove to me that each of these cartoon fabrications has single-handedly reshaped the way people think about drawing 3D stuff, you can't slap a blanket on them and say, "They all belong."
Hell, the fact that they wrote a guide on how to model a Gundam isn't a very strong argument in the first place, because not a single friggin' article talks about how these robots significantly affected the world of 3D modeling. "So what?" you say, "People wrote about it in a third-party publication, so it's automatically noteable enough to merit an article." That's bunk. If we grant your premise that the Gundamspooge has rocked the world of 3D modeling -- which I assure you, it hasn't -- that's information that needs to go in the article on 3D modeling. Stop dodging the question and answer me: which of the eleven characteristics of out-of-universe writing do these articles demonstrate? Consequentially 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question where on earth do you see a policy saying it has to shake the whole world of 3D modeling before it can be said that it got some impact? Given, if a third party published a book of using it to teach 3D modeling, it means that it got enough credits and popularity that someone actually paid the copyright in order to use the designs for their books. No, it can never be so shocking that it moves the whole 3D modeling community, and thus it is not suitable to be mentioned in the 3D modeling article. However, a book written is a verifiable source of its popularity among the general public and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. A third party publishing a book about these units is a very good demostration on how these units influenced the work of later creators and their projects. These articles currently contains none of these is a sign of they needed to be improved, if any of the fans cared to do so. Not a sign of deleting them. I have provided the sources, and the argument, and already said that if no one is changing them, I will merge them into a list. I never said anything about they should be kept as they are, and this is why I said the term you have introduced to me is ironically suitable for yourself, while I never said it is not suitable on what I said earlier about your unsourced argument on how people think wiki is biased towards popular culture. MythSearchertalk 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. From UncleG's essay on notability:

The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.

I'm not saying that Gundam stuff doesn't have a large target audience, I'm saying that outside of that target audience, the importance of these vehicles drops off significantly. Your sources are written from within the anime community, from sources that center on the Gundam universe. These aren't articles from main-stream press or industry trade journals. Beyond that, the criticism that Wikipedia is biased towards popular culture is hardly unsourced. From Criticism of Wikipedia:

In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."

While those specific examples aren't valid anymore, the bias still exists, and is a topic of great import to a lot of editors.Consequentially 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said, having books published satisfy the idea of It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion., while you keep ignoring. Yes, they are not of a mainstream press, in America, but do I have to tell you that wiki is an international page, and the publishers are at least mainstream in Japan, if not Asia. The Magazines I have quoted are not Gundam or Anime based. Half of Hobby Japan talks about real world machine models, like cars, aeroplanes, ships and such. And your hatred in Anime does not take away the credibility of a magazine focusing on Anime is not a mainstream publisher and is biased on Gundam. Dengeki Hobby is more figure related than Gundam related. Yes, in your view anything that you have no interest in is not mainstream, because you simply do not need to pay any attention on it, and thus I have the idea of no matter how many sources I can include, you are just going to be able to say they are not notable, not mainstream. From the original Arguement of the nominator of having sources not dedicated to Gundam, you have moved the level higher onto an argument of needing to have sources not dedicated to Anime, and probably you will yet try to raise the bar to any sources dedicated to any sort of fan base, including models, anime, comics, novels, games, and any other thing you cannot name of but have a certain group of fans, and maybe just in case some star war fans are interested in Gundam, too, should not carry enough notablity as they are not mainstream, because you simply hate the fact that they are a source countering your argument. Oh, and I can add it up for you, a newspaper becoming immediately not mainstream if they have said anything about any of these Gundam mechas, why? because they are fan based, they are anime based, and center on the Gundam universe. Face it: Dengeki Hobby Magazine is a mainstream modeling and figure magazine that is even translated to 2 chinese version(Hong Kong and Taiwan), Hobby Japan only have Gundam as one of its nine sections, with at least 3 sections not related to Anime. And if you wanted to say that the section itself is not maintream publishers, anyone could have the same argument on anything, because you can even ignore any sources from CNN or BBC if you say that particular news is written by who is biased towards that topic. And No, wiki never states its sources have to be mainstream, if it got published, by a third party company, it is good enough as a source. It doen't matter if it is anime oriented or not, it is available on the market, people can read it and learn about what is written in it, it is good enough to be listed as a source stating how anything impacted anyone on writing that article of that particular thing. As a matter of facts, the Tokien Companion is a perfect source for books of J.R.R. Tokien. And thus a third party publisher writing anything on a topic should be a perfectly valid source.MythSearchertalk 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're continuing our parade of bad arguments, and the next stop on your tour is a ignoratio elenchi. I'll play along and grant that these articles demonstrate a significant interest in the Gundamgoo that we're talking about. I'll do you one better, and say that it shows a notable real-world impact, and is thus meritous of inclusion. I don't agree with either of those statements, but we're pretending here, mmkay? Now, tell me what that has to do with the fact that the articles don't meet any of the burdens presented by WP:FICTION and WP:WAF? I'll give them to you again, since you must've missed them the first time. An article on a fictional topic should cover the following:

". . . the author or creator; the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; real-world factors that have influenced the work; for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional."

The thrust of my argument has, since the beginning, been that the articles you defend do not meet the criterion established by Wikipedia consensus in reference to writing about fictional topics. Along the way, I've had to defend against the notion that model kits inherently equal notability, but you'll notice I end each response with a return to the original question. Tell me, dear sir, how these articles meet the expectations placed upon them by the guidelines of our encyclopedia? Consequentially 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have answered it many times. I never said anything about keeping all of them, and I never said all of them are important, I am just saying the ones that recieve out of universe treatment, like having a model made and appearing in another anime not made by the authors and company of the original anime, and appearing in a published magazine, serveral times, satisfy having influenced the work of later creators and their projects. Since these are not real human acting, the people who design them(including original design and finishing and redesigns) should be listed and replace the point of the actor who portrayed the role. The real world factors that have influenced the work can be found in an interview(listed in the Official website) of the director and two other interviews of the mechanical designer(listed in Data files) who said the designs are influenced by some of the previous Gundam productions not designed by him. Reception by critics can be sourced from the model magazines which over and over stated these designs reference too much from the previous Gundam series and some even referenced non-Gundam series. More could be found in Game Express Magazine published in Hong Kong that Critically analyze by Jeto(similar pronounciation) the series of main mechas(in separate issues) about how the main characters use auto lock on instead of real piloting skills in massive genocide and how the other mechas are being just paper boards without even moving and aiming.(The last one I never state because even though I totally agree with him, I know that that critic does not recieve much credit for his articles of constantly bashing on new series and is being criticised for that) How some of these articles can meet the expectation of our encyclopedia is simple. It cannot cover every single point, but at least some of the articles can have enough coverage on how much it was influenced by previous productions and how much influence they have on the real world modeling, 3D modeling, and anime production of later creators. And sources are posted over and over again. And no, I keep saying the articles at their current state does not meet any of the guidelines and must be improved, and I am assuming good faith on people who are interested in them with the sources I have provided will do a good enough job. MythSearchertalk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any of that information appeared in the articles in question, I'm sure things would've gone a lot differently than they have so far. But until those statements, sourced and correctly applied, appear in the articles, then they stand to be deleted. Which articles specifically will benefit from those additions? Not trying to attack you, just wanting to know which we'll be deleting. Consequentially 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am constructing a list of what to do down there, I think if it is passed, we we have some sort of consensus dispite this trainwreck. However, I will use the word merge(and redirect) instead of delete. If they are redirected, it is highly likely that people that can find their information will not create a new page by copyvio from mahq or something like that. MythSearchertalk 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, having real world context is essential, but an article not having them maybe just needed to improve, especially sources indicate they can be. You can always assume bad faith, but the deletion guide suggested a merge for these kind of articles instead of a delete. I know 1.3 states WP:NOT as a may be needed for deletion, however, again, I must say that this is only a straw man's explanation on the WP:NOT policy. The WP:NOT#IINFO have nothing stating about these kind of articles and obviously a lot of list articles here falls into Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article This is why the nomiation is doomed to fail. It should not have started anyway. The nominator should just be bold and started merging them in the beginning(and no, a transwiki is just different from having a list on wiki unless we can redirect people to there without using an external link). Now it is listed, no one can do so because it is like blanking the pages. MythSearchertalk 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can show real-world impact for the articles on an AfD, then that is an extremely clear indicator is has no real-world impact. He's not coining the term "never be improved", he's showing it through evidence - evidence being that no one has shown any importance of any of the articles whatsoever. The sources you have given are NOT proof of a real-world impact. I have already explained it, please read it. You're giving me clear proof IQ is not an indicator of common sense, comprehension or intelligence itself - and no, that is not a personal vendetta or attack. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep ignoring the sources, everything that indicate they have an impact is dedicted to Gundam and should not be used, should not be listed and should not carry any notability since they are against your argument. Face it, the series is made by Sunrise, the models are made by Bandai, which are two different companies, that is enough prove of every single model made is an impact on the real world. The magazines are published by different companies, the books are published by different companies, anime made by other companies with no relationship to Sunrise that may infringe copyright problems are also shown as a proof and your common sense is ignoring anything that is against your argument, you have shown clear prove of ignorancy and yet you try to use personal attacks, POV and bad faith just to try to hook to your own nomination without even trying to link all of these together. Like I have said, I am not against deleting most of the articles, I am only against deleting them all blindly. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Ignoring this sources? I clearly explained why the sources do not give leniancy to separate articles. This is because the "model kits" for each robot are part of a SERIES of model kits - it's not just this one little robot, it's all of the robots - they're not uniquely important - that is why a keep vote is complete nonsense in reference to those sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllBut condense the information... However, I think the whole premise of this motion is outrageous! Many of the points that the main person opposed to these articles (EmulatorGuy) has raised are vague, personal opinions which seem to have been raised on the basis of a personal vendetta. I like the way this material is called "useless" - useless to whom? It seems only to be useless to the people nominating the article and there are evidently plenty of people who find it quite useFUL. If we apply his model to the whole of Wikipedia: there will be no articles remaining for anyone to discuss or do anything with. It is obvious that many people want these articles to remain. This is supposed to be an open, public contributed resource of information, regardless of what spurious guidelines you care to spout out, (which seem more inane to me than most inclusions in these articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs). — 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Reply: You don't seem to understand what I am basing this on. "Useless" is not my opinion, it is a gathered opinion based on the various policies and guidelines these articles violate. I have already given them many times, as have a few other users. Upon your claim of "resource of information, regardless of spurious guidelines", I invite you to give me any policy showing this. I suggest you read WP:NOT, because it is a POLICY showing what Wikipedia is NOT - it just happens to include the Gundam articles that a few people wish to keep for their own personal reasons. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of votes

[edit]

Yes, polling is evil, but this afd is getting to the point that we need to see how the issue is split.
deleted list to save space and confusion

Please do not misrepresent my vote. I am Keep. Also, the nominator does not count. You seem to have completely mixed up your "votes." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a listing of "votes" from what I read:

Revised listing, italics indicate disputed votes, normal are those we both agree on:
Delete (15 to 18)

  • RockMFR
  • Ultra-Lose
  • Fledgeling
  • wtfunkymonkey
  • natalie
  • wafulz
  • sr13
  • dmz5
  • sandstein
  • terence ong
  • quiteunusual
  • duja
  • haeleth
  • montco
  • seizuredog
  • sidilemine
  • kerochan no miko
  • Ben Standeven

Keep (15 to 17)

In addition, a number of non-voters have expressed the opinion that this AfD is against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply: Indeed, more have voted to keep. However, if consensus is to "keep", Wikipedia does seem to support polling, since nearly all of the "keep" votes are ill-founded and ignore all of the issues brought up. But of course, there'll be a generic "no-consensus" just because there are more fanboys than people with common sense. I've yet to see one valid argument towards keeping the articles. No one has shown that ANY of the articles don't violate policies. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had some human error in my counting, but you made you biased your list in the opposite direction. Ben's redirect should be considered a delete (since you have to delete to redirect) and SidiLemine and Kerochan no Miko only said keep unless it was transwiki-ed. So that's at least 18 to 16 17. wtfunkymonkey's vote probably shouldn't be considered, as it's both a delete and keep statement, so I say the voting stands at 18 to 15 16, delete being the majority. --SeizureDog 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everybody of an official wikipedia policy, WP:IAR. That is the foudnign of my argument, I feel like these articles at least have some value and should not be deleted, per WP:IAR. I think that IAR, is for situations like this, when somebody, so badly wants something deleted, that they try to cover all of there bases. I think that AFD's should be for the people participating to do the resaerch and make a decision, not attempt to innoculate the voters by squasing every keep argument! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That all depends on what you think "improve" means. Because the encyclopedia is intended for normal people, not Gundam fans (no offense), the rule would not apply. Only a fan of the Gundam series would ever find that information helpful. Regardless, that policy itself seems to have problems. It seems to imply that I can upload an image that violates copyright laws just because it would make Wikipedia better. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Stupid locked datebase lost my first post!)This is not something that everybody knows about. If it were an article on Food, it would be something most people know about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. This is why I feel that WP:IAR applies here. IT is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. (I dont even know what it is, I am not an advocate for whatever this is. but reading it, it seemed intersting enough to not be deleted. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's information on quaternary robots of an in-universe fictional Japanese-created television show. Now explain why it should have coverage? I could apply the same defense to my foot. In your own words: This is not something that everybody knows about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. It is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree! It is not a bad faith edit! I am all for that. The foot analogy was pretty good. If your foot had a fan club, and there was something unique about your foot. (perhaps you have 123 toes) or your toes look like a star wars character or something, I would probably support keeping the article. If there was a TV show about your foot, I would be all for it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are part of something popular does not mean they are notable themselves. An even more popular series like Star Wars doesn't have a page on every droid. They are listed here, and what's more ridiculous is THE LIST is being accused of non-notability. Really, if that article is deleted and these aren't, that's hypocrisy at its best. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this AfD has yet to prove that every single article linked to is non-notable or otherwise not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Until such proof is given, this entire AfD is meaningless: a blanket nomination is not an excuse to nominate articles for deletion without explaining why they should be deleted. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated the policies and their violations, and the only way for that to be proven is for you to actually look at the articles. I should mention that no one has given a reliable source, nor have they disproven the accusations for ANY of the articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of defending every argument here. It just isn't worth it, no one wants to accept it and keeps ignoring logic. From here on I'll just stop and let the nomination get a "no consensus", which was clearly going to happen from the start. It's beyond me why anyone thinks these articles are notable, have reliable sources etc. etc. etc. I shouldn't bother, regardless of any of my arguments, Wikipedia administrators will base it on amount of votes (like they always do) and not the integrity of votes. I give up, you can have your articles if the administrator says so. If the nomination results in delete, that's fine, but it's just not worth pointlessly arguing with ignorance. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your problem, you are being ignorant with my comment.
What is missing here? A list of what articles that are going to be deleted on this page.
It is important to tag a AfD on every page you want to include, but it is also important to let people know what is going to be deleted on the nomination page.
Yes, linking to the template works, to a certain point. However, it is not effective enough, especially the title of this page is Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
Another note: You have totally twisted Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
per WP:NOT#OR,
  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
    Yes, there are sources, I have cited them in this page, I know they need to be in those pages instead, but I really have no interest in defending Cosmic Era related stuff.
  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
    No, those are not invented by writers of wiki. And in fact, there are magazines published in Japan as secondary sources reporting their exsistence. Your lack of knowledge on those is not a good excuse to ignore it is there.
  3. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  4. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  5. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  6. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and 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.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
    Then per WP:NOT#IINFO:
  7. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
    These pages are not FAQs.
  8. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  9. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  10. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  11. 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.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  12. Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  13. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
    Like I have said above, some of the listed page for deletion actually impacted Other anime and manga by appearing in them, Some of these anime and manga are not produced by Bandai or Sunrise or any branch of them.
    Stop defining the policies to serve your own purposes, and cursing with ofending language like saying the Gundam wiki is an absolute cruft hellhole is not going to help either. MythSearchertalk 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: You make so many claims to sources, but where are they? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 published by Media Works, not Bandai, and thus it is a secondary source.
Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
GUNDAM A (ガンダムエース) 2007年 01月号 and previous issues, published by 角川書店, not story based magazine.
Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
More real world impact includes GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT, Magical Nurse Komugi series by Tatsunoko, not Sunrise, [11] series by Leaf, having a Freedom Gundam and Strike Gundam appearing in it. In the Game Super Robot Wars alpha 3, most of the Mecha piloted by main characters and rolled out as mass production units are present.
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. I do know a lot of them do not deserve their own page. Like I've said, I would have follow the WP:FICT and delete/redirect most of the pages without going through this AfD process if I'd knew these pages exsisted. The chinese wiki entries like these are so much simplier, we just merge and redirect everything without even putting up something like this. If fans can find enough data in the list of mecha, they will not create new page for every single one of them. MythSearchertalk 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting the guts of WP:FICT. The fact that some of these things appeared in another anime about big robots does not mean that they significantly impacted said anime. These big robots haven't significantly affected anything. The television show, perhaps, has made a dent in the Great Big Timeline of Stuff, but I'm willing to bet, when it all comes down to the line, no one is going to say, "Thank God for the ZGMF-600 GuAIZ. Were it not for this twenty-meter-tall, eighty-ton mass of metals and guns, my life would be completely void of meaning." WP:FICT makes the argument for real-world reference and analysis because Wikipedia is not a Gundam fan site, and the sum cultural value of the Gundam series is not going to be that Pilot X stole it from Evil Nemesis Q, who was going to use it against Innocent Population T, but instead managed to defeat Otherworldly Monster N, and is the reason for the ring of space debris floating around Planet U. The fact that someone else has devoted time and webspace to listing these facts does not make them worthy of encyclopedic apotheosis. Consequentially 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly nothing in this AfD (which hits a swathe of over 85 articles, which when the related AfD for the non-mecha vehicles of this same series is added, tops 100 articles all told) is of life-shaking importance, there are several articles in here which are at least as notable as, say, X-wing or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Iceberg3k 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the X-Wing article until now. Having done so, I'd say it's pretty crappy, and a poor example of writing on a fictional topic. Only three or four of the paragraphs relate to real-world content, with the other 4/5 of the page devoted to Star Wars treknobabble. That article needs cleaned up, purged of irrelevant and trivial knowledge, and polished, but I digress. Since I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Gundam stuff, I'll trust you that some of the units mentioned are of value to the series. Could you give some examples of the ones you think should be kept, and provide a rationale for them? I don't mean that as a mean-spirited challenge: I'm not attacking you and demanding you come forth like some kind of deletionist McCarthy. Just help us sort the wheat from the chaff, so we can make something productive out of this. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already conceded that the "grunt" units should be compressed into summary articles by nationality (ZAFT/PLANT, Earth Alliance and Orb are the relevant nationalities). The "star" units - the Gundams (such as the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam) - should absolutely be kept and revised to an out of universe perspective, as they're piloted by major characters, have a lot of screen time (for the five GAT-X series units from the first show, over 10 hours individual screen time each). Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with you there, and I think that's an acceptable compromise between the two extremes being presented in this debate. As I know only vaguely of the Gundam world, I'm not in a position to make those changes, but since you seem to be on the ball there, I think it's a solution that you should pursue aggressively. Consequentially 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind everyone that AFD is not a vote, it's a debate please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. It doesn't matter how many people voted and what they voted for--it's the quality of the arguments that matter. May I also remind everyone that adding tally boxes to AFD is listed in the "what not to do section. --Kunzite 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While MAHQ copyvio issue are solid on several articles, several other aren't. Many article existed long before MAHQ upgrade their profile into Burke's type. These articles only borrow general info like spec, which state at MAHQ that it's free-use. Some articles was translated from Japaneese article. In short, if you made seperate nom on each article, the copyvio issue will be solid. But for all of them? Nah... L-Zwei 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those spec fall into the category of factual data and thus any use of them will not hinder any copyright problems. It is just like listing out how many times a soccer player had scored in one particular season. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot believe how uncivil the original nominator of this AfD has been on this page. He's also threatened that if this does not pass that he will be giving the "administrator a refresher on AfD". I'm shocked and appalled by his behavior and I certainly hope I'm not the only one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen any Gundam, but I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, of these articles are about things that only appeared briefly in an episode or two. Any character/etc. that does not have at least ~30 minutes worth of focused airtime is too minor to have an article about. Can it be established that any of these weapons have had enough focus within the series that they need to be kept? It just gets worse outside of the nominated articles. I mean, Missile truck? Come on, it doesn't even have a name. --SeizureDog 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that some of these articles deserve AfD-ing, but the majority of them do not. This was a bad nom period. If TheEmulatorGuy wants to have them deleted he should have done so on an individual basis. It is terribly unfair to judge the primary mech which are included in the template on the same level as your mentioned Missile truck. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replay Those this format of nominating work for you? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles Even grouping them together is a major hassle: doing them one by one would be even worse. Plus, I think it's best to keep them together and not scattered about. --SeizureDog 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Its better, but I wouldn't suggest making mass deletion noms out of principle. For example, the Skygrasper in this new Nom is one of the more featured air/spacecraft of the show and some of the main characters involved in the story fly them. A lot of those articles I agree should go, or at the very least be merged together. I wonder if there was originally a large article that was split.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get people to review them seperately, but I think most of the keepers are just giving a blind support. I'm welling to accept some of the articles being important enough to stay, but people have to point out which they are.--SeizureDog 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I've become aware that there is a wikiproject dedicated specifically to these articles, I'm more in favor of informing them of the problems and letting them fix them period. Kyaa the Catlord 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see in the series, its worst. The mass-production models appear in the series as paper boards and have probably less than 5 actions each. They fly out and get destroyed by the main characters without even having the need of dodging or aiming(aiming is done by an automatic fire control system, much less powerful than the F-22 onboard FCS). The same sequence keep on and on just to show how powerful the main characters are(failure attempt to most people with normal level of judgement, i.e. that are not blind). That is why I am really into merging those into one big list. As per WP:FICT. No voting is needed according the WP:FICT for minor characters to be merged into a list, if there isn't already a AfD tag on the page, I would have done so when I knew pages like this exsisted. I only followed a vandal's path of vandalism and figured these mecha have their own page and someone tagged AfD on it so that nothing can be done to blank them, yet. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of merging for most of the "grunt" suits, may I suggest merging them by national affiliation? A general "Mecha of Gundam SEED" article that possesses large enough descriptions of each mobile suit to remain useful would actually be well beyond the size of this AfD discussion. Iceberg3k 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, one big list is too long, it should be shortened by nation or series(like the list of RGM-79 GM) if the list became too long. That is what we did on the Characters of Negima page. MythSearchertalk 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep, per above. Mass AfDs are NOT kosher. There may well be articles in the template that should be deleted, they like all other articles should be considered for deletion on a case by case basis, not en masse. The AfD opener's concerns should rationally be addressed by improving, not deleting, the articles. Is there cruft in the Gundam WikiProject? Definitely. Should large groupings of articles be deleted in one fell swoop? Hell no. Iceberg3k 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are fancruff, and thus they should be improved, not blindly deleted. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there ought to be a WikiPolicy to explicitly ban mass deletions, myself. Each article submitted for deletion deserves a complete, thorough and individual investigation, and mass deletions strike me more and more with each one as a deliberate abuse of the rules. If the deletionists think that's a pain in the ass, that's too damned bad, you can't just say something is useless and needs to be deleted just because you don't like it. A lot of mass AfDs are attempted, most of them fail. For very good reason.Iceberg3k 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the bullying of fictional articles continues. To the person who commented most of these probably only get brief screentime- most of the mecha profiled appear in just about every episode. I'm reminded of the example someone cited in the Moebius delete- how come entries for Star Trek ships are kept but not these? Then again, I'm sure someone will shove 'WP:ICANBULLYYOU' in my face...--HellCat86 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. It is possible some articles must be joined, some even must be revived either into collections or article (Such as TS-MA2 Mobius article), and some other must be kept. I against mass deletions per nom above. Other had been discussed above. I am using WP:IAR, based on rationale: if you put infos into one page, it would be an "explosion". Gundam articles (included Cosmic Era related articles) has deep background story which is useful. Draconins 14:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia should not be going into anywhere near this much detail about this sort of thing. Recury 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOT needs much more significant clarification than it currently possesses. In particular, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information can be abused to provide a blanket rationale for virtually any deletion. Iceberg3k 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per wictionary, Indiscriminate means, "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless ". I do not think these articles are thorughless. (This is just kind of reinfocring what Iceberk3k said. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there's a disturbing and increasing tendency for people to equate "I am not part of this fandom" with "this subject is not important." Iceberg3k 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was kind of the point in my original argument for keep (its up there somewhere). I think an encylopedia should hold more stuff I dont know about than stuff I do know about already! Somebody knows alot about this stuff(I sure dont). However, they want to share the information and I am ok with keeping it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem I have is, coming in as someone who hasn't seen the show but has read the article Gundam, I have no idea why the information on these pages is important. It strikes me as being as unencylopedic as reporting the exact dimensions of every prop used in star trek, or a data dump of the internal numbers used in a video game ("headcrab has 37 hitpoints, and does 20 hitpoints of damage. 9mm bullet does 40 hitpoints of damage, except on hard difficulty, where it does 20..."). It's not like we're considering deleting all or even most of the articles dedicated to a single franchise; as far as I can tell these don't even touch on the plot, characters, fanbase, criticism, impact on the real world, etc., just the props. BCoates 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Gundam is an important anime and although some informations come from MAHQ, the articles also include more informations and thus can't be seen as simply a copy. Diabound00 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep allthe article does hve element from mahq with there primission given on the site faq. there info may have been lifted from here. but if we remove this article hat's next are we removeing all cult scifi like doctor who or are we removing anything not north american i say wee keep it and let the fans fix it - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also note that this is the second keep all registered by this IP.

The fans had a chance to fix it. They had a whole year in fact, but all of the articles are still highly confusing, in-universe, full of trivia, and have no sources. Nothing is going to change. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not for you to decide. WP:CE exists for a reason. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the birth of WP:CE, which followed many of the formats found in WP:DIGI. That project never really got off the ground, which is too bad. This AfD might be what is needed to start the project back up again in order to do this large scale cleanup. My point is, WP:CE.. really isn't a project right now. Currently, WP:CE does not exist for a reason, and isn't a functional WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Alliance

  • G-Weapons (Duel, Buster, Strike [including Strike Rouge], Blitz, Aegis)
    • "Dagger" units (Strike Dagger, 105 Dagger, Dagger L, Windam, and the more extraneous information in the Duel, Buster, and Blitz articles)
    • Stargazer G-Weapon derivatives (Blu Duel, Verde Buster, and Strike Noir)
  • Mobile Armors (Moebius/Moebius Zero, Exass, Euclid, Pergrande, Zamza-Zah, Gells-Ghe)
  • Second-generation EA Gundams (Calamity, Forbidden, Raider, and derivatives)
  • Miscellaneous (Destroy and Hyperion)

ZAFT

  • GINN, CGUE, and GuAIZ series
    • GINN derivatives (BABI, DINN, ZuOOT, BuCUE, LaGOWE, GOOhN, ZnO, ASH)
    • CGUE and GuAIZ derivatives (DEEP Arms and Experimental Firearms Type)
  • First-generation ZAFT Gundams (Dreadnought, Justice, Freedom, Regenerate, Testament, and Providence)
  • Second-generation ZAFT Gundams (Chaos, Abyss, Gaia, Saviour, Impulse, Destiny, Legend, and related units)
  • ZAKU, GOUF, and DOM series [even though the DOM Trooper technically belongs to Terminal]

ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal

  • Astray series suits (Red Frame, Blue Frame, Gold Frame, production-model Astray, and related units)
  • Second-generation ORB Union mobile suits (Murasame and Akatsuki)
  • Terminal-produced Gundams (Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice)

Other

  • Anything and everything that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories (Astray Out Frame, Stargazer, et cetera [can't be bothered to go into specifics])

It's a rough outline of how each article should be merged, but at least it's a start regarding how to consolidate this mess of articles into a more streamlined construct. WP:CE just might find something to set its sights on after all this time.--Kira Matthews 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all inclusionist (Keepers)

[edit]

Anyone who actually wanted to keep the pages, at least show some motivation in using the above listed source(by me) in the articles (make a template, it would be much easier) to reduce the number of people coming here saying the articles should be deleted because they are unsourced. 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 and This is Our Gundam, Seed-Destiny version should serve as a secondary and primary source(respectively). I am no fan of the Cosmic Era, only someone who dwelt in the Gundam Community long enough that I know what sources contains information for them so I can win arguments against Cosmic Era fans without any sources backing them up and still try to say bad things about other series. I have no motivation in contributing in Cosmic Era series related pages unless they contain major error like fans saying there are Newtypes in Cosmic Era when I know no sources can back them up. Thus you guys have to do the job yourselves if you are to protect any page you like. I hate people who sit there and say that what services need to be provided but keep sitting there without any actual work. Be warned, if I ever got the motivation to go through those pages, I am going to be bold and redirect most of them to a list instead of adding sources to them. MythSearchertalk 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got some work to do. I'll attempt to correct some sources to be more accurate, dig through my pile of magazines and books as well ASAP.--216.186.174.146 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 216.186.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepJ'onn J'onzz 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nomination. Honestly speaking, there’s always discussion of how these articles should be improved. The problem is that no one cares enough to do anything at all, and I don’t believe that’ll change anytime soon. Even though a large chunk of my edits on Wikipedia involve these very articles, I have no attachment to them. They’re just too bloated at this point. And as pointed out earlier, they’ve been transwikied, so I don’t believe we’ll lose any information. These articles simply don’t belong on Wikipedia. DarkWarrior 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per suggestion to DarkWarrior. Also, can images trans-wikied, citing the appropriate sources of course? --Blackhawk charlie2003 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to COMMENT regarding fate of individual articles, I hereby list a brief summary of what I think should be kept and what should not. My argument for keeping these are either they have appeared in more than three or more media by at least 2 different companies I have list here:
  • Anime(GS, GSD, GS Stargazer) by Sunrise
  • Novel and Manga(GSA, GSAB, GSDA, GSAR, GSXA, GSDA) by Kadokawa
  • Manga(GS, GSD) by Kodansha
  • Anime(Gundam Evolve) by Bandai
  • Model by Bandai, note: GS and GSD series model kits are dedicated to the series itself and is not notable here, I only refer to the MG series kits and EX model series kits where Bandai made kits not only for Gundam but also Patlabor, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Ace Combat and Yukikaze.
  • Game(Alliance VS ZAFT, Alliance VS ZAFT II, Never-Ending Tomorrow) by Bandai
  • Game(SD Gundam G Generation series, Super Robot Wars series) by Banpresto
  • Anime(Magical Nurse Komugi) by Tatsunoko
  • Book(MS Encyclopedia 2003, 2006) by Media works
  • Book(GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT) by ビーエヌエヌ新社
Keeps:
CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion: GSXA Kadokawa, Evolve Bandai, Game Bandai, Model Bandai, Book Media works.
5 G(Strike, Duel, Aegis, Buster, Blitz): Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Book Media works, Book ビーエヌエヌ新社.
ZGMF-X10A Freedom and ZGMF-X09A Justice: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto, Anime Tatsunoko
YMF-X000A Dreadnought: Anime Bandai, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Game Banpresto, Manga Kodogawa, Manga Kondasha, Book Media works.
Merges that should not be merged into the big list due to notability in the overall importantness of them in the series and some level of separatedness of them and other Generic Paper board targets:
TMF/A-802 BuCUE and TMF/A-803 LaGOWE, Merge these two, due to their design impacting the design of Gaia in GSD anime and also their oddness of the Gundam series of non-humanoid MS appearance: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Manga Kodokawa, Game Banpresto.
ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom be merged to Justice and Freedom, they are not very notable other than being the mecha main protongists pilot, esp when they are just kinda like upgrades of those two: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto.
Astray Red, blue, gold frame, separated from main list due to all the manga story are based on the Astray series(and thus all of them carry the name Astray in them): Anime Bandai, manga Kodogawa, manga Kondasha, model Bandai, Game Banpresto.
Arguable items
The GS and GSD both have a team of three piloting three different Gundam units that the main protongist fight against, these units mainly appeared only in the series and games by Bandai, they are not even a main element in the plot(none of them stayed in the series for more than half of the series). They recieve a little more treatment by having models in the GS and GSD series but not much in the Bandai regular series like the MG models. (Almost all important ones have MG models). I do not view them as having any appearance in the model because it is only one of the GS and GSD series models which are named as dedicated to those two series. Even if they exsist outside the main lists, they should be merged to the three in the team instead of having their own page.
MythSearchertalk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also, IMO, four articles from GSD that should be kept: ZGMF-X56S Impulse, ZGMF-X42S Destiny, ZGMF-X666S Legend and ZAFT Armored Keeper of Unity (though this article namespace ought to be changed to "ZAKU (Gundam Seed)"). These ones are the main character suits from GSD that aren't sequel units to the ones in GS.
Iceberg3k 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knida oppose keeping these, since they don't even have their own model kits out of the series(like MG and MIA). MythSearchertalk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good example to work from. Those articles are [mostly major] characters in World of Warcraft, not [mostly minor] weapons in Gundam. They're different situations. You haven't explained why these articles need individual consideration - it would help if you gave PROPER real-world impact (not obscure model kits) to ONE of the articles in order to separate them from others. As an administrator has commented at the start of the page, blanket nominations are not improper at all, unless you have GOOD reason - so far you've just stated your opinion with no reasoning. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emulator, all you have done in this whole discussion is continued reassertion of your initial premise. It's already been firmly established that you believe there is no viable content to be had from these articles, which is debated by other posters (including posters who are not fans of the Gundam Seed universe), so further reiteration of this argument is pretty well pointless. If by this point, where viable post-AfD plans have been mentioned and posted, which satisfy the requirements of policy, you are still sticking to your original premise and demanding that the entire article complex be thrown away, in spite of all apparent evidence that contradicts your original argument (which was based on a pretty twisted interpretation of policy to begin with), you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation from this point on (really, you have contributed nothing meaningful since the initial nomination). The consensus appears to be keep some, merge most, and that is probably what the discussion should be closed on. Iceberg3k 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Ahahahaha, oh dear, ahahaha. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I linked to that debate was for the opening. I don't care what the subject of the AfD was, merely the following lines:

"The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you've constructed an AfD that is fundamentally impossible to evaluate because it presently requires every editor read 84 articles in order to give a valid opinion. I'm not reading all those pages, you doubtless didn't read all those pages, there's no way we can expect the rest of the voters to read all those pages either. Because of this, any conclusion made as a result of this AfD will be invalid. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine, have it your way. If you require 7 months to get rid of the articles (that's how long it's going to take) instead of 2 weeks just for "individual merit" reasons, that's fine, I give up. I've claimed to give up many times, but only because the constant ignorance infuriates me to keep coming back. I'll let you ignore the fact ANY separate article for a weapon in Gundam is against policy, because obviously we need fucking "individual merit". Before this bastard of a debate closes, just tell me one thing - A FUCKING VALID ARGUMENT TOWARDS THE POLICIES GUNDAM WEAPON ARTICLES VIOLATE. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Congratulations, you've won. Who knows why you wanted to win. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I hate mass AfD noms, essentially. They generate these utterly massive deletion discussions that ALWAYS close no consensus, which means the nominator just wasted hours of numerous peoples's time. And if it takes 7 months for you to merge these pages, you must type really slowly. Also WP:CIV, swearing doesn't help anything. --tjstrf talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Discussion This afd is just a mess, we shouldn't make a decision here one way or the other on this. Next time, I suggest the nominator be more specific rather than trying to delete 84 articles at once. Just H 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may be that this needs to be broken into smaller chunks. However, the other side of this issue is that having the same people make the same arguments in 84 different discussions is also not useful. It would be helpful if the people arguing for a finer-grained deletion discussion could delineate some middle ground between 1 and 84 AfDs so that we can move forward instead of stagnating. Without wanting to prejudice the discussion, I will say that it seems to me that at minimum there is a consensus here that some of the articles should go, so maybe some consensus can at least be reached on which ones those are. For at least that reason, I think it is premature at this time to close this discussion. —Doug Bell talk 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am unable to see them, there's just too much clutter on this page, but you may be right that some consensus has been reached in some areas. With that, I would just say go with it where there seems to by holding a "tentative consensus" there to see if it works and try to winnow down the lesser articles quickly by merge or deletion proposals. Just H 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could pick 84 Wikipedia articles at random, and some of them would be good-quality, while others would be tripe. I'll bet the situation's the same with these ones. The nest is well and truly stirred, now let's all take a deep breath, and find a place to discuss which articles are good and which ones need work. AfD is NOT the place for that discussion. I did quite like the citing of TRAINWRECK precedent, though. Made it worth the read. Quack 688 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment I guess it is because it happened that all the 84 randomly selected articles are not of good quality? lol I must admit the work going into these articles are towards a not very good direction. Most of them are just going for 1) plot summary of what happened to that unit(or the series of them) and 2) the settings spec of them. While little can be found on what they have impacted, even with the handful of sources I can just pull up that should be included into the articles long ago. (I have not read any of these articles before, even if I made like a little edit on them, it is most likely that I am tracing a vandal's path of vandalization and only revert those without actually looking at the articles.) Most of them could be improved, at least the lot of Seed mecha can be said to have impacted the Seed-Destiny mechas and have appearance in Super Robot wars. However, little was included in these, and I have no interest and time in improving these because I have an even longer list of Universal Century Mechas to work on, before some deletionist list the few hundred mechas AfD, I have to do what I can to either merge them or improve them to a point where it is good enough to meet any policy creep keeping criteria. MythSearchertalk 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comments from an outsider, without the least interest in the subject, but fascinated by the length of the discussion.
The very fact of requiring so much discussion is evidence that the subject is worthy of presentation in WP, There would not be so much heat over a truly non-notable group of characters.
And there is so much heat that an outsider must wonder whether ther is some subtext about this particular series. Anime AfDs come up frequently here, and do not get anywhere near this attention. Why this one? DGG 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so. The only reason why this has generated so much heat is because of the sheer size - this would set a massive precedent if all of the articles were deleted. So all of the editors are jumping into this melee, inclusionists and deletionists alike, to put their two cents in. "Intense discussion =/= worth of inclusion." GNAA had to go through 18 nominations and dozens of talk page archives, but it was eventually deleted because it did not adhere to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Those two policeis overruled all discussion about the "notability" of the topic. Hbdragon88 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In this case, the original poster should not have used the afd process in this manner. This is a clear case where these articles need work, in some cases they need to be tagged for cleanup, in others they need merging, in yet a few more they need to be deleted. This is a bad case in which to try a mass proposal. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kyaa. The only situation in which a mass nom will work is if you run two-three test case pages, then nom the rest and cite the previous debate. Also, the GNAA should never be cited as a precedent for anything, ever. --tjstrf talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been aware that mass noms have not worked since watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles go down in flames. Hbdragon88
Not that the Warcraft AfD was the first attempt at such a thing, of course. It was just the most memorable one, what with AMiB's flair for drama and that trainwreck line. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way it would work is probably listing items out like in the other mass AfD for the CE vehicles. Never treat every article listed as generic, because they are not the same, especially to fans, they are never the same and thus treating them the same is only going to make things worst. I have learnt that lesson long ago. MythSearchertalk 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, User:martin_00792 Important anime, I can argue that most of the articals could infact be CHARACTERS THAT INFLUANCE PLOT, and they are present in more that one medium.

Whee! Section Break!

[edit]
  • Comment - I'd just like to say that this AfD is a complete catastrophe, and that each article should , really, be AfD'd seperately. If this goes through it will end up in DRV because of the Inclusionists here. As a Deletionist, I'm not really ... happy ... with the way this is laid out, since it's a bit of work to look through all the articles and Gundam makes me see red anyway. That being said, some of these articles are possible copyvios. Some are just summaries. Some could, theoretically, be expanded. Mass AfD's rarely succeed since most people will not axe huge clumps of information without being sure every single one deserves the axe. This one will go down as no consensus, so a good and careful look at most of the articles in this series is needed by those voting to keep on how to expand them, or in a few days I'll go through AfDing the crap ones and voting they get salted. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of all that is non-flamewar-causing, let us do some editing and merging before any new AfDs go out. This AfD is a train wreck because the initial poster was so goddamned determined to get the whole mass AfD deleted without any sort of compromise that he was willing to ignore policy to try to get it done (recall that he threatened to immediately re-nominate the whole thing if the result came up "no consensus" and to "teach the administrators a lesson" if the result came up "keep"); emotions need time to settle before further delete action should be taken, IMO. And I don't think ANYBODY will benefit from a precedent that shows that a huge group of articles can be summarily, collectively deleted by somebody with an obvious axe to grind. Iceberg3k 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, he didn't "threaten" to simply repost the AfD; he said that if it came up no-consensus for being overly broad he'd make individual delete nominations, which is exactly what should be done. BCoates 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out somebody's bad behavior isn't a "personal attack." Please learn the difference between criticism and fallacy of attack ad hominem. Bad faith has been demonstrated, I don't need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Iceberg3k 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent hours going through the debate and looking at the articles, I can only say that the nomination is correct in every respect. Delete Emeraude 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP As one has already stated, Gundam is a very notable anime. Besides, from what I've seen, those who want it deleted...you're not doing so well...only one article is gone...so, I think I've made my point. GrievousAlpha95 4:09 PM, December 4, 2006.

  • Shut down this ridiculous monstrosity (keep) for the time being. I'm not a fan of Gundam, however it appears that there are plenty of users who know where to merge and redirect these articles, so I think they should be given the chance to do so. Nominating 84 articles at once is not going to solve any problems these articles may have; merging, redirecting and such will, and will prevent the articles from being recreated with policy-violating content again. If nothing is done to correct the obvious problems that these articles have, then the nominator will certainly have the opportunity to kill them with fire in the future, and I think he'd be more successful with this discussion backing him. Catbag 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG ARGUE AROUND IN CIRCLES -- Hahaha, not really but, really, this is getting pretty far out of hand and I see NO chance of consensus being reached here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds of the previous Warcraft failure, the fact there so many articles points towards relevance, and the age old Pokemon test. BrendantheJedi 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP as all these mobile suits have a part in the sotry although some are lightly listed like the hyperion and why dont we seperate some on the same page (except for the Duel gunam with assault shroud our should that be split... anywho we need to keep this even STRIKE FREEDOM is listed for deleton i mean come on im using this page for specs on the gundams--Spartan117009 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep everything. Put the major suites in their own articles and put the minor suits into repsective production lists. In this manor you should be able to create something akin to the character templates for Fullmetal Alchemist. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restate, reword suggestions, hoping for a consensus

[edit]

More and more people pop in and say keep, I hate to say this, but if we can say we have the least consensus here, it is merge, not keep, most of the articles. If you only want spec data for something, go to [www.mahq.net MAHQ.net], or the trans wiki link posted somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck. Or if we merged the pages, the spec will still be there. Here is what I propose, and is probably closest to people who actively participated in this discussion want. (I do not count the people who just come out and drop down a sentence without actually wanting to contribute and wished a blind keep).

Keeps
[edit]
Reasons - Influenced at least 2, if not 3 later design in the sequel of the series, the only Perfect grade model of the series, used as the front page of a 3D modeling teaching book about all Gundam, not Seed only. Said to be one of the more realistic military based design of the mechanical designer Kunio Okawara by Dengeki Hobby. Been a featured topic of a model convention in Japan by Hobby Japan.
Reasons for merge of others - they are of a subdivision of Strike, either mass-production or special unit. They have not recieve any special treatment from the company Bandai, and thus are generic enough to be merged, if not deleted.
  • ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam, and have ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom merged to it. If possible, merge the Justice page and the ZGMF-X1?? series under this page. more details will be stated in the section Suggested merges below. For now, I treat those as they could be separated.
Reasons - Influenced said merge mecha in the sequel, recieved treatment of having a Master Grade model of its own and the same series only have Strike Gundam having the same treatment. Featured in the Game Super Robot Wars along with a lot of well known mecha in Japan, and have a cameo appearance in the anime Nurse Witch Komugi, produced by Tatsunoko productions, which have no relationship with Bandai and is actually sort of a rivaling company.
Reasons for merge of others - Strike Freedom is more of an upgrade of Freedom, although it is going to have its own Master Grade model soon(December, 2006), more have to be shown in a keep since it does not influence anything, yet. I see no reason for keeping it for now, if it can recieve more attention by publishers and the company, it could be split back out at any time.
For Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: Not quite usual upgrade. Not even a variant. That why we place F-15 and F-15E, F18 and F18E/F, separately. They are quite distinct, they have quite a story (Though original Freedom has more). Though they take much previous design, it is quite different, except some source say so. I never see any source which say they are upgrades. This may be only speculation, however, Freedom, Justice, Strike Freedom, Infinite Justice, receive different code (X10A,X9A,X20A,X19A respectively). I may agree if asked to merge Infinite Justice, but not the Strike Freedom based on notability. Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeps
[edit]
Reasons - First appeared in MSV, influenced the author of the manga to include them into the manga(which is not a retell of the anime), no out of the series model kits have been made for it, but it is featured in Gundam Evolve, a series not dedicated to Gundam Seed or related series, the only other appearance of a Seed series mecha is Strike. I would like to say merging them but having only 2 in a list without any relationship in the design plot is kinda wierd. Hoping for a better suggestion here.
Reasons - This one influenced the designer of the sequel Destiny to design ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam and another sequel Stargazer the TMF/A-802W2 Kerberos BuCUE Hound (which is, fortunately, already under this page) One of the rare non-humanoid Mobile Suit of the Gundam series. (Stated by Degeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazine model reviews.)
Reasons for merge of others - A comander type of an exsisting mecha is not notable enough for a new article, please, by all means, merge them.
Any source that this mecha is only commander type and just mere upgrade? Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Merges (special)
[edit]
Reasons - They are pretty much the same thing, but the model recieved a bit more attention for the Gold frame is an event limited item in a Japanese model convention not dedicated to Gundam. Also for the new technology in modeling in hiding the cut between the useful pieces and the backbone of the injection moulding piece. It is not the first to have such treatment, but the second of the Bandai modeling series, after Hyakushiki. And since the other astray articles should tag along, I'd say merging them to a page for the Astray series is not a bad idea.
  • ZGMF-X23S Saviour, ZGMF-X24S Chaos, ZGMF-X31S Abyss, etc. that starts with ZGMF-X??? that is not 1X are called Second series on the official Japanese page, they generally recieve the same treatment altogether, and should be merged to a page other than the mass-production ZAFT mecha. This includes ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam and ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam due to their not so important figure out of the series. At least until something special about them is released, I'd say this is good enough.
  • ZGMF-X09A Justice and ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice are not even satisfied as a main plot device to some certain extend. They might be a little more important to the series, but is definitely not having any special impact to the real world. The latter actually is less popular than a Zaku unit in the series(per the series models having it out so late that it is 11 months later than the last Zaku unit.) (for the 1/144, it is even 1 month later than the Dom units) For a unit appearing pretty much the same time as the Freedom, its attention is way lower and my view on this is that its popularity is not high enough for the modeling company to release it early. Therefore, I'd say merge it to Freedom, its partner and let them tag along to increase that article's notability instead of being evaluated to be deleted soon after this.
Other Merges
[edit]

I would like to say the others should be deleted, but redirects to big lists would greatly reduce the chances of them being recreated by randomly dropped by fans. Since merging everything left into one page is definitely going to exceed 32kb, I propose 2 methods of merging:

  1. Merge by fictional nations
    • Advantage: Easy links from the fictional nation page (though I kinda think they should be merged to one page, too) Easier explanation on which is the predecessor of which.
    • Disadvantage: too easy to get the articles into another mess of in-universe article, and is hard to organize the whole thing to let people without any knowledge to comprehand which one is from which story.
  1. Merge by series
    • Advantage: Easier to let people know what appeared in which series (All the manga Astray series viewed as a whole) which from my point of view, it is better served as an out-of-universe view of things. (Most people walking by is not going to understand what is ZAFT and Orb and etc.)
    • Disadvantage: Units appearing in more than one series is going to make a big mess.
Last notes
[edit]

I will not work on the above articles until I have finished a major part of the Universal Century mechas having similar pages like this one. I have provide sources and what I have listed in this page should be enough to improve the articles I have listed as keeps to a point where they meet wiki's policies. If nothing has improved for some while (like more AfD pops up), I will not back up those pages any more. Because it is obvious enough that nobody cared to improve those pages. However, I see that there are people who seems to be willing to do so in the above discussion and I am assuming good faith on this. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm fully supportive of these proposed merges and shuffling. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support merge No. 2 for out-of-universe reasons.--SidiLemine 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having consesus?
[edit]

So.... if we are having consensus which either keep or merge, let's propose ini the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam. Or may be still a deletionist to argue? Draconins 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Keep: A lot of stuff is noteable and I would suggest that since a lot of debate is being brought out about all the mobile suits in one of the Gundam Universes then shouldn't this affect the mobile suits from the other Gundam Universes as well. Anyway after taking a look at some articles I can say that some ideas I have to towards trimming an article down is not to go into so much detail over Mobile suit capablities since that had resulted in mutiple paragraphs also the triva section should be trimmed down to remove any speculative, and unneccessary material. -Adv193 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment to post: It would help if for the Gundam articles not to go into extra detail on the Technology used in that Gundam such as Phase Shift Armor, N-Jammer Canceller, and DRAGOON System since there are already sperate articles for them and it wouldn't be ripping off the Gundam website MAHQ.net of their style of explaining this technology in their Mobile suit summary. An example I have is of the Gaia Gundam ZGMF-X88S (RGX-03) Gaia Gundam. -Adv193 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article merges, trims, redirects, and maybe some individual AfDs seem to be our next step. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam would be a good place to organize this. I think we can all agree that things shouldn't stay, as they are now, for these articles. What to cut and what to keep is the question now. Personally, I think the whole thing could be cut, especially if it's been transwikied, but that's just me. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've still yet to see an example of content in this category that should exist, although I imagine it would be possible to write different, out-of-universe article(s) on the topic. My first choice position would still be to delete these and start over; but I have no particular objection to a merge so long as it 1) drastically reduces the number of articles (sections can always be split into new articles later) and 2) Gets pushed towards WP:FICT's goal of articles about fiction in the real world, instead of an encylcopedia of fiction as if it were real. BCoates 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair Organizations

[edit]
Wheelchair Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entire article isn't really necessary; possibly turn into a category. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Gurch 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dark beginning

[edit]
A dark beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Youtube movie. Prod was removed by the author, possible vanity Mallanox 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Gurch 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksmas

[edit]
Thanksmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obvious hoax. WP:NFT. A few Google hits, but it appears to also be a slang term some people used on their blogs as a Thanksgiving/Christmas combination. No organized holiday. Deprodded by anon, without explanation. Grrr. eaolson 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 07:57Z

Leonard Hentiu

[edit]
Leonard Hentiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Utterly irrelevant and vanity-induced. The most this person has directed is a late night tv show. Dahn 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:01Z

Kirk Beattie

[edit]
Kirk Beattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:02Z

Cambridge University Student Alliances

[edit]
Cambridge University Student Alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for deletion I somehow overlooked this in my recent sweep of ucam societies. Wikipedia is not campus info booth. This is a recently formed anti-global poverty student group that makes no claim of encyclopedic notability. The society website seems to be largely inactive. ~55 google hits. Zero Factiva news database hits. I would have speedied/prodded except they list some prominent advisors and have sort of connection with a UN campaign (rather tenuous link and no obvious evidence for encyclopedic notability) - how much these people are actually involved, its unclear. There doesnt seem to be much at all in the society's calendar Bwithh 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:04Z

Estonian Orthodox Church Pilgrimage

[edit]
Estonian Orthodox Church Pilgrimage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blog or something like it. A few obscure entries from Gogle but nothing notable. -Nv8200p talk 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article is a good example of a religious event. Why is it any less significant or notable than anything else? Bebuddley1 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN. Wikipedia is not a diary, however worthy the event being chronicled. I am encouraged to visit Estonia though - the food sounds great, especially the "lihapirukas". But we're an encyclopedia, not a tourist brochure. WMMartin 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:15Z

Jesusry

[edit]
Jesusry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: NN neologism. 17 Google hits for "Jesusry". – Gurch 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:16Z

Portuguese breakfast

[edit]
Portuguese breakfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dictionary definition, dubious verifiability (we don't need articles about things from Urbandictionary, which has a worse credibility record than Wikipedia itself), nowhere near academic.Djcartwright 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to be a neologism. El_C 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadway blogging

[edit]
Roadway blogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is clearly useless. It is a page probably written by the creator of the "roadway blogging" idea and was added here to further his agenda. This "roadway blog" theory is only apparently used by one blog and is therefor obscure. Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can stick up whatever they feel is worth knowing about.--Amanduhh 03:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google references do not mean it is an automatic keep. Zezima has millions of Google references, yet it doesn't warrant its own article. --Fred McGarry 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this account appears to be a voting sock-puppet. Jmax- 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: use the category. Proponents of keeping say that the list can have structure that the category cannot; however in this case the category has structure (American adoptees, Welsh adoptees, etc) and the list has not. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:23Z

List of adoptees

[edit]
List of adoptees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for speedy deletion but doesn't meet criteria. Relevant discussion on talk. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:26Z

MacEdition

[edit]
MacEdition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously speedy deleted as spam. Recreated by same author with fewer external links. Tagged for speedy deletion again; author contests this on the talk page. I'm not sure whether the site is notable, though the author asserts this is the case. I've decided it's probably best to decide the matter here. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If sites such as Gawker, Weblogs Inc, Metafilter, ThinkSecret and Slashdot are to be excluded from deletion, then so should MacEdition. Would marking the article a stub prevent the speedy deletion? There are ex-members of the MacEdition staff and of the Mac community who are likely going to be adding value to this article in the near future. -- Tomierna 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron - for the main reason why MacEdition is notable enough to have its' own article (which will be expanded), please read the History section of Apple rumors community. -- Tomierna 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What part of this article is unverifiable? -- Rbellin|Talk 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:29Z

Brian M. Palmer (second nomination)

[edit]
Brian M. Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (second nomination)

I came across this one by dumb luck. This article was given a very generous second chance eleven months ago by Deathphoenix, who closed it as no consensus (despite a 3-0 delete !vote) with the note "The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and cleanup). I am giving this article a chance to be cleaned up, but I have no objections to this article being AfDed at a later date if it doesn't get a better assertion of notability." [13] Except for the addition of a single line and a spelling correction, it hasn't been touched since the first AfD was closed, so its time has come. NN, tagged as failing to assert notability since June and as needing cleanup since January without action. Aaron 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having published work does not by itself make a person notable. Being published merely means a person has succeeded in having a job. Authors and writers are not inherently notable. --- RockMFR 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Morven. Whispering 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside livingroom studio

[edit]
Lakeside livingroom studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP, WP:ORG and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:31Z

Unfadeable E.R.G.

[edit]
Unfadeable E.R.G. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by subject, does not establish notability. "He is considered by many to be a driving force in bringing real music back, in using real instruments in his creations." silsor 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfadeable (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clone article created after AFD listing. silsor 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Woohookitty. MER-C 10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klueless

[edit]
Klueless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I speedy deleted this as an article about non-notable web content. The author has complained about this and insists I bring it here. – Gurch 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Salt": Wikislang for preventing recreation. From the expression to salt the earth, which I think is from The Simpsons ;-) Tubezone 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gleave

[edit]
Lisa Gleave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Model on a few shows an in a magazine, but never with a plot-involved role. Not notable, as far as I can tell. Mikeblas 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MacEdition —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:37Z

Spork Boards

[edit]
Spork Boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple speedy attempts. Does not meet WP:CSD, so I'm starting an AFD as the proper place for this discussion. Perel 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (just needed a second opinion) – Gurch 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FragArcade

[edit]
FragArcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable website. – Gurch 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Gurch. MER-C 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JEMS

[edit]
JEMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of notability. Unreferenced and buzzword laden. Contested prod. MER-C 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the reasons given below and in the deletion log summary. Uncle G 12:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Malas

[edit]
Nour Malas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extreme verifiability problems, with a grand total of 11 ghits. Unreferenced possible hoax. Contested prod. MER-C 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Tyrese Gibson in lieu of deletion —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:40Z

HQ Pictures

[edit]
HQ Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP. Companies aren't notable only because of their owners. Contested prod. MER-C 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:42Z

The Tortoise and the Hare (film)

[edit]
The Tortoise and the Hare (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources to support anything, all of the information seems to be bogus (the IMDB pages for all of the people mentioned say nothing about this project). I think that this was originally supposed to be about the Aardman project called Tortoise vs. Hare (IMDB link). That film was first cancelled to make way for Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit back in 2001, and then postponed again until Aardman's 3-film contract with Dreamworks was complete. Now that the Aardman-Dreamworks contract has been called off, the film that was supposed to be made before this one (Crood Awakening) seems to have been cancelled as well. In short, there is currently nothing to suggest that the film is being made, and the article doesn't seem to contain a single accurate thing anyway, and hasn't since its creation. This seems like a case of crystal ballism. I would normally support salvaging any article which has usefull information, but this one has no accurate information in it in any case; it shouldn't be very hard for someone to recreate it if the film actually does enter production, and nothing will be lost if it is deleted. Esn 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See also List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:45Z

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo

[edit]
List of TV stations in Kalamazoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article violates standards set forth in "What Wikipedia is not"; also, this list is redundant, as it already covers information set forth in the Grand Rapids TV template. azumanga 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one with utterly no content. W.marsh 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks)

[edit]
List of number-one hits (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number-one hits of 2006 (U.S. Hot Latin Tracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a placeholder, not an encyclopedia article. I have nothing against an actual list of this name, but it's simply ludicrous that a page that contains nothing but a category tag should be kept around. Salad Days 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full debate, and I see no entries on the "list." OH ITS A "LIST" OF "LISTS" EVEN BETTER Salad Days 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Referencing appears to have improved greatly since article was nominated for deletion. W.marsh 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ring Clock

[edit]
Iron Ring Clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn clock, vanity article written by clock's engineer, zero non-wikipedia/mirror Google hits. Deprodded by anon, so you can take your five days here instead. Delete. Fethers 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you didn't even nominate the article correctly. And second, you still have not contacted the original owner for your intended deletion. Keep 203.218.207.20 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I fixed the double-indent. Mr. Anonymous Reverter, since you're here clearly I nominated the article correctly, and I have no need to contact "the original owner" of the article. I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and WP:OWN. Fethers 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you I am not the owner of the article just a random user like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.207.20 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep - I am torn on this one, the lack of google hits is a problem but there is a source in the article that states it is well-known on campus, and god knows we keep plenty of articles on random things that are only notable to a narrow population.--Dmz5 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to McMaster University and Delete lack of ghits, fails WP:N, "well-known on campus" is not a valid reason for an article to be included in a world wide encyclopedia. Copysan 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if I agree or not with that statement, but the fact is a lot of editors believe that to be a valid reason for inclusion and there is no set policy per se that defines the notability of any given object. Something like this falls right into the cracks of what is and isnt notable.--Dmz5 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." from WP:N. You may say that this is a guideline, not a policy, so it does not neccessarily apply. But remember that if there are no "non-trivial published works" about the subject, then it cannot fulfill WP:V (that is policy) and therefore should be deleted. Copysan 09:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable artwork. Have we looked for off campus comments? DGG 06:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google News search and a straight Google search, like I said up above. I didn't get anything that wasn't this article or a mirror of the content. I mean, if I found SOME sort of external anything about the clock, I'd mention it. As it is, it just looks like it's...well, a clock. Fethers 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete universities have student newspapers, which often publish articles about things which are "well-known on campus", but all there is is this trivial reference. The award site mentioned doesn't mention them anywhere. No way that we can verify the facts presented, therefore it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Demiurge 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the original author, so which other way would I vote? I 'am' one of the team who built the clock, but I don't believe that I wrote the article in a self-promoting way. Edit history isn't brimming with contributions, but I would suggest that there are about 500,000 articles on wikipedia which are more poorly sourced (eg), about items of less significance (eg), and less discussed (eg). Re the awards site, CSME seem to have taken down their info from the 2003 competition...I will scan in my award certificate if you want proof of our placing. I would suggest that as extensive as Google is, not everyting that's worth including on Wikipedia is included there. Wikipedia's strength is it's breadth of coverage. No other encyclopedia would have an entry on the Iron Ring Clock, but then that could be said about the majority of Wikipedia articles. If the existance of this article is causing you genuine pain somehow, then I apologize and say vote delete...if you find it's about an interesting piece of student art, well known on the campus of a major Canadian university, and representing an important piece of Canadian engineering tradition, then please vote keep. Burtonpe 14:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nicely written and illustrated article, but appears to be written by one of the subjects, and the "iron ring" incorrectly is claimed to be the "worlds largest" when there are larger ones on every large turbine or old locomotive wheel, and when it it actually made of stainless steel. These quibbles aside, a couple of mentions in the campus paper are not enough evidence of notability. Most Google entries are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Edison 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edison, please check the article's talk page for a longer response to your comment there re the use of the term iron ring; I would have responded here but I saw your post to the talk page first. The term 'iron ring' as used in the article does not refer to just a ring made of iron, which is (I believe) a justified use. Please see the article on iron ring for more. If you have a citation for a larger iron ring, then please put it forward. I have already mentioned my opinion on google hits in my response above. Burtonpe 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one small addition to the above - I am not one of the subjects of the page, the page is on the clock. My name is mentioned once, at the bottom, as one of the creators. Burtonpe 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am an engineering student at McMaster University and The Iron Ring Clock has become part of our legacy. My friends who come to visit from other universities were impressed when they saw it. I use this wikipedia site as a means of promoting my school and yes, the biggest iron ring I have ever seen or heard of. I have even had a professor use the clock as an example in a lesson on gear trains. Change79 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Change79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep As a co-creator of this piece of student art I (obviously) agree with the thought that Wikipedia is a perfect froum for an article. The posting was not intended to be self promoting (as noted above) but merely an informative article on the history of this piece. If it was intended to be self-serving the original author would have likely included his name more than once (at the bottom, as one of the creators). The project has been cited in the City of Hamilton's news paper two, if not three times (copies of these articles can be posted if proof be needed) as well as student and University news. As for the debate regarding the largest iron ring - we've been through this. Read it again (Iron Ring Clock) in the context of the fact that the ring is largest representation of the Iron Ring worn by Canadian Engineers. I would love to see a larger one, but frankly with what we had to go through to have this one made I doubt it's likely one exists. The Iron Ring Clock is a one of a kind piece of art. It is unique to McMaster University and, frankly, deserves to have this one, short article available in the public domain.dunkshows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkshows (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30 17:11:35 — dunkshows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Atlant 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The AfD process is not a vote or popularity contest. Is there a reason you think this article should be kept? That its notability is established? Edison 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Edison 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The work as a whole isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards, and few of the particulars are verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. -- Alan McBeth 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears to be of local notability. References are provided. At the very least, merge into McMaster University. -- Whpq 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Having previously been heavily involved with the McMaster Engineering Society I can testify to the clock's importance in introducing new engineering students to the McMaster culture and showing them what they can accomplish. The clock is seen by thousands of people everyday and is often remarked upon, by students and faculty both, as being an interesting and unusual piece that promotes McMaster. This project has affected thousands of people and deserves to have an article. Garnishthemonkey 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Garnishthemonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge and redirect to McMaster University. Local notability, but no real evidence of broader notability among engineers, clockfans, or the general public. I would change to "keep" if some reliable sources showed non-trivial third-party coverage. Barno 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added in citation, a link to a summary of this article [16] in The Hamilton Spectator, a paper with a circulation of 260,000 copies. In my opinion this greatly enhances notability.Burtonpe 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a bit weird, but a notable and well written aritcle. Needs more sources and a checkup on facts. Sharkface217 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- It did win a second place in an annual design award, which may well make it notable, as far as I'm aware there isn't a guideline for the notability of devices. And as to the COI issues: there are mentions of design drawbacks of the clock which seems to rule out strict vanity. Sections might need cleanup "Future plans" is a boarderline WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball violation and the detail given to the construction methods and design team may be excessive. I'd say 'weak' keep based on the boarderline notability and writing issues. Oh, and to the author, just because wikipedia has worse isn't a reason to save this one. Your arguments weren't bad, but they also didn't assert a grounding in wiki policy to keep the articles. The number of people that see the clock and mention it unfortunately isn't verifiable, and isn't really a source of wikipedia-defintion notability (a lot of peopel see the donut stand on the corner of North and Oakland too, and it's very distinctive architecturally, but it hardly deserves a wikipedia entry (donutcruft?)). If the design award can be proven, then that's the strongest argument in my book, as would non-trivial articles or mentions in notable press, heck, even the thesis paper the designers wrote, if published in a reputable journal would go a long way.129.89.68.218 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems a bit self-serving to me right now. When and if it is written up in some scholarly journals, then it can return. Alternatively, if kept, consider merging it in to McMaster University until it is noteworty enough to go solo. I looked for scholarly citations (not newspapers) in a graduate school library, and have yet to find the reliable resources I like to see. Keesiewonder 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If Wikipedia were restricted to only articles which were written up in multiple 'scholarly' sources found in graduate school libraries, then many hundreds of thousands of articles would be up for deletion along with this one. Sourcing requirements should be pragmatic; if you believe that I don't have any significant over the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Metro, the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers, and various departments of McMaster University, then I propose that these are more than acceptable as sources.Burtonpe 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sharkface217. Article can be improved and sourced and brought up to wiki standards. 203.218.207.217 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — 203.218.207.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The article cites one independent source and is unlikely to gain further attention. Remember WP:N says "multiple, non-trivial published works" (emphasis mine). Copysan 04:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is your own opinion so don't imply it as a general consensus. And stop posting wikipedia policy. It doesn't bloody help! 203.218.207.217 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL, and quoting wikipedia policy is relevant since it is the applciation of the policy that determines whether the article is kept or deleted. But as for the assertion of only one independent source, there is the Hamilton Specator article which is from a major market newspaper, and engineering society documentation which is no longer online. -- Whpq 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • clarification request: Which user do you mean copysan? I think it isn't unreasonable to expect that from the user if he's writing about something he was involved in. He did make full disclosure of his potential conflict of interest and has been generally acting in good faith. If he can steer clear of POV issues I don't see why that ought to be an automatic impeachment of his credibility. That said I agree with Kessiewonder that the existing writeup is a bit self-serving and might be toned down. Wintermut3 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but could be rewritten a bit though LHOON 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per LHOON. 218.102.81.251 12:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 218.102.81.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Delete I find the subject matter interesting and the article well written, but have to agree with Edison - additional sources beyond the college newspapers would help to bolster notability. Endless blue 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said above, the article then should be given a chance to be improved rather than deleted. What is said is contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.132.175 (talk • contribs) 00:04, December 3, 2006
  • Delete not a notable invention, looks like a one off project. Suttungr 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searched through my files and found another source independant of the University, an article from the Toronto Metro newspaper (http://www.metronews.ca/). No electronic copy available because the Metro doesn't supply this stuff; took the info from a hard copy I saved. Burtonpe 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you also provide the date published, author, and headline of the article so that editors with access to a periodical database can check? The databases I have access to dont have the Toronto Metro, but others may. Copysan 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The line I added into the reference section of the article reads 'Torstar News Service. "Time piece becomes legacy", Toronto Metro, September 8, 2003' There was no author listed on the article, just 'Torstar News Service'. Burtonpe 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Endless blue, with whose sentiments I am in complete agreement. WMMartin 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources I've taken a pic of the award certificate for the Canadian Society of Mechanical Engineers competition in which the clock came 2nd, you can see it here or in the article; still hoping to scan it tomorrow at work. I know that this is not exactly an iron-clad source, but hopefully you will believe me when I say I did not spend my weekend creating this certificate. I think that this certificate, plus the articles in The Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Metro, in addition to all the McMaster literature (calling these sources 'college newspapers' or 'student newspapers' as above is incorrect), are sufficient to show notability. The MacEngineer especially is an Alumni publication, with little to no student input and a predominantly off-campus circulation. I believe they certainly address the (legitimate) comments above regarding the broken link to the CSME award and the need for multiple, independant sources. Burtonpe 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. 147.8.16.61 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Basically see what Uncle G says below, to whom you people should have listened. You guys have provided a tremendous deal of argumentation but no actual sources!!! about this guy other than some blog and entries on CDBaby and IMDB, which aren't terribly hard to get. This AfD debate has, bizarrely enough, had evidence of reliable third party coverage presented about it, while none could be found on Matthew Dallman himself beyond the blurb in the Washington Post, which doesn't really constitute non-trivial coverage on him. Since this is a high profile AfD, I really suggest people read and understand what Uncle G says below before jumping to any conclusions about systematic bias on Wikipedia. If reliable, published sources unrelated to Wikipedia or Dallman had been presented with information about him, this article would have been kept. But those sources don't seem to have covered him yet... so any beef should be with them for not writing about him, not with Wikipedia for merely enforcing our established policies. If you can't be bothered to read Uncle G's full comment, at least read the summary: "So if you wish to make an argument, please cite sources. Sources work. "I'm notable. I've done X, Y, and Z." does not." And the latter was all that was presented. W.marsh 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dallman

[edit]
Matthew Dallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No references to establish notability. One entry in IMDB for Matthew Dallman, but no way to link the two. Fails WP:Notability. Hatch68 06:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "no way to link the two" mean? "A Whirling Tango" is the film Dallman scored, and it is listed on this page. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
    • The IMDB entry has no information other than the name of the director, who shares the surname "Dallman" and that the total running time is "4 minutes." This is an obscure reference at best.--Hatch68 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marquis Who's Who in America (mentioned in Dallman's article) is a long-reputable and refereed publication, and Dallman is in the 2007 edition for his work as a thinker, and composer. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • Four other Wikipedia articles mention Dallman prominently, referencing him as integral artist, a voice for integral thought, a critic of Ken Wilber, as well as of Wilber's Integral University. This article thus should not be deleted. User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • IMDB listing for Dallman added to External Links User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence Ong 07:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity self-promotion. -- RHaworth 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, potential notability just doesn't pan out in reliable sources, WP:COI seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very suspect article, likely to be conflict of interest. The subject's production company is called "Electric Goose", and the author's handle is a single purpose account, Curlygoose. He creates an article in wikipedia and then pulls quotes from wiki onto his website, creating his own little walled garden. One music credit does not notable make. Ohconfucius 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am simply attempting to recreate the article originally created by user User:M Alan Kazlev because it was deleted two days ago. In the process, I have referenced Dallman's personal website and writings in order to fill out the article, so it won't be deleted again. Plain and simple.User:Curlygoose 30 November 2006
  • Marquis Who's Who is itself a vanity publication where inclusion is often dependent on the person buying a copy of the book. Even if it wasn't, you give no specific reference to which edition someone would find this person in. Please take the time to read all of the Wiki Policies people are taking the time to link to for you. You have to provide solid references to back everything up.--Hatch68 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Individual appears notanle to me given his previous association with Wilber, a popular new age writer as well as his music releases and book deal. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I suspect that this is an advertising article but at the same time he seems to be a legitamate artist and blogger. And we have many pages for bloggers. Even if this page did start out as an ad, we can clean it up to improve it's Wiki-credibility. Sharkface217 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Bio, and per Hatch. --TheOtherBob 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friends, Matthew Dallman here. I was just made aware of this article's consideration for deletion. In the spirit of the WP:AB guidelines, which speak of "Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page", here I am to do just this.

    I would feel strange arguing for my "notability", and it appears that Wikipedia culture doesn't believe I should, anyway, which is fine by me. I can speak to a couple issues, though. First, the Marquis' Who's Who in America, which will include me in the 2007 edition, does not require me to purchase a copy of the book, so that charge by Hatch68 is incorrect. My credentials were independently judged by its editors to be worthy of inclusion. Also, Hatch68 questions the IMDB listing; it is for a short film that my wife directed, and I scored; the film played in various film festivals, incl the prestigious Chi. Int'l. in 2005, in one of their "shorts programs"; it also played at other festivals, in Chicago and Milwaukee, USA. The IMDB listing was, I believe, created by someone internal to the Chicago Int'l Film Festival.

    I have an email acquaintance with the creator of this original listing page for me (M Alan Kazlev); he informed me after he made the page, and invited me to make whatever corrections were needed. I took him up, but only on minor points. It seems now, as I know more about Wikipedia, that such participation by me is a Wiki-no no. Other than that, I have had no part in this, but it was clear, from seeing the page first develop, that Alan pulled from the bio page on my personal website (matthewdallman.com/bio.html), and that other users (I don't know who) were adding to the page, so the charge by Ohconfucius is incorrect. Lastly, it might be noteworthy that, in addition to the arts journal I founded (POLYSEMY), I was involved with another publication -- The Manifest (the-manifest.org). In addition to authoring several articles for that magazine, their editor in chief interviewed me. (see http://www.the-manifest.org/features/dallman1.html).

    I fear I've said too much, so I'll stop. If there are any questions, let me know. Sharkface217's suggestion to "improve it's Wiki-credibility" makes sense to me. M Dallman 1 Dec 2006

    • I made no charges concerning the Who's Who book. I simply pointed out that by itself it is a suspect reference due to vanity inclusions. The point of this whole discussion is not really whether you are notable or not. The premise here is that there is a real lack of reliable references that can provide verifiability of notability.

      I will go on the record to say that I really suspect some sockpuppetry going on here as well. The link to the Wikipedia article was featured prominently on your home page. The username Curlygoose has two clues; the first being that your picture that was uploaded and used in the article shows you with very curly hair, the second is that your production company is named Electric Goose. Also, the user Curlygoose uploaded the picture used in the article, then put a copyright notice on the picture that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, which leads me to believe that Curlygoose is the copyright holder. None of this is definitive proof, but viewing them as a whole makes me extremely suspicious.--Hatch68 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The way to construct articles about people is to use non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the person concerned. (See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you.) Re-hashing an autobiography (taken off the subject's own web site or otherwise) is not the way to write an article on a person, a band, or a company. We remember the lessons of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), Alkhemi (AfD discussion), and Aladin (AfD discussion). A simple re-hash of Jamie Kane's web-site would have resulted in a completely fictional article about a nonexistent person. Aladin's web site quoted references to magazine articles that, when one looks at the on-line archive of the magazine concerned, don't actually exist. And only one person stated that Alkhemi even existed. Autobiographies are not to be trusted, for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia:Autobiography.

      The best way to demonstrate that a person is notable is to show that such published works exist by pointing to them, i.e. to cite sources to demonstrate that our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies (WP:BIO) are satisfied. If you can do that, you can make a strong argument for keeping. However, conversely, if no such published works exist, a reliable and full Wikipedia article cannot be written, because we don't base our articles on autobiographies, on people, companies, groups, bands, web sites, and whatnot telling the world about themselves. As all of our notability criteria for people, companies, web sites, bands, and so forth state, autobiographies, advertising, and self-publicity are not routes to having a Wikipedia article.

      So if you wish to make an argument, please cite sources. Sources work. "I'm notable. I've done X, Y, and Z." does not. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - IMDB listing, Journal editor, discography, blogger. Hence notable. If anyone has problems with vanity etc then the page can be edited accordingly M Alan Kazlev 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't agree with the concept of adding things up to achieve notability. A person with a non-notable IMDB listing, who is also a non-notable journal editor, with a non-notable discography, and who writes a non-notable blog is not therefore notable. (If he were notable for one of those things, the others wouldn't matter, either - if he were a notable blogger, it wouldn't matter for notability terms whether he was also a non-notable journal editor.) Remember that although we may think that a person who's done all these things is impressive, that's not the same as notable.--TheOtherBob 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources and apparent failure of WP:BIO. shotwell 10:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. (Backface 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC))Prolific blogger but all work is self-published, including music, article and journals. The film that relates to credited music is not notable in its own right. The external comments are all from a close community and self published on web by non-RS. Kazlev and Goethean who propose 'keep' above are both from this community.
        • In other words having expertise in a specialised subject automatically means one is part of a "close community", and therefore one's comments don't matter? Two wrong assumptions here - first that there is a "close community", second that one's opinions don't matter only because it is a specialised subject. If you look at any specialised subject, let us say (to cite another of my interests) a particular field or subfield of Paleontology, you will always find only a small number of students and researchers and workers in that field, precisely because it is such a specialised subject. But that doesn't malke it non-notable, nor does it make the opinions of those who are students of that field irrelevant. Same here. M Alan Kazlev 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once again I feel this is another attempt at deflecting from the real issue here, which is that no one seems to be able to come up with reliable, verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. No one that has advocated for keeping this article has addressed this issue. No sources = No Verifiability = No Notability, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the policies.--Hatch68 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'CurlyGoose', Goethean and Kazlev suggest a number of reasons for keeping the article, none of which stand-up. Previous association with or criticism of someone notable, even Wilber(!?), does not in itself demonstrate notability. The 'wiki-credibility' of the article is irrelevent if its inclusion is prohibited by a lack of notability. Other wikipedia references cannot be used to establish notability without real external RS.
    • This previously deleted article appears to have been resurrected by the subject's sock and then he has the cheek to comment above seperately using both his sock and his own name. Sheeesh... An administrator will be able to compare the ip addresses, if Dallman wants to state here that he and curlygoose are unrelated.
    • It is interesting to note that the addition of Dallman to the Integral Art page was made by Curlygoose. On the Ken Wilber talk page user 67.109.221.130 identifies himeself as Dallman and then goes on to add POV to the references to himself on that page and the other pages that are used here to justify his notability.
    • Matthew - Do not be offended by this deletion - notability is determined by wikipedia policy not by how important you feel yourself to be or how proud you are of your entry here. --Backface 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is also interesting to note in the history of this debate that CurlyGoose originally asserted that he had no connection with Dallman, but has now removed that statement following the observation that and administrator would be able to determine the truth of the matter from ip addresses. This would appear to underline the socking, bad faith and self-(re)creation of the article and it should be deleted speedily. --Backface 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catchpole 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. --Mallarme 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. -- I particularly love this puffery cruft from the article. Perhaps it can be kept somewhere...
        • He explores ideas within the realm of art. These include integral as "a living tradition of imaginative fullness through the ages", art as transdisciplinary field, what "postconventional" art means, as well as "artistry studies", an area of academic study that Dallman himself has founded.
      • --Backface 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No obvious notability, and although he has a few Google references they are all from minor blogs or "captive media", so referencing is inadequate. ( "Captive media" are media which are "captured" by the subject of a proposed Wikipedia entry - that is, are directly or indirectly under his control or influence, typically with a view to heightening his perceived importance. In this category are personal webpages and blogs, of course, but also included are the blogs of family ( his wife in this case ) and close friends, technical or professional journals of which the subject is founder, editor, contributor or financial supporter, and indiscriminate newspapers and broadcasters that include press releases from the subject or his representatives virtually verbatim. When we carry out an AfD debate like this we are trying to avoid Wikipedia being "captured" for public relations purposes, or to advance an individual's personal agenda or career. ) WMMartin 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the fact that this debate has now been referenced in the Washington Post is a successful example of media capture, as it will contribute to the blurring of the lines between notability and non-notability. Hatch68 is correct when he says that this does not make Dallman notable. We need to nip this sort of thing in the bud. WMMartin 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The need to counter systematic bias

[edit]

User:Hatch68 mentions that no one seems to be able to come up with reliable, verifiable sources to demonstrate notability (for Dallman).

And this is my counter argument, that what Hatch68 has said re the Dallman bio applies in a much broader manner, and reflects an unavoidable and non-intentioned bias among Wikipedians, every one of whom has the very best of intentions. After all, how does one define notability? Who sets the standards? And how do we avoid these standards simply perpetuated the already established bias and over-emphasis in certain (albeit very worthy) subjects and perspectives, to the detriment of other (equally worthy) subjects and perspectives?

I'll give an example. I wrote a stubby bio page on David Grimaldi, co-author of Evolution of the Insects, an important textbook and definitive popular review of Paleoentomology. At some point this page seems to have disappeared. What were the reasons why he was considered non-notable?

Yet at the same time there are entries on every detail of pop sci fi franchises (less so serious SF). I'll pick a page at random: List of Star Wars comic books. Every comic book and every author listed. Now, mind you, I strongly support this!!! I think it is way cool the way that Wikipedia does list every character and detail and comic book, no matter how non-notable they may be to anyone outside that particular area of geekdom!

In fact, this was one of the main things that inspired me to write entries on Paleontological authors like Grimaldi, on Integral artists like Dallman, and on Integral theory critics and sceptics like Geoff Falk, in the first place. Surely all these people are at least just as notable as an obscure planet or character in the Star Trek or Doctor Who franchises, say. btw, ST and Dr Who rock!, I'm not dissing these shows, I grew up watching the original series of Star Trek and the early Doctor Whos, there were among the things that really got me interested in SF; but i'm just trying to make a point. I could draw similar examples from anywhere in Wikipedia. And what all this means is that Wikipedia is essentially a biased coverage, and that to Wikipedia's credit this is recognised. I argue here that the Dallman page should be kept, and the Grimaldi and Falk pages restored, as a way of helping to balance the unavoidable and unintentional bias that this vast and magnificent project has. M Alan Kazlev 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has valid points, but it does not belong on this page. This discussion is simply to reach a consensus on whether the Matthew Dallman article has enough verifiable references of notability to maintain its inclusion on Wikipedia. I would suggest you make your arguments on the discussion pages of WP:Bio or WP:Notability. Hatch68 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if your Grimaldi article got caught up in this conflict which appears to be in regard to a different David Grimaldi. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Alan Kazlev appears to be attempting to argue that to govern an encyclopaedia in a manner that ensures that it is encyclopaedic is to show a systematic bias against subjects that are not encylopaedic. This debate has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with notability. Perhaps he is not aware of the other wikis which may more suitably house this type of information. He may also wish to think about the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - the presence of sf pages in wikipedia does not make Dallman notable. An RS would do but there isn't one. --Backface 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an obvious bad faith (several oned by the same anon ) `'mikkanarxi 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carroll

[edit]
Peter Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article flagged for Non-Notability quite a while ago, but AfD stalled as IP editor who placed template could not complete AfD page setup --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Author of at least 4 published books from a reputable publisher in the genre (read: not vanity press), written about by other authors such as Phil Hine in Prime Chaos and if I recall by Packwood as well, in addition to topical periodicals. Mentioned in numerous websites; Google shows nearly 300k results for "peter carroll and chaos magic" alone, not including 305k more for the alternate spelling of "magic" as "magick" and various mispellings of his name showing yet more. If Chaos Magick is notable as a new religious movement or philosophical trend, then he's definately notable as the author of one of their most important works of philosophy and technique (Liber Chaos). If that doesn't fulfil WP:BIO I'll eat my hat. Wintermut3 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, passes WP:BIO. I don't see the problem here. RFerreira 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chayathirai

[edit]
Chayathirai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because Chayathirai and The Coloured Curtain only get 12 distinct Google hits when combined with "-wikipedia" and those were for booksellers. In addition, the author himself his name only gets 175 Google hits in total, this article included, of which 61 are sufficiently distinct from one another to merit listing. At least one bookseller-hit only mentioned it in passing as a "similar item", and there is at least one "this only appeared in links pointing to this page", and then, of course, there are the Wikipedia clones. Only one version of Amazon.com has it according to this Google search, and it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time. Also, Chayathirai "best novel" tamil nadu gets me 8 hits from Wikipedia, its clones and some blurbage from three sites that are selling the book. One site even tells you that that's just what the publisher says (that it won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government). I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things, because of the results of "best novel award" tamil nadu government 2/3 Chayathirai (the Wikipedia article and a website that sells the book) and 1/3 clear reference to the Best Novel Award said to be given by the Académie Française. Rmky87 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Delete as later comment below The article's messy history (deprodded twice) includes removing what was IMO copyvio text from an independent review in India Today by Dr. Prema Nanda Kumar. There's also some international context. The English version of the novel is listed, for example, at University of Illinois at Springfield[20], with the author under another spelling "Cupraparatimaniyan". Mereda 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Comment There's an official source here[21] that verifies the existence of Tamil Nadu state government prizes for best Tamil books. Mereda 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : Please note that Indian Authors are Books are not represented fully in Internet. Just because something is not found in Google (or in many occasions, it is not properly searched) it does not make an author or work non-notable. When Google cannot be used to determine notability for Indian related content, nominating an article based on Google Hits alone does not augur well for the Encyclopedia project. Please note that "non-notable" in not synonymous with "I don't know" The author is a well known person in literary circles and the book has been included in the syllabi of many universities here This books satisfies the WP Guidelines for Inclusion  Doctor Bruno  15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Comment I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things No need to doubt. Tamil Nadu government gives awards for best books. Hope your doubt is cleared now. it appears that no one from anywhere has cared to review it in all this time As already told, Indian languages are underrepresented in Internet. Also most of the Websites and reviews use hundreds of fonts and that is not searchable.[reply]

Comment Believe me, I'm aware of the "not-searchable" thing, after trying to search http://www.indiatodaygroup.com for "POMMEELEAN"'s review. I have not yet found evidence that this "POMMEELEAN" ever won anything from the Sahitya Akademi and I have to go. There isn't another way to transliterate that, is there?--Rmky87 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only five Google hits for "Pommeelean" are Wikipedia and her clones. And the Sahitya Akademi website is Google-searchable. And I've finally found the part where it talks about the "TAMIL SANGA PALAGAI - KURALPEEDAM".--Rmky87 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books.--Rmky87 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing: India Today may be members only, but it is very Google-searchable if you know what you're doing. And you know what else? There was absolutely no mention of Chayathirai in any of their pages! The same goes for Subrabharathimanian! Isn't that interesting?--Rmky87 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm impressed! And since no-one has found verification of anything positive, like Dr Bruno saying the book is on university syllabi, I'll switch my view from weak keep to delete. (By the way, looking for Tamil book awards in English, I set up a new stub yesterday on Mu Metha. The Google results for him and his Tamil Nadu state award were thin - but they do exist.) Mereda 07:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spend more than Rs 1000 per month on books, but I am yet to buy a book from Amazon or write a review there for a Tamil Book  Doctor Bruno  12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But don't you find it odd that no one cared to do so at any of those other places? Or that Dr. Prema Nandakumar has apparently never written anything for India Today? The article says that the English version was published in 2003 and vedamsbooks.com says it won an award from the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1999. India Today was up in 1997...um, when was this originally published?--Rmky87 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, it appears that India Today's archives don't go back farther than 1997, and that the first edition of Chayathirai was published in 1994. In any case, I find it odd that Dr. Nandakumar would review it there instead of The Hindu, given that she wrote for them (her name gets 342 Google hits on hinduonnet.com) or on Boloji, where she is a contributing writer. Hmmm, it seems that The Hindu's online archives only go back to 2000, and their literary review archives only go back to 2001.--Rmky87 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, there's the fact that Prema Nandakumar was never mentioned anywhere in the pages of India Today from 1997 onward...--Rmky87 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read some of Dr. Nandakumar's work, I have come to doubt that she ever wrote the quoted review for this book: her English is better than that. I'm not just talking about the inappropriate spaces between the last word and the period after it; I'm talking about the parts that didn't make sense.--Rmky87 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ortega

[edit]
Joe Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate, lost in GOP primary. Nothing else in his rather extensive bio suggests notability. Montco 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 could be discussed further but AfD is not needed for that. W.marsh 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword Project

[edit]
The Sword Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obscure software product, does not assert notability in any way. Demiurge 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these subprojects for the same reason:

Demiurge 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Sword API project is quite notable in that it may in fact be the primary and only Open Source Bible software and library in English (if not any language). So, it would be foolish to actually have no article about it whatsoever.

    The question is this: Should all of the information about the API, Frontends, derivative projects (JSword), etc., be condensed into the Crosswire Society page, or should this project page remain, and this information (not pertaining to the society itself, but their projects) be grouped here.

    This is the real question, not the actual deletion of all information about this notable project.

    Another factor in the notability of this project is that it is licensed under the GPL (last time I checked), and is now beginning to appear either with many GNU/Linux distributions (bundled with) OR is available in almost all repositories.

    I personally will take it upon myself to expand and tighten the articles pertaining to Crosswire and their Sword API project (along with related information on the Frontends, etc.). However, we must decide if it should all be placed into the primary Crosswire article, or kept here.

    I posit that it should all be placed under the Crossire article, under a heading:

    ==Projects==

    or something similar

    StudiosusTheologiae 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all, unless notability is established via third-party sources. A piece of software isn't notable just because it exists, but only if people are using it and talking about it. I see no evidence of that in this article. Nandesuka 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This software is among core products of a notable software developer." This particular developed is notable in it's field, as argued above.DGG 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the project is clearly a useful one, Wikipedia is not here to provide a platform for new software to achieve prominence. Become well known, get written up, THEN create an article. Edison 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless third-party reliable sources are added before this AfD is closed, I support deletion per the WP:V policy and the WP:SOFTWARE guideline. Just being the (allegedly) only open-source English-language implementation of something does not make it notable by WP's standards. Just being another method to access the most-known book does not make it notable by WP's standards. Barno 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge all & move to The SWORD Project. This is notable and has received press coverage such as this Syracuse Post-Standard article. It also easily meets the standards for number of users (particularly for a niche application). --Karnesky 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dislike it when people invoke distributions like Gentoo to "prove" notablity. Gentoo's only qualification is that the source be available and that it compile. This project also lacks the usual mailing list or forum chatter that most notable projects have. That said, Linux World News points us to the Ubuntu Christian Edition which highlights GnomeSword (and by extension The Sword Project libraries). Since the parameters of the special Ubuntu edition implies some editorial control, WP:SOFTWARE probably applies. A look at the Google listing shows that this is a small fish (sorry, pun not intended) in the open soruce pond, but it does appear to be tops in its category. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - hey, I've used that product before! Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. popcon ranks #7922 for gnomesword and #9256 for bibletime, out of 61426 packages. That would definitely indicate notability. (gnomesword doesn't fall too much from mediawiki1.7, which struggles around at #7521. =) However, I'd still weakly recommend merge afterwards. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a new Study Bible software articleThe Sword Project, or something of that nature. --- RockMFR 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I am new, and know your attitude towards the opinions of newbies, I shan't state an opinion on this deletion issue. I came here while downloading Bibletime and Sword for Mandriva -- which has used it for some time. I will be watching with interest, because I was planning to write an article on Tepexi de Rodriguez, Puebla, Mexico -- where I am currently living. It is a small village of no import, except it is world famous among paleontologists because it is one of the top locations for fossils in the world, and it seems disgraceful there is nothing about it on Wikipedia. I edited for five years a Mensa local newsletter, and certainly understand editing issues. However, to invest the time required to produce an article to your high standards, then have it discussed for total deletion essentially because there are no paleontology professors or students here, would be a tough row to hoe. Better to save my time and let them google for the same material I would be using for the article. --- irlandes 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for anyone else, but I think new people are what keeps the entire WP project alive. All you need do to keep your article about Tepexi de Rodriguez from deletion is to make sure it prominently says that it is significant because of the fossils & make sure there are at least two good published references cited to the fact that it is notable. Then just link it to the appropriate palenontology pages, add links from appropriate paleontology pages to it, for example from famous species unearthed there. And I hope you will stay and do some more. DGG 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create your article; in all likelihood, it won't be deleted; most small towns are afforded their own articles (e.g., Stormstown, PA). BTW, feel free to vote keep if you'd like on this article, especially if you feel this link was helpful, and the software notable. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite some sources in the actual article. W.marsh 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EcoTalk

[edit]
EcoTalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete This page is nothing more than an advertisment for a show. It needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theichibun (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 November 2006

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global powder metallurgy property database

[edit]
Global_powder_metallurgy_property_database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be spam. It was created by the user EPMA and references only epma.com. —Ben FrantzDale 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Demiurge 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is actually an important database sponsored byt several trade organizations in technical field. The editors obviously need help in writing it.
I am, incidentally, a little alarmed atthe tendency to list articles for AfD when the reasonable step would be to place a warning --whether a template or personal. Editors who do inadequate articles about significant organizations deserve help, not censure. They are often earnest and sincere and just need to know how we do things here. If it turns out there's nothingthere, then that's another matter. DGG 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - 122 Google hits on this very specific search term [23] - it's not a lot, but then, this is a very specialized database. The article desperately needs help - it doesn't explain its importance and is a borderline copyvio (it isn't ripped entirely from one source, that I can find, but it looks like a lot of individual sentences are). Still, I get the feeling that this is verifiable, does have some importance, and deserves an article. --Hyperbole 06:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Google hits.Sharkface217 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. As said above, "editors who do inadequate articles about significant organizations deserve help, not censure." --- RockMFR 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and Cleanup to remove the blatant advertising. We're not paper, so I feel we've got room for this mildly notable database. But the advertising sets my teeth on edge. WMMartin 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above; I've done some cleanup and removed the blatant spam. Sandstein 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Noble (politician)

[edit]
Mark Noble (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political candidate/student. Ran for OH Lt. Governor as a Libertarian and lost. Currently a student with nothing else suggesting notability. Montco 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Katz

[edit]
Lewis Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Soundly defeated in his only run for any office. Nothing else in bio suggests any notability. Montco 06:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Thomas

[edit]
Brian R. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable one-time candidate for US Congress. Soundly defeated. No other claim to notability. Montco 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Zone Fisher

[edit]
Peggy Zone Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as non-notable person. This may end up being a little controversial though. I simply can't believe that wives/daughters/politicians are inherently notable. Some, like Chelsea Clinton or Laura Bush are notable. But this one certainly would not be notable on her own. Montco 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Mahoney

[edit]
Grant Mahoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High school athlete. No claim of notability, no sources, sub-stub. Edison 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dovilla

[edit]
Mike Dovilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as non-notable one-time candidate. Took only 34% of the vote in his only race. Nice background, but nothing that really makes this gentleman notable. Montco 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Downey

[edit]
Gabrielle Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable one-time candidate for office. Finished fourth in the Democratic primary with 13% of the vote. Nothing else in her background suggests notability. Montco 06:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Minamyer

[edit]
Eric Minamyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was nominated more than a year ago and closed with no consensus. Now that the election is well in the past, I would like to give this another shot. This person has run once for office. He finished fifth in the GOP primary with less than 5% of the vote. Other than getting some attention for making some unfair charges against an opponent, he has nothing else to suggest notability. Montco 06:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie J. Spaeth

[edit]
Leslie J. Spaeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating as a non-notable political figure. This one is a little tougher than prior nominations as this person actually holds an office. However a state committee seat is a party seat and there are literally dozens of state committee people in OH. Also a party chairman for a middling county in OH. No evidence that he has been elected to any government position. Montco 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete from Wikipedia. I note that most of this seems to exist on Wiktionary already, at the extensive category listing, and a completed transwiki is reported on each article. W.marsh 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of idioms in the English language (B)

[edit]
List of idioms in the English language (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of idioms in the English language (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This afd found that there is strong consensus that lists of idioms violate WP:WINAD. Additional concerns are that they are unsourced, and that there are problems sourcing them and that they contain original research. The only defence put up was the non-argument that these lists are useful. Also nominated are the lists of idioms for the letters C, D, E, and F. Transwikiing to Wiktionary, for the ones that aren't in wikt:Category:Idioms is optional. MER-C 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this content, in this form, may well be useful for some project - if anyone wants it, they should have the opportunity to grab these before they're gone - but these are blatantly in violation of WP:NOT. It's only fair to stop this and let those interested compile the lists somewhere else, before they get past F. Opabinia regalis 07:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They already have, it's going to take a while to get rid of all of them. I plan on putting another five on the chopping block each day from today. MER-C 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do them piecemeal? It's not like anyone's going to vote delete on everything but H, Q, and W. WLD below (and possibly others) volunteered to transwiki them; why not just leave them in articlespace if he's planning on doing it soon) or move them to his userspace if not? Opabinia regalis 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary, this should go to Wiktionary if possible. WP:V, WP:OR. Article is unencyclopedic, not needed on Wikipedia. This better stop quickly. Move it to Wiktionary (if possible. Terence Ong 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also I would like to add List of one-letter English words, List of two-letter English words and List of three-letter English words for the very same reasons. MartinDK 08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They'll come later. Let's get rid of all of these lists of idioms first, there's still another 20 to go. MER-C 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that summary deletion was the incorrect action to take for the (A) article, and a suitable period of time should have been allowed for a transwiki to take place - preferably by placing a notice on the article "freezing" it and requiring transwiki by a particular date. There are editors still contributing to these articles, and I think it is simply rude to delete the articles from under them, so to speak. Since the principle of removal from Wikipedia has been agreed in the AfD debate for the (A) article, there is no argument to keep the others - that is obvious. I would ask that the good faith contributions of many editors is not simply trashed. WLD 08:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are free to ask any admin if he/she would put a copy of any deleted article as a subpage of your userpage. As long as the article is not offensive etc. There is no problem with that. You can work on it from there then. MartinDK 09:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can request userspace undeletion for transwikiing. As for yanking the articles out from under the editors, they have five days to save their own copy, and for the A one they had more. MER-C 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought that at one time it was actually policy for people not to save deleted articles in their userspace, otherwise I would have preserved a copy for a transwiki operation. It's possible I misunderstood, or the rules changed. Anyway, would a kind admin please undelete List of idioms in the English language (A) and drop it as a sub-page into User:West London Dweller/Idioms. I'll copy the rest, or if whichever friendly Admin does the job, they could copy all the pages as subpages of the above and speedy delete the rest. Thanks. I'll leave a stub in List of idioms in the English language explaining that the content of the article is being moved to Wiktionary without pointing out it is in my userspace, and transwiki as and when I get time. WLD 14:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want the rest to be userfied to your userspace instead of being subject to deletion debates? MER-C 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes - but I don't own the articles - I can't speak for all other editors. What I'll probably do is take a copy while the AfD debates are going on, and let the proper process take its course. Summarily deleting them and putting them all in my userspace doesn't seem like proper process to me, convenient as it may be. WLD 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I userfied it, and if you'd actually read the first eleven words of my closure you could have saved yourself and us all your incivility. ~ trialsanderrors 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't understand the first eleven words of your closure notice. I had (<-note past tense) no idea what 'userfy' meant, and my reading was that I would need to ask for info idiom by idiom, when I didn't have a list to refer to - which seemed almost Kafkaesque. Thank-you for putting the entire article in my userspace. I will copy the other articles to the same place, to avoid wasting other people's time, and not participate in further AfDs on these articles. WLD 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a fair question to me, see above. If WLD is willing to work on/marshal others to work on transwikiing these, I don't see a problem with userfying them all at once. Breaking them up into separate discussions is useless in any case, except as a test of whether you'll get the same result nominating the same thing for deletion six times. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The large and unwieldy main article was split into 25 sub-articles recently, so the edit history of the sub-articles A,B,C... do not reflect the level of effort that has gone into this collection. If you look at the edit history of the main article List of idioms in the English language, you will see it is not just someone's work. The article has been in existence since 11 November 2003, and a small amount of content existed before then in other articles. That is not meant to make you change your mind, simply to correct a possible misapprehension. WLD 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete allAs dicdefs and as unsourced or original research. I hate folk etymologies, where someone sits down at the keyboard and decides what the history of a word or phrase is based on their own hunch. When no source citation is provided, that is the implied source, and it is wrong as often as not. Then this sometimes incorrect info will get cited by kids in research papers, and prank ones (made up in school one day) will get added, with no basis for judging which should stay and which should go. If each was footnoted to a reliable publiched source and did not violate a copyrighted definition, then such a database would be valuable on one of the Wikiprojects, perhaps Wiktionary. Edison 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki all of them. These idiom list articles are really informative to non-native speakers, and sometimes to native speakers too. As long as they don't contain any neologisms or in-jokes, the content is encyclopedic too. They should be contained in at least some Wikimedia project. JIP | Talk 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/transwiki. It's sad that deletionists have become so impatient that they can't put a transwiki tag on an article and give people a few months to transwiki to the appropriate project. Do people here just not understand the concept of transwiking at all? --- RockMFR 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! There is something really whacky going on here. How can this be considered a valid AfD before the transwiki has been done? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Transwiki" (like "userfy") is a neologism created a couple of years ago. Many of the people who contribute to Wikipedia in various ways are not computer experts, and if there is an article explaing it a reference to that might be appreciated. All I see are computerspeak jargon loaded pages about backlogs and logs and templates, with no overview. To the naive outsider it would appear that anyone could save a copy of an article and upload it to another Wiki. I suppose the cryptic transwiki process might preserve added context such the edit history comments, or history of AfDs? It is not immediately clear why an article that could be copied and uploaded in a few minutes takes months to "transwiki" and why it has to stay in the mainspace under some type of suspended sentence of deletion, or why editors should have to leave an unencyclopedic article alone and mark their calendar for some unspecified number of months in the future to check back and see if it is gone, or put it on their personal watchlist and see every minute wikilink added, or comma removed, or vandalism added and reverted for several months.Edison 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until properly tranwikied The content represents a lot of research, and while lacking references, is definitely of encyclopedic value IMHO.--Ramdrake 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as disambiguation. El_C 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suman

[edit]
Suman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

no verifiable sources for claim of notability Edison 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yakoo Boyz

[edit]
Yakoo Boyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone heard of ' Pipe Dreamz '? Minor defunct Canadian band. Except for the claim of having had it as a massive hit, there's nothing which would indicate it would pass WP:MUS. No entry for the band on gracenote or allmusic, so I cannot establish exactly where or when it may have been a hit. It appeared on 5 compilation albums per Gracenote Ohconfucius 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subrabharathimanian

[edit]
Subrabharathimanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was prodded due to less number of Google hits (55 for Subrabharathimanian and 21 for "Subrabharathi Manian"). I unprodded it because I believe that Google hits do not indicate notability or non-notability of a Tamil author. (Update: User:Mereda has pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai that the author is alternatively spelled as Cupraparatimaniyan, which gives some more Google results.)

User:Rmky87 believes that the subject is not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. The author is mentioned mostly on the sites which sell his book Chayathirai. User:Rmky87 has pointed out that Katha Award is not given by the President of India[25]. Also, there is only one site that tells he has won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government, and it belongs to the publisher.

Neutral as of now, although I am tempted to vote Weak Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai. utcursch | talk 07:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 07:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Like it or not, Indian language works are under represented in Internet. This author is well known in Tamil Nadu literary Circles. When articles like Camp_Menominee (which are of now use to persons outside that country) exist in WP, and no one cares to AFD that, but want to delete an article about an Indian Author who has won the Government Award, that speaks of Systemic Bias Remember that English Wikipedia is for Global Audience and not only for those from Europe and America  Doctor Bruno  15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have provided us evidence that this award exists. Now prove to us that he won it. I hope you can upload the evidence if you have to. I know for a fact that Katha Awards are not awarded by the President of India as the original author claimed (that person isn't even mentioned as having the job of handing it over! Who first made that claim? The publisher?). Where would I find out who really won a Katha Award in 1993?
Yes, I remember that Wikipedia is for a global audience. I also remember that the existence of those other novels needs to be verified (and that internet evidence may be in Tamil script). Perhaps a search of for them using the original script is in order (it wasn't given in the original article). He is said to have written five other novels. I've looked more closely at the article and it appears that one of those novels I couldn't even find a seller for was already translated into English (Pinaingkalin Mukankal (The Faces of the Dead), I believe it was allegedly called). All four of the Google hits for that were Wikipedia and her clones.--Rmky87 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cupraparatimaniyan" yielded 11 distinct Google hits, almost all of which only mentioned him in connection with The Coloured Curtain. He had no results on Amazon.co.uk except through Google (see what I mean here at the very bottom), and his entry, Appa (what on earth is that?) is very spare, devoid of reviews of any kind, illustrations of any kind, and they can't even offer users this particular title. Amazon.com didn't have him either, nor did they have anything by a "Subrabharathimanian" (Amazon.co.uk didn't have him either). Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books. This PDF of a Sage Publications journal article looks very promising, but I can't access it from my University. I found it on a search of anything that contained "The Coloured Curtain" and also "edu". There were no article citing it on Google Scholar.--Rmky87 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is much evidence that "Prema Nanda Kumar" exists, however. The hit count is sparse because apparently this is not the most common rendering of her name. Prema Nandakumar is, though. She's from India and there are only 142 distinct hits but they're along the lines of this and this. The pages containing "subrabharathimanian" "tamil" (I wanted to see if he was also mentioned on Tamilnation.org like Nandakumar is), on the other hand, go like this:
page 1: Wiki, wiki, bookdealer, bookdealer, clone of older version of our Tirupur article, bookdealer, infuriatingly inaccessible Journal of Commonwealth Literature article, redirect to the homepage of the (apparently) defunct bookdealer K. K. Agencies, bookdealer, and another bookdealer
page 2: clone of Chayathirai article, a piece of unreadable garbage with the word, "blog" in the URL, bookdealer, the German Wikipedia's version of our "List of Tamil writers", a Nationmaster.com article on Vietnam (seriously, WTF?), bookdealer, Italian version of "secure.hospialityclub.org"'s Tirupur page which contains a word-for-word copy of a passage in our old Tirupur article including the typos, a poorly typed message on a message board connected to Rice University (which seems to indicate that Subrabharathimanian wrote in Kannada?), bookdealer, and another clone article;
page 3: bookdealer, clone of our old Tirupur article, deadlink to K. K. Agencies, bookdealer, answers.com clone of Tirupur, customtoolbarbuttons clone of "List of People from Tamil Nadu, Enpsychlopedia article on Tirupur (yes, it's a clone), Enpsychclopedia article on Martin and Lewis (?), Reference.com article on Tirupur (clone), startlearningnow.com clone of our article on American freightways (WTF?);
page 4: bookdealer, clone of Tirupur article, bookdealer, clone of Tirupur, clone of "List of Tamil language writers", clone of "List of Tamil language writers", clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", and a clone of "Category:Tamil writers";
page 5: clone of "Liste tamilischer Schriftsteller", the actual German Wikipedia' "Liste tamilischer Schriftsteller", another version of the same poorly typed forum post from the Rice University board, answers.com's clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", MadDig clone of "List of people from Tamil Nadu", list of books from Japanese website that includes The Coloured Curtain, repeat of previous page (there is a link on both pages to a page on same Japanese website which appears to be selling The Coloured Curtain), two more clones "List of people from Tamil Nadu", and another clone of Tirupur;
page 6: clone of Tirupur and a clone of "Category:Indian writers".
Oh, and by the way, Tamil Nation doesn't seem to have heard of him. And a Google search of just his name turned up only 8 more hits than "subrabharathimanian" and "tamil". And that St. Joseph's College link is a dud; he's only mentioned in links pointing to that page.--Rmky87 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing: India Today may be members only, but it is very Google-searchable if you know what you're doing. And you know what else? There was absolutely no mention of Chayathirai in any of their pages! The same goes for Subrabharathimanian! Isn't that interesting?--Rmky87 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if you cannot "find" an article about a vernacular author or book on Google, they become non-notable inspite of winning an Government Award. Amazing !!!  Doctor Bruno  12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For notable authors, they can totally be found. By the way, he is also said to have written a book that was translated into English and yet the Google hits for "Pinankilin Mukangal" and the Google hits for "Pinaingkalin Mukankal" all go to Wikipedia and her clones—absolutely no bookdealers! And the the Google hits for "Pinankalinmugangal" are nonexistent. By the way, you have never given us proof that he won a state award of any sort. Let's face it: real award-winning Tamil authors get their names online without Wikipedia's help.--Rmky87 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you refuse the fact that there is a Govt Award or the fact that this person has won the award.  Doctor Bruno  17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've proven that there is in fact a governmental organiztion in Tamil Nadu that awards the authors of very good novels and translates them into English. Now prove to me that that first thing really did happen to Subrabharathimanian in 1999!--Rmky87 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good Question. His works have been published in Kumudam. Does that answer your question. I am very sure of the fact that he won the foreign trip for his novel. There was a story in Kathaimalar (the saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago) called as Singapore Pancha regarding that.  Doctor Bruno  03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your evidence is that "his achievements are not found in Internet" We too agree with that. How can we refute that. That is so simple. Is it clear. Our argument is that "just because you are not "able to find" something in Internet, that does not mean that he is non-notable" for the simple reason that Indian Vernacular languages are under represented in Internet. Now if you can give some points against this, that would be interesting discussion.  Doctor Bruno  03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cupraparatimaniyan" yielded 11 distinct Google hits, almost all of which only mentioned him in connection with The Coloured Curtain. So the fact that he has written that novel is Verified. He had no results on Amazon.co.uk So waht. Most tamil authors have no entry on Amazon. Amazon is not a source for measuring the work of Tamil Authors and his entry, Appa (what on earth is that?) is very spare, devoid of reviews of any kind, illustrations of any kind, and they can't even offer users this particular title. So what Amazon.com didn't have him either, nor did they have anything by a "Subrabharathimanian" (Amazon.co.uk didn't have him either). Oh, and no one cared to review "Cupraparatimaniyan"'s The Coloured Curtain on eBay, Shopzilla, Rediff (whose tagline is "India's online books and gift store", by the way), Can you please tell me the number of reviews you have had for Tirukural or Ramayanam at those sites and that last hit is just a place that helps people find places to buy books. 0.01% of Indian books are sold through Internet. There were no article citing it on Google Scholar. How many articles on Google Scholar you have for Indian authors. My simple question. How many novels in Indian Languages have you so far read. ........ தெரியாது கற்புர வாசனை  Doctor Bruno  03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to ask a question to all those who want to delete this article. Will you agree to keep if it is proved that he won the award in 1999, or will you guys, to satisfy your ego of not having to revise the vote, invent new criteria for deletion (as it usually happens)  Doctor Bruno  03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won a notable award.Bakaman 06:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Do none of you who want to keep this article see the importance of proving or disproving anything you say? I never said that his having written The Coloured Curtain needed to be verified. I meant that the fact that anyone who wasn't selling the book really caring either (except for you guys, obviously, and by the way, why do you only care now that he's on AfD? You had since March to get him up to presentable status and none of you even wanted to wikify him. Obviously, no, I haven't read any Indian works in their original languages. If I could do that, I would've transliterated Chayathirai back into the original Tamil script and searched the Internet for that in addtion to what you see above you. Why have none of you bothered with this, instead of making almost completely unsourced assertions? Oh, and by the way, Tirukural may have had zero reviews on Amazon.com, but at least it was there for the reviewing. And it has a properly formatted Wikipedia article attached to it. Amazon.com does the same thing for Ramayanam. This also has a much better Wikipedia article attached to it (true, it's treated as a redirect to Ramayana, but that's still better edited than either article ever was. Ramayana garnered excellent reviews on Amazon, by the way). Most people only edited Chayathirai to attach maintenance tags and to remove copyvio (that didn't happen until last October).

Good Question. His works have been published in Kumudam. Does that answer your question.

Of course not! The least you could do is give me the titles of those works (I want bibliographical citations or links if you can)! Oddly enough, many of their links to other parts of their are in English for some odd reason, even though the target audience speaks Tamil. Another "Logins Only" place. Anyway, what exact sort of work did he publish in there?

I am very sure of the fact that he won the foreign trip for his novel. There was a story in Kathaimalar (the saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago) called as Singapore Pancha regarding that.

I can't find "Kathaimalar" anywhere on Google. Dinamalar can be found. "dinamalar" "saturday supplement" cannot be found. I searched for "kathaimalar" first on the off-chance that it might have a separate website or that there was a non-Google URL with that word. Your "Singapore Pancha" turned up zilch. Mousing over the links at Dinamalar turned up no similar words to "Kathaimalar". I did turn up their "Sunday Special" archives (which can also be found through Google), though. Their "sportsmalar" could be found just by typing in "sportsmalar". Is "Kathaimalar" still in print? Is there anything about him in the media that anyone can show me?--Rmky87 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathaimalar was the Saturday supplement of Dinamalar years ago and is not in print now. It is obvious that you cannot find Kathaimalar anywhere. It is either because you do not know to search properly or because it is not in internet or because it is there with some font (one of hundreds) that cannot be searched. By the way their Sunday Supplement is Vaaramalar (வாரமலர்) and their Friday Supplement is Ciruvar Malar (சிறுவர் மலர்)
My point is that IF SOMEONE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT KATHAIMALAR DID NOT EXIST BECAUSE HE COULD NOT FIND IT IN INTERNET, His mental acumen has to be questioned.
Tirukural is not reviewed in Amazon. Ramayanam (Kambar) is not reviewed in Amazon. That shows that only someone who does not have the slightest idea about the presence of tamil literature in internet (as of today) will use this as a benchmark in fixing the notability. The penetration of Tamil Literature in Amazon on 3/12/2006 is such that even Tirukural and Ramayanam are not reviewed. Just because they are not reviewed does that make these books as non notable. Any one can not see as to HOW USELESS IS TO USE AMAZON REVIEW TO JUDGE NOTABILITY of a TAMIL BOOK.
Award or no award this person is a notable person in Tamil Literature. Full Stop. Please don't try to use useless means to justify your decision about something regarding which you have no idea or knowledge.
The least you could do is give me the titles of those works You have enough of his titles already in the article.
I want bibliographical citations Kumudam does not have Bibliographical Citations. You seem to be TOTALY IGNORANT ABOUT TAMIL LITERATURE. No way arguing with you :)
or links if you can SO there is no world outside Internet for you. You believe in only links. Common. Wake up !!
Anyway, what exact sort of work did he publish in there? Novels and Short Stories. My God, we are talking about an novelist. Do you expect him to give explanations for Ramanuja's theorms or uncertainty principle. He is not a scientist to publish research articles, nor is Kumudam the Tamil equivalent of Nature  Doctor Bruno  18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Why have none of you bothered with this, instead of making almost completely unsourced assertions? For the simple reason that tamil works are under represented in Internet. There is no use in killing a Horse because it does not lay eggs. Chickens are supposed to lay eggs and horses have their own use. Since tamil works are not represented in Internet (Even no one has reviewed Tirukural and Ramayanam) there is no use in proving or disproving notability through internet. Is it plain and simple. Do you atleast now understand your futile attempts which are totally useless as for as Tamil Literature is concerned  Doctor Bruno  18:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though in no way related to this article, My next point is to support my claim that AN IMPROPER SEARCH BY SOMEONE WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN DISCUSSION can turn a well known entity into "non-notable". For example [26] [27] By the way the Singapore Pancha was a story written in Tamil making fun of the prize schemes of announcing Plane tickets for literary competitions. Hence there is nothing special that it does not turn up in internet.
Is there anything about him in the media that anyone can show me? Good Question
  1. From The Hindu
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  5. [31]
  6. [32]
  7. [33]
  • Delete:While I am generally sympathetic to Bruno's arguments about under-representation, the article makes no real claims to notability. The two awards won are relatively minor; the Katha awards are handed out by a nonprofit that works in translation and three short story writers in each of India's eighteen or so languages win every year; traditionally, a different three! A 'novelette competition from Air India' isnt good enough either. Very simply, even on the basis of the unverifiable claims in the article, it fails WP:BIO. Hornplease 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. I'm sympathetic to the desire of many participants in this debate to increase the level of global inclusivity for the English version of Wikipedia. However, I find this particular article to be inadequately referenced as it stands. WMMartin 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of any sources for his supposed achievements. Put these sources in the friggin' article, people. I'm not wading through kilobytes of hot air on this AfD and clicking on dozens of external links to find them. Sandstein 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn by nominator, and without controversy. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 11:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

801 (band)

[edit]
801 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a band with no claims of notability. Made a couple of albums but no claim of them being massive sellers or in any way groundbreaking. Played a couple of gigs. My current view is that there is no notability here despite Wikipedia's low threshold for music notability and pop culture relative to everything else. I came across this page as a result of the Lloyd Watson page that I tagged for references some months ago and is itself not especially notable. MLA 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions, it appears that I am not in line with wikipedia beliefs on this. The notability threshold for Music appears to be particularly low in my opinion but the consensus is that this article passes purely on the grounds of containing people who were notable elsewhere so no further debate appears necessary. A withdrawal of my nominiation is in order. MLA 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungjangbi Plaza

[edit]
Jungjangbi Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

per WP:SHOP, WP:CORP. Pqozn 07:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Costume. Agent 86 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance costume

[edit]
Dance costume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason:Essay or original research. No sources cited. Edison 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Harker

[edit]
George R. Harker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable outside of a particular group Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, established author with at least 8 books, notable within his field. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not subjective and it does not matter in which group someone is notable, it does not matter either if we don't know anything about the author either. Alf photoman 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ekajati and Alf photoman. —Hanuman Das 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (My bad. Should not have voted here. I think a comment is OK?) Comment There are a number of factors I'm taking into consideration. At least five (and perhaps as many as seven) of his eight books are self-published and only one was definitely published by a press other than his own. His "Church and School of International Detente" has no footprint on the web at all except for his version of its establishment and destruction. I can't even be sure any person other than he was a member because there's zero information on it. Beyond these items, what's left in the current Wikipedia entry is his professional career as a professor and he was apparently fired after 21 years at W. Illinois Univ under circumstances impossible to know. (He claims persecution and martyr status but without info other than his version, I am reluctant to render judgment.) There's also his interest in and advocacy for clothing-optional/nude beaches, and that he's a "self-styled cyberSpace philosopher", neither of which I find particularly notable. If the writing on his web page is any indication, he's a remarkably sloppy and poor writer. Everything I've seen is purely self-promotional and I've seen no indication of independent recognition of his notability except for right here. This is what I see. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my irrelevant opinion it is irrelevant by whom or why some books were published, relevant is if these books were noted or not. There is a big difference between books that are passed around in the extended family and those that actually sell -- no matter who published them Alf photoman 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bare fact is he's written at least 8 books and notable in his field. --Oakshade 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in his field; it would be hard to find a MORE notable spokesperson in the Naturist movement. Rosencomet 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn, reasons no longer valid). Kusma (討論) 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in older age

[edit]
Sexuality in older age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a speedy candidate per WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3, as it is just one sentence (which is not even defining its topic) and an external link. However, it miraculously survived VfD as "keep" last year (see here for the debate) but has not been expanded or cleaned up since. We should encourage creation of a real article on the topic and replace this speedy candidate by a good red link - chances are that a newly created article will be better than this. Delete unless completely rewritten by the time the AfD ends. Kusma (討論) 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that people are actively expanding / rewriting this article, it can be kept. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly nothing in the article. Don't see any notability in this article. I don't see any potential in this article getting expanded and cleaned up. Chances are one is 500,000, so this is of no use now, and its unencyclopedic. Terence Ong 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tempted to speedy. MER-C 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The last AfD was full of people talking about expansion but as usual nothing happened. Delete it, 6 months and still only one line proves beyond doubt that this article will never be expanded. It is really annoying that people talk about expanding articles and how we shouldn't delete articles just because they consist of one sentence and then once the AfD is over they don't care any longer.Keep per the below discussion MartinDK 08:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organic expansion has failed in this case. Danny Lilithborne 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of annoyances: What's also annoying is when citations of sources that were added to an article during the previous AFD discussion, for editors to employ in order to do the very expansion that was discussed, are later removed from it without explanation by an anonymous editor. It should be no surprise that the article wasn't expanded using them. Yes, this is a stub. Yes, there is potential for expansion. See the potential sources found in the last AFD discussion, the citations for which I've restored to the article from its earlier version. Attrition of a stub by a vandal is not a reason to delete an article. Keep. Uncle G 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True, and if the sources will make the article grow then I'll be first in line to admit I was wrong. But it is hardly even a stub... the one line in the article isn't even specific to the topic. It is just a general statement. MartinDK 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero content. --T-rex 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List for cleanup by rewriting from scratch based on sources restored by Uncle G. There are other books and academic papers which address the topic in detail. I'm sure there are also a zillion Cosmopolitan articles on the topic, most of which fail WP:NFT; and a zillion sex-among-seniors websites that offer nothing encyclopedic; but this topic can be covered encyclopedically. Why will people fight so hard to keep an uncited, unverified bio of their favorite porn star, but refuse to improve a useless substub about a much more significant aspect of sexuality?? Barno 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now this I can agree with. Start all over using the links added by Uncle G and then expand and make sure that happens. To show I mean what I say I will even offer to start if others help out. Alle we need is a half decent short article to get things started. As for the latter part of your comment... have you ever thought about the correlation between the number of 18 year old boys here and the amount of gamecruft and articles on porn? MartinDK 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have expanded this article. I'm not sure if it warrents a keep, but all votes before mine might need to be discounted, as the page is now very different. I have expanded the article to twice its previous size.Sharkface217 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twice as big now... 2 x 0 = ? --T-rex 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not convinced by your expansion. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, clean it up, make it encyclopedic and useful for research. The collection we see there is not even at the level of a tabloid Alf photoman 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its present form is admittedly very low on content. However, I think the topic is an important one that should be addressed in Wikipedia. Sexual behaviour in the elderly is a taboo and marginalised concept that deserves to be in the mainstream. The article could easily be expanded and include a discussion of the change that the availability of 'Viagra' etc. has brought to this area. It is also an area seeing more coverage e.g. in films like "Something's Gotta Give".WJBscribe 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was tried last year and did not work, see the previous AFD. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think its worth another shot. Is it possible to set a realistic time period for the improvement of the article? By the end of the is AfD (suggested below) is rather short notice. The very fact of the AfD will draw attention (as it has mine) to the state of the article and progress is likely. The further reading and links already show availability of material to expand the article. WJBscribe 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK in light of comments I have had a go at expanding the article. I think the new structure demonstrates the potential for this being a very strong article. Obviously what's there needs further referencing, but thought I would make a start. What do people think? WJBscribe 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think we are starting to have a decent article. You are right that we need more sources and I will try to find some later today. A simple search on Google gave a truckload of hits so it really shouldn't be so difficult to do. It is not like we are trying to do a FA class article in 5 days, just a decent article worth keeping and expanding. MartinDK 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite FA-quality yet, but good enough not to be deleted. Changed to keep, but please continue your expansion/improvement of this article. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded by the end of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep. Article has apparently been considerably expanded and reliable sources added since nomination - nomination reasons no longer apply (was: no content, no context). Sex beyond menopause is one of the features distinguishing humans from afaik all other animals (possible exception bonobo?), therefore an important topic of evolutionary biology and anthropology. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been expanded to the point where it is obvious this is a viable and referenced topic. pschemp | talk 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loraine Jarblum

[edit]
Loraine Jarblum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable editor who does not meet WP:BIO. Related article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (Bill) Jarblum. There are also WP:COI concerns. Eluchil404 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Movie Studio

[edit]
Virtual Movie Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

half not notable; half vanity article Shallowminded 09:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Simulation Video Games

[edit]
Ant Simulation Video Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hopeless non-notable original research. Basically a list of 3 games and an attempt at original research. The fact that someone found enough excitement in Simant to write an entire article about it is disturbing enough. We don't need yet another article trying to analyze this niche of video games. MartinDK 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Music Hall of Fame

[edit]
Long Island Music Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion for spam was overturned at WP:DRV [34] and is now here for full consideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created by an account with no other purpose. WP:SPAM. Wikifying the article does not make it any less spam, unverified or non-notable. Keep The article has been properly sourced now and looks much better. Thanks for proving me wrong, maybe I should use that as motivation more often! MartinDK 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was already planning on updating it per my comments in the DRV. Proving you wrong was just a fortunate side effect. *Spark* 22:14, 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 Delete.--Húsönd 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World (language)

[edit]
World (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Estoeric computer programming language based on Brainfuck invented by a 16 year old. Previously deleted in AfD. Delete per precedent. Doesn't even warrant a redirect to Brainfuck, if you ask me. Ohconfucius 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm only closing the debate; someone else performed the delete. →Bobby← 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Capel

[edit]
Pierre Capel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity article by non-notable editor, article name same as author name. Fit to be speedied, but following process... DeLarge 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words (P!nk Song)

[edit]
Words (P!nk Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the old days of the 45 RPM, this would have been known as a "B-side". In itself not notable. Delete per WP:SONG. Ohconfucius 10:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' - clearly the one thing that is shown from all the below, is that there is no consensus to delete - thus keep.  Glen  19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

[edit]
Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article fails Wikipedia:No original research, and is fancruft. A collection of conjectured aspects. The article has (cough) "references", but the references are merely points to mentions in fancruft, or spin off fiction (perhaps an author mentioned a rank of "Master Chief Petty Officer of the Starfleet" in one book, and that's therefore justification for conjecturing a rank, where the rank lies, and designing a badge for the conjectured and non-canon rank). The article even states, in one section that "The following are several variations of Admiralty insignia, as proposed in fanon sources of the Star Trek Expanded Universe". It's full of weasel terms and original work (classic weasel phrases such as "... it is plausible that ...", "... may be explained by ..." and "It has been also speculated that ..." Completely original research, much of it badly referenced (if at all) and unverified. Delete. Proto::type 11:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of ranks in Battlefield 2 WP:OR, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and nom. Don'f forget to delete those fair use images, too. MER-C 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP (with a cleanup/expansion of article) This article is enourmously referenced and contains no less than 17 directly cited sources for the ranks contained within. For that reason ALONE, one cannot seriously talk about deleting it since it is very clearly not original research and provides reference material to back up the claim. The ranks mentioned have also appeared in countless books, manuals, and comic books with some (like Branch Admiral) making live action apperances. In addition, this is but a section of the muc larger article on Starfleet ranks and was sub-paged since that article is getting too long. Perhaps a cleanup is needed, but certianly not a deletion on an article which has been worked on for over a year by several different users. I also invite voters to view the AfD debate on Starfleet ranks which resulted in an overwhealming "Keep" vote.
  • Comment On looking at other AfD, it seems to have been based on different concerns — they weren't worried about original research, they were worried about notability. All the info the other article contains is from official sources. It does link some fan sites, but as useful resources, not as references. So I don't think it sets a precedent for this article. Demiurge 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources aren't enough, they must be reliable sources. "Conjectural", "speculated", "it is plausible", "suggests that", "fanon sources" means that unfortunately this subject is not suitable for an encyclopædia article. (Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into it though, so why don't you submit it at the Star Trek wiki?) Demiurge 11:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources look pretty reliable and actually most of them fit the definition of "primary sources" on the very page you reference. Pocket books novels are the main source, followed by at least two live action productions where these insignia apperaed, not to mention material from FASA roleplaying which is considered quite well referenced. -Husnock 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are the published sources non-trivial? In other words, do they actually have significant coverage of the rank, or do they just mention that some redshirt holds it, or show them on-screen with the insignia? Demiurge 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without getting too deep into it, some ranks which are heavily referenced are Flag Admiral, Fleet captain (Star Trek), Commodore (Star Trek) with those holding no less than 8 to 10 mentions in Pocket books and FASA manuals. "Second Lieuenant Commander" is a costume error which appeared on the show and Branch Admiral is visable as being worn by DeForest Kelly in Encounter at Farpoint and also mentioned in FASA roleplaying. The "alternate rank pins" are from several sources, such as comic books and tech manuals covering material over a 20 year period. Hey, I am not saying this article couldn't use a major cleanup and some really good ext (I would do that if I had time), just to delete it...that seems like destroying other people's hard work espeically when we went to the trouble to source and reference everything. -Husnock 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But you're using these references - and of the ones I could check, they just seem to be trivial mentions rather than articles / books / sections discussing these ranks - to construct a conjecture of what each rank means, and what its place is in the Star Trek universe. That is original research, which the article is comprised of, from top to tail, and will always be, due to the inherent nature of the topic. Proto::type 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There maybe sources but this is an encyclopedia not a Star Trek fan site. Debaser23 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not really a valid reason to delete an article. You admit it has sources, but state it shouldn't be on here because this isn't a Star Trek fan site, but there are hundreds of other Star Trek articles as well as numerous Star Wars articles as well. -Husnock 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You are right there are lots of other Star Trek pages which are probably equally irrelevant. As I said before this is no fan site it is an encyclopedia and surely this can be merged into anotehr article rather than having its own page. Debaser23 11:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title is unfortunate, and some of the material could be salvaged into a "non-canon" section for the Starfleet ranks and insignia article. However, overall it's largely WP:OR. It's worth pointing out that one editors who was upset that Warrant officer (Star Trek) was deleted for WP:OR copy-and-pasted that deleted article into this one. --EEMeltonIV 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be noted that he had permission to do that after the article was undeleted. He turned it into a redirect towards this article to avoid a problem with people who didnt want the article recreated (I also believe it was you who nominated the Warrant Officer article for deletion). -Husnock 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Writen sources are not original research. --Cat out 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination is self conrtradictory. He agrees that article is sourced (and the material isn't from some fansite but instead from the book creative staff of the show). --Cat out 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this qualifies to be "speedy kept", see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Demiurge 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cat, I am not arguing that the article is not sourced. It is. But the sources are for points of fact which the article uses to conjecture a multitude of fanon Starfleet ranks, and how they relate, both to one another and with the canon ranks. The synthesis of material for your own original work is original research. Did you even bother to read the nomination? Proto::type 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fannon if notable is acceptable. The insignia mentioned here is from sources like star trek encyclopedia, a semi-cannon source. The ranks never appeared on the show itself but instead appeared on novels. Something mass published like a trek tech manual meets wikipedias notability criteria. NOR cannot apply since its sourced. Cannon/noncannon is not a deletion criteria. The novels were not written by some random fan on a forum keep that in mind. --Cat out 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. We already have 18 separate articles on canonical Star Trek ranks and insignia (see Category:Star_Trek_ranks. This is a non-canon, conjectural article with unreliable sourcing. And what's wrong with the Memory Alpha wiki - that's where this stuff belongs. Wikipedia is not fan website host. Bwithh 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedias deletion criteria is not based on cannon. The number of articles there are is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with memory alpha, however its existance is not a deletion criteria. It would be vanity to have an article per conjectural rank however.

      The actual cited sources are not some random fansite instead ranks are from star trek encyclopedia and other tech manuals which are written by people who design the ranks themselves.

      --Cat out 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per EEMeltonIV above, the useful material can be merged into Starfleet ranks and insignia. I agree that there is too much speculative fancruft here for a notable separate article, in spite of the extensive sourcing, for some of the external "verification" relied upon here is itself far removed from primary material. Darcyj 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Negative. This article was broken out of that article because it got too large. As it stands article is above 32k limit and thats not counting images. --Cat out 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, there is way too much material. This level of detail, on a subject three-times removed from primary sources, does not belong in Wikipedia. Take it to Memory Alpha, and place a link in the Wikipedia article mentioned above. Darcyj 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: I must state that the motivation for this deletion appears to be over a previous VfD which was undeleted, with the nominator stating that this prompted the deletion nomination on this article. This very much appears like an effort to delete the parent article since the sub-article was undeleted and the nominator had an issue with this. If so, this entire VfD should be cancelled as there appears to be conflicting interests at work here. -Husnock 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd say there was a clear conflict of interests here. On one side, we have people trying to improve the encyclopedia. One the other, we have people trying to insert crap like this (not merely aspects of a fictional universe, but conjectured aspects, no less). The two positions cannot be reconciled. Either we're writing an encyclopedia, or we're indiscriminately collecting conjectured aspects of a fictional universe. I know, it's a tough call. Hint: one of our absolute non-negotiable word-of-Jimbo überpolicies might be applicable here. Chris cheese whine 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you're calling this article "crap"? Want to take shots at those who worked on it too? Perhaps another policy to review is Wikipedia:Civility -Husnock 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you're an administrator yourself, Husnock, you will be, of course, au fait with other policies such as WP:NOR, and WP:AGF, yet you seem to be choosing to ignore them. Proto::type 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already stated that this isnt original research since it has 17 sources cited, but others seem to be ignoring that. As far a good faith, its hard to do when an article this well documented and researched is blasted with a deletion vote with this many people slamming it. And, I have never called an article *names* or said any article is "crap". That is just uncalled for. -Husnock 13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As has already been stated, the sources aren't realiable, and the material analyses them, but you seem to be ignoring that. PS- You forgot your Spiderman costume. Chris cheese whine 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sure you would take things seriously, too, if an article over a year in the making was this badly blasted, this quickly, then someone showed up and called it crap. Yet another policy to review is: kicking people when they're down. No matter, I have plans to rebuild this from the ashes into a proper article. -Husnock 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Husnock, you clearly do not understand. It could have a million sources, a billion sources, and could still be original research, no matter how many times you state it is not - please, read what other people are writing. A synthesis of references to achieve your own conjecture is original research. Read the policy; you have now been provided with the link a good twenty times. As for 'uncalled for', you have, of course, referred to me as a 'joker' [35], and questioned every delete voter's good faith [36], but we'll let those slide. Proto::type 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I stated on the noticeboard and the talk page here that my intent was to discuss what opinions are available if one feels that an article has been unfairly nominated for deletion. And as for a joker, thats never been on my list of vulgar names, but it was and is withdrawn just as you withdrew calling me a crufateer above [37]. You are going to win this, anyway, the article will be deleted. I hope you're happy. Congratulations. -Husnock 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Conjectural ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in a live action Star Trek production", i.e. this is original research. The fact that there are many references does not disprove the claim that this is original research ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"), the opposite really, if it weren't original research it would only be necessary to cite a handful of sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article begins, "Conjectural ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in a live action Star Trek production". Fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed? Please! The nomination seems to em to be perfectly accurate: this is a textbook example of the type of novel synthesis which is banned by policy and explicitly stated as being a key reason for that policy. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed a point. The universe includes more than just films and television shows. It includes books, too. The article says that although the ranks have not appeared in a live action Star Trek production, they have appeared in books, such as novels and technical manuals. Uncle G 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trek fan here, but c'mon, Guy said it well just above: "fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed"?! Take it to Memory Alpha. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The title says it all "conjectural" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the way in which the article is written clearly violates WP:OR and WP:RS. The article basically not only states it's own conjectural nature but even has comments with sources where the SOURCES say they're making this up, conjecturing, speculating, and extrapolating. Husnock is violating WP:POINT if he claims this doesn't violate those policies, and clearly has a sense of ownership that is disturbing to see in an admin. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying I'm disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? To quote from the very policy you cite: If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do state your case on AfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples. don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it. I am trying to fight for this article since noone else well. This isnt article ownership (Coolcat has worked on it more than I have) and it certianly isnt "contemptable" as you stated to my inquiry on the noticeboard [38] (which was a valid question...what does one do during a vote if they feel it is unfair...and now I have my answer: nothing, wait untill its over). -Husnock 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting read with a lot of supposition, but WP:OR does not a good article make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. Recury 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic OR synthesis--relies on novels (primary sources), but then makes "conjectures" based on those; fancruft. JChap2007 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? The novels feature the rank. the technical manuals display the insignia. Novels are not fancruft but instead primary sources as you ppoint out. --Cat out 14:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cat, we've lost this one. I have an idea to rebuild the material into a proper Wikipedia article that will not be orginial research but it will take a great deal of time to accomplish. -Husnock 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an example of what I'm talking about, the first rank mentioned is warrant officer. This entry is based on an insignia on one character's shirt collar, followed by conjecture (with no sources) on what rank he might be. This is classic OR synthesis (relying on a primary source and then drawing conclusions based on that source). This method is pursued throughout the article and is its fatal flaw. Also, I'm calling the article, not the novels, fancruft. Normally I try to avoid such terms but as this seems a classic case. JChap2007 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'm not sure what is more ludicrous, this article or Husnock bringing this AfD to the Admin Noticeboard, as if there was some vast conspiracy at work to get rid of his precious article which required the attention of administrators. This is simply a shameful action to be undertaken by an admin. There's a good reason the title of this article contains the word "conjectural," and it's that- no matter how many references there are- this is still original research. It's also extreme fancruft with very low notability. -- Kicking222 15:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already explained at least three times that I had a question about what someone could do if they felt an article was being unfairly nominated and if any action could be taken during the vote. I posted to the talk page here to let everyone know I had these concerns. The question was answered and the matter is closed. -Husnock 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like an issue to bring up on the deletion discussion page. --EEMeltonIV 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to remove WP:OR. That should end up with a stub that goes no further than its sources and still says something about what is a verifiable phenomenon (some people like to conjecture about Star Trek insignia for some reason). But as this is not a very notable phenomenon, it doesn't need its own article. Once rewritten, merge back into the Star Trek canon article or a canon section of the Starfleet ranks and insignia article (it will fit if it is made small enough - the large version of the article doesn't belong at Wikipedia). Carcharoth 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just dont understand you people. One day you declare the show itself an unacceptable source and declare sources like star trek encyclopedia acceptable, the other day you say the exact opposite. make up your mind. --Cat out 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (no vote) I RVed back Betacommands (sorry, the reclosure was Bastique) RV to reclose. Procedural: complete AFD period. Incivility is not (that I am aware) grounds for closure. (Apologies for using RV but was faster.) RJFJR 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Star Trek is a major cultural phenomenon, and whether or not the novels and fannish scholarly apparatus are considered canonical or not, they pertain to a fictional universe of sufficient notability to support an article like this one. The word "conjectural" in the title might be confusing at first but the nature of the sources is sufficiently explained in the article, including the opening paragraph. Newyorkbrad 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BRad, noone's denying the validity of the sources, nor are the denying the notability of such facts. The issue is that these facts are then extrapolated into constructing a series of conjectures about what these ranks could be. This is the purpose of the article, which makes the article in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy on original research. Proto::type 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOR is not applicable to this particular article which is imminently sourceable and certainly worth maintaining. We don't delete articles such as this, we make them better. Bastiq▼e demandez 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR is applicable to every article. Every article needs to be properly sourced, and demonstrate that other people have done the research, and that we don't have to repeat it to verify it. There are no exceptions (THIS MEANS YOU!). Chris cheese whine 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. In addition, Betacommand should be strongly censured for attempted perversion of the AfD process. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is not a RS if we cant source the fiction that created the subject then why even ever have an encyclopedia? If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written? without research we have two options for creating articles, 1. copypaste then from some where else. 2. just summarize one other page. I agree that this article needs a re-write, but since when is an article that needs help deleted? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I will explain the why this article should be closed.
    • 1. the (cough) "references" in the nom point to contempt for the writers of this article.
    • 2. merely points to mentions in fancruft, or spin off fiction clearly shows that they do not understand that the non TV fiction is completely valid and some of those elements have had a major impact on the star trek universe.
    • 3. the sources of the star trek books may not be "cannonal" but that only means that they were not adopted into the official time line. but yes some research may be needed if you want to check those sources. but since when have books been OR?
    • 4. some of the users that are trying to get this deleted are the same that tried to delete Warrant officer (Star Trek) which was over turned
    • 5. (this just came up) I am starting to become suspicious of your motives. since WHEN is it a bad Idea to IMPROVE articles instead of deleteing them
Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to bury the hatchet with some of these users but I have to say I kind of agree with you, Beta. The original nomination really sounded to me like :I dont like this article so lets delete it" and thus ignored the work and sourcing that has gone into it. I am *trying* to do a rewrite but it will take longer than the 5 days this article has. Thanks, though, for telling us how you feel. -Husnock 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A description of ranks used in notable books, et al, but not in the TV shows or films would seem okay, but this quickly degenerates into being a compilation of speculation. Some have said it's not OR because it compiles other people's speculation, but it's still just a collection of imaginative hypotheses about things that don't actually exist, which doesn't sound very encyclopedic. --Walor 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep Our job is not to delete articles such as this just because someone feels there is other source inof that may overlap, but rather to build on them and make them better. We have sourced material and clearly well thought out . Seeing as how Star Trek is such a cultural phenomon a page such as this can be quite helpful and encycpledic. Why do I get the feeling that some people simply have their panties in a bunch?

I second Betacommand “If a user does not do some research how can an encyclopedia be written”? By deleating such things you are no better than the rabble rousers who burned books simply because they didn’t see any value in them. KEEP KEEP KEEP Mystar 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - agreed. And moving the page has obscured this to some degree. The current artcile is "alternate" ranks and insignia, but the original title made it too obvious that this was all orignial research with the name conjectural ranks and insignia. -- Whpq 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could not find any reliable sources for the majority of assertions made in this article. Such speculation belongs on the Star Trek Wiki. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a lot of heat in this one and not so much light. I do not buy the OR charge or the V charge, this material is adequately sourced. Arguing for deletion on those grounds is flawed, in my view, sorry... But I nevertheless have my doubts about whether this is a keep, because I'm not seeing this as of general interest in a general purpose encyclopedia. This certainly could go to Memory Alpha, they take stuff from here all the time, IF they want it. If THEY don't want it, maybe we don't either. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm more than satisfied with the validity of the subject and the sources. We need more articles like this if we want to serve the general interest of readers of a general purpose encyclopedia. --JJay 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject may (or may not) be valid - this is not the question at hand. The sources may (or may not) be valid - this is not the question at hand. Whether the article is original research is the question at hand (and I believe that it is). Your keep !vote completely fails to address the concerns of the nomination. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original-research-o-rama -- the point about sources, which seems to have escaped many, is that they should be referencing the specific claims and not being used to prop up claims being made by the article author: "Source X says Thing Y", not "Thing Y, because I believe that's implied by Source X". And then there's the what Guy said, "Fictional ranks which do not even exist in the fictional universe in which they are portrayed?" Oy. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All the images on the article are from the cited sources. The ranks do exist in the fictional universe, just not canon. --Cat out 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I'm a Star Trek fan, I like fancruft articles, and I recently (within the past week) had an article I created "Speedy Delete"d because 11 albums weren't enough to be a notable artist. (These are things that would lead me to vote for keeping this article.) But, this article is reaching even for fancruft. Val42 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as originaly synthesis of information. I think Calton may have said it best, although in a somewhat sarcastic manner. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR per Calton, Arthur Rubin, et al. I don't see anything to merge but the main Star Fleet ranks article should certainly not be limited to canonical ranks (if they can be properly sourced). Eluchil404 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are properly sourced. WP:OR CANT apply. Star Fleet ranks article is too large so the article was arbitrarily broken apart into two, one being this. --Cat out 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary edit point

[edit]
  • Delete. Friday's point is quite valid. This article can only ever be original research. I'm a Star Trek fan as well, but come on, this is ridiculous. Sourcing sucks- while there are many references, one reference admits that it's mainly conjecture, and most are to a single roleplaying manual that is going to consist of original research. That leaves just a few non-controversial references that don't apply to the meat of the article. Transwiki to Memory Alpha, or nuke the thing- either way, it doesn't fit our policies. Ral315 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is someone elses published original research which becomes a valid source. All articles are based on someone elses original research (there needs to be a study by someone). CIA world factbook for instance is original research by the CIA. This is exactly what Original research is not:
    WP:OR in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
    All the insignia presented (pictures) has been published in the reputable sourced material. I have not made them up on my own. This article is not a featured article so there is room for major improvement.
    We have lots of articles on non-cannon trek such as Star Trek: The Animated Series (which isnt even semi-cannon unlike tech manuals used in this article) or the the armada of novels writen by a variety of authors. None of which is fancruft but instead non-cannon publication.
    The creative staff that worked for the show (who wrote the sourced books) are definately NOT random 'fans'... So the entire 'fan-constructs' argument really has no basis.
    --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was wondering when someone would get around to proposing these for deletion: they are pure fan-constructs. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. This is perhaps more appropriate to Memory Alpha than Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Memory alpha focuses on cannon to my knowledge. The license of my work is GFDL, Memory Alphas license is fair use and hence is not compatible. This is NOT original research. --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research synthesis of non-notable material. -- Alan McBeth 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this article is sourced pretty well, a lot more than some of the other articles that we have. However, if the consenus is to delete the article, then would it be feasible to beam this over to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Incompatible license. They do fair use we do gfdl. --Cat out 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "fair use" license, but I have no idea what "Memory Alpha"'s licensing terms are. Regardless, a Star Trek specific project may be where this sort of stuff should go. Jkelly 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They use the Cc-by-nc-2.5 license (attribution non-commercial). Not entirely fair use, since you don't need to rationalise use of the material if you're not making a profit off of it, but not free enough for Wikipedia. Which I believe was a major factor in choosing the licence, since they didn't want to be just another Wikipedia fork. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the general sentiment of the past few contributors. This is largely an OR synthesis of sparse sources, and even where properly sourced, a list of ranks that are fictional even in relation to a fictional universe is just not a proper (read: notable) subject matter for a general-interest encyclopedia unless such ranks have a compelling case for notability (substantial media coverage, etc.), which is absent here. Also, what's with this nonsense of messing around with this AfD? Sandstein 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - re-adding a comment I made further up the page, in case it hasn't been noticed in all the noise here: "[This] is a verifiable phenomenon (some people like to conjecture about Star Trek insignia for some reason). But as this is not a very notable phenomenon, it doesn't need its own article. Once rewritten, merge back into the Star Trek canon article or a canon section of the Starfleet ranks and insignia article (it will fit if it is made small enough - the large version of the article doesn't belong at Wikipedia)." I would be interested to hear what the defenders of this article think about this. Carcharoth 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I create a rank insignia for a TV show it becomes notable even if the rank appears for a few frames. But if I create a rank insignia for for the tens of books written then it becomes non-notable? --Cat out 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If a rank is created in a Star Trek book, then that can be noted. If an insignia design is given in a book somewhere, then that can be noted as well. If someone writes about a rank insignia appearing in a Star Trek show or film, then that can be noted somewhere. If a website writes lots about different actual and theorised Star Trek insignia, that can be noted somewhere. The insignia can be covered to a certain degree, but the real thing that a Wikipedia article should be focussing on is why this topic is important enough to warrant an article. What impact has this topic had on society in general? Who has written about this topic and why? If no-one bothers to write about it, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Does that help? Carcharoth 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - apparently Memory Alpha is not suitable. How about Memory Beta? Carcharoth 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe the article needs tidying up and some outright speculation removed, but it doesn't need to be deleted. In a lot of cases, if something is non-canon then it's non-notable, but I don't think that's the case with Star Trek - there is so much non-canon information, and some of it is very well known, and I think it's notable in it's own right. The only reason to delete it left is it being badly sourced, but that's not a good reason - we delete articles that aren't sourced at all and can't be sourced, we don't delete articles just because they're not well sourced at the moment. --Tango 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And make better. The Wiki "Death Penalty" this article does not deserve. Jenolen speak it! 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No valid reason for keeping. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please see commentaries by bastique and phil boswell this is not original research and has many good sources too Yuckfoo 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not original research? Please back this claim. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki to Memory Alpha this IS sourced... but with written materials. It's not original research or conjecture, it is a compilation of speculative material from various published sources.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major rework There are several sections of that article that I believe should go:
- Admiral's insignia section: conjecture on an outside website is still conjecture.
- Ranks made by a pin company: If such insignia haven't been shown in a comprehensive work like the Star Trek Encyclopedia, I'm suspicious... it seems like Krusty-branding something for a quick buck.
- Costume errors: I do NOT want to see that level of detail in Wikipedia articles. Would you want a Wikipedia article on a certain war movie to show a picture of a background officer's decorations, then spend a paragraph describing how certain ribbons are in the wrong order?
Those sections do not meet the article's own standards of "have been mentioned so frequently in literature and fan sources". Some of the other ranks and insignia in the article have a certain level of authenticity, being mentioned in novels or official publications. But leaving the bad sections there brings down the credibility of the whole article. Quack 688 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the article is credible, as it's inherently comprised of conjecture. Reducing to non-original research would leave us with a list of 17 links to occasional references to (mainly non-canon) ranks; many of the links are internal anyway, which is self referencing. Proto::type 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Self referance? You seem to be most confused today. Those links are to EPISODES and BOOKS. There happen to be articles about them but the linked article is NOT the source. --Cat out 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Five of the references are to Wikipedia articles. For example, reference 1, which discusses the non-canon badge of a Lieutenant Commander, is to In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode) (the second part). This article then contains no mention, at all, of the Lieutenant Commander rank. The episode itself, as far as I can tell from the synopsises I went through ([39], [40], and [41] (and its sublinks)) make no mention of an alternate Lieutenant Commander rank/insignia. So there is clearly conjecture as to the nature of this rank, what it means, etc. I only checked this one in great detail, but a brief run through the others doesn't suggest they are much different. Proto::► 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not care about star trek site, or the wikipedia article about the episode. In the actual episode the mirror (our) Hoshi Sato is said in dialog "to retire from starfleet with the rank of Lieutenant commander". This information is acquired from the database of the future defiant captured by Tholians in the (evil) mirror universe. That is in dialog and her bio is actually put on screen (there was in fact a post-production commentary about it). I can go into greater detail if you like. So the rank did exist by the time of her retire. However we do not know if the rank existed prior. Hence it is not necessarily canon. --Cat out 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mainly non-canon" and "many of the links are internal" implies that some of them are valid. We need to look at these ranks, keep the ones based on official sources and remove the rest. Whether the valid ones stay on this page afterwards, or be merged into the main ranks page, is another question - that depends on how many are left. But you don't need to delete the good ones to get to the bad ones - use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Quack 688 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Some of the admiral insignia presented there is cannon. Contrast with Starfleet ranks and insignia
    The admiral rank insignia on the linked fan page references star trek encyclopedia. Fan site is there for our conviniance. I agree with you that there needs to be better citation for all that. As for other stuff... Best to discuss those on article talk page. :) --Cat out 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the ST Encyclopedia really have four different versions of original series flag officer insignia? Sounds damn messy if it does. Re: those fan sites (refs 18 & 19 in the article) - I had a look there, and didn't see any mention of their sources - but if they're from the ST Encyclopedia, that's what should be listed as the reference. Since you've got the images in the table here already, there's no need to reference fan sites which show the same insignia.
Based on the comments made here, you'll need to remove all the speculative content if you want the page to survive in any form. (I've known abusive commissioned officers and warrant officers - Kosinski's "disrespect to superior officers" isn't enough to base any claims on where he fits in, or what the next insignia above and below him are. ) Quack 688 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. I believe there are different competing sources. There are three versions of star trek encyclopedia. Each updated and sometimes existing data is altered. There are also star trek tech manuals and etc. I believe it is from that kind of citation. I do not posses all the books linked there. Husnock owns all of the books (including the ones I do not have) but unfortunately he is currently deployed and is far away from all his resources. If anyone else has the cited books that would make it easier.
Yes, well... I really want to keep article related discussion at its talk page... Can we please do that :) Afd is an unconfortable place to discuss this.
--Cat out 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lee Green

[edit]
Deborah Lee Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Dasternberg 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Individual appears to be non-notable. Search engine results show very few that match the individual, the large majority of edits to the page come from one non-member, thus this appears to be a vanity article. I found one page that mentioned the subject's name in a list of nearly 100 "good sopranos" today, otherwise there was nothing to be found. In addition, as has already been noted at the top of the article itself, very few Wikipedia articles (perhaps none?) link to this one. Strong delete.[reply]

I don't know too much about opera, or the classical music scene in the USA, but this certainly reads as if it is describing an accomplished and notable performer. Unfortunately, it also reads as if it is a magazine/newspaper profile and I'm concerned there may be a copyvio here. I will hold back from voting until someone else can attest to notability (for example, are the orchestras named notable?) Emeraude 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For information: Just googled Deborah Lee Green -Wikipedia: 7 unique hits, including 1 wikipedia clone, 1 that merely says she is from the state and 5 apparently irrelevant. Emeraude 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This reads like a copyvio from the performer's biography, and in violation of WP:COI. For notability, I'd like to see evidence of solo roles with major US companies; The Met, New York City, San Francisco, Houston, Santa Fe, Chicago are ones that come to mind. At the moment there are no sources for her career; links to reviews of her performances would help to establish notability. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:58, 3
  • Keep and rewrite Obviously needs to be at least rewritten, but worth keeping. StayinAnon 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no recordings available of her work. There is no mention of her in the Factiva database (all English-language newspapers for the last 20 years searched). There is no web-presence apart from this page and its clones. Clearly, she is not notable. DrKiernan 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bpmullins and DrKiernan. WMMartin 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a shred of evidence to back up any claim of notability. Reads like vanity piece. Glendoremus 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mookin man

[edit]
Mookin man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A musician of whose albums google hasn't heard of[42][43] and whose most famous work was a single distributed on a magazine sampler CD. Doesn't appear to approach WP:BAND, no sources, no google presence[44]. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea mallow

[edit]
Sea mallow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is a hoax at best. google:"Tunnocks+Sea+Mallow" produces 0 ghits, "Walter+Pinkerton"+mallow & "sea+mallow"+scotland are all single figures}} - Tiswas(t/c) 12:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD G11 - blatant advertising, heavily external-linked, to chain of unrelated and non-notable local businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mengyuan

[edit]
Mengyuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatant Spam Euwetr 12:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Dish

[edit]
We Are The Dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn album Ladybirdintheuk 12:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strathycruise

[edit]
Strathycruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable website, article more advertising in tone JamJar 12:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large pathetic galaxy

[edit]
Large pathetic galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Informal definition; Practically the only references I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia and a single news story. Rampart 13:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — While it does seem like an informal name, it is verified at a reliable external source (CNN, although the link is now dead), and is also currently mentioned at Underground News. Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be a formal name, but once there is this page can be moved and a redirect left in its place. --DeLarge 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I consider CNN to be prety reliable, and the articles information was somehwat interesting. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is an unofficial, recently created term, and only used by a few groups, isn't that by definition a violation of WP:NEO? Koweja 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think if the galaxy's name was a string of random characters, it wouldn't be in AFD. I think the existance and verifiability of this galaxy is barely but sufficiently established by sources, however, calling it a "pathetic" in the title is clearly NPOV and not suitable even for a temporary name. hateless 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article referenced only says, Robert Lupton of Princeton University, whose team discovered the big, dim feature, called it a "large pathetic galaxy" with a mass comparable to a cluster of stars, much less than the Milky Way. it is unclear if this name is used by the wider astronomy community. At most the fact that a group of stars are in the process of being incorporated into the Milky Way could be said in the Milky Way article. Also, this article faces the problem that has little potential to ever be more than a stub. WJBscribe 01:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The press release linked to by the article appears to identify the object described in this Astrophysical Journal paper. This may correspond to an object listed in the SIMBAD database as "[BDS2003] 122", although I do not think that can be used as a real scientific name. I suggest that someone reads the Astrophysical Journal paper and update the article accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above ––30sman 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WJBScribe. A descriptive phrase isn't an article.DGG 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the problem seems to be that we've got something notable (as per CNN), but that doesn't actually have a name yet, and the article has to be called something. This doesn't seem to be to be a reason to delete. --ais523 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The key point of the referenced article is that Lupton called it "a" LPG. There is no implication that he was naming it "the" LPG. Accordingly, I judge this a description of an object, rather than a name, and therefore feel we should Delete. WMMartin 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (article + category).--Húsönd 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serb war criminals

[edit]
List of Serb war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Voice your opinion (19/0/1)

Part of soapboxing crusade by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (supposedly the same as User:Bosoni?) A racial POV-fork of List of ICTY indictees, obviously with a strong political point. One way or another, it is accompanied with Category:Serb war criminals so they should go or stay in pair. Duja► 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know wether user Duja has mobilized serb nationalist for this ridiculous vote, or if these supposedly non-serbian voters actually are serbs hiding behind wikipedia accounts. No matter what, you are all voting for the removal of a page listing devilish people - and in doing so you do not less than support them! Some call this page POV just because it lists? It's unbelievable - well it wasn't me or any other editor that killed the children or women which earned the criminals a place on the list of serb criminals. Becasue of your scandalous denial and the belief that commited war crimes should be hidden away and forgotten, your deeds will be answered with consequences. I'm sure these consequences allready are present in your lifes to an extent - how can anyone who votes for denial feel good inside their damaged souls? But like I said time will catch up with anyone who does so. Truth always prevails and those who work against it will regret it deeply with time. The moral equivalence that wikipedia's extremely amateuristic writers are trying to follow is horrible, being neutral does not apply when it comes to choosing between the evil and good side, anyone who thinks so automatically has chosen the evil side. Being equivalent in the Bosnian "war" (aggression!), is like being neutral and equivalent to the Holocaust of Jews. We are talking about peaceful human beings killed by humans possesed by evil forces - and you are neutral?, well keep on dreaming..neutral is the last thing you are. I and every peace loving man or women whish you no good, for people like you are the reason of war and misery, sorry but that is the truth - it's an evil path you have choosen for yourselves. My suggestion to you is to try to save yourselves before it is to late and you will regret all you bad acts. (This will probably be removed sooner than I wrote it, obviously another example of denial and injustice. People you are letting criminals get away with the killing of small boys and girls! Where is the love? Ancient Land of Bosoni
    • All these items already exist on a list which gives more details. You have given no reason to split the Serbs off from the rest of the list. You may want to also see WP:AGF. Many of the users here (such as myself) are giving are opinions based on policy considerations and are not "serbs hiding behind wikipedia accounts." You may also want to see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as well. Also note that I've removed the bolding of your statement since it was disruptive and unnecessary. JoshuaZ 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess there's a justification now to add "Serb genocide denialist cabal" to WP:ROUGE and WP:LOC? Duja► 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ICTY-list contains all ethnicities, although serbs make up 95% of the list. We need to recognize that the serb army was much more systematic in killing and crimes than the other armies involved in the conflict - because of this the war criminals belonging to the serb army deserve a list of their own, if nothing else at least because of their huge quantity. Ancient Land of Bosoni

....Correction:Serbs are Gods, they can practically do anything and get away with it, including killing the swedish minster of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh - and have the guts to call it menatl illnes when it was clearly a case of political murder. So what I'm trying to say is, since the serbs are our Gods and all mighty I've realized that it is okey for them to delete this list. I vote for strong delete, and I've had it with you =) Ancient Land of Bosoni

This is all nonsense an to a great deal POV from the users who want to delete the article.

The users who are pro-deletion know that the ordinary "Joe Smith" does not know how o access the categories and overlooks it. Deleting the article for the list is abusrud since less people will look at it.

Now you may ask why a list if we already have a category? Besides the point I stated above looking at a list is easier. Also it is easier to come to the page and easier to search.

You may say that it is repetivie, then tell me why so many other articles are like this that start "list..." on many different language wikipedias.

Looking at this, then Wikipedia has too many redundant articles. It is a shame so many have to get deleted now.

Deleting this based on that it is repetivitive is nonsense. So far no one has stated a good reason for the deletion. Why would anyone try to hide the truth if they are criminals? This has nothing to do with their nationaility. The point is to put out the men who did these attrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a positive motive. Thank you, Vseferović 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aldux they have been indictied and most of them sentenced. This list is neutral and not POV. No one is trying to put in false information. Unless you do not believe in the "world", as some do, justly accusing them for war crimes. Thank you, Vseferović 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if you guys are simply trying to do is to vote in order to get your points out trying to convice others like these users. Can't you see that no one has tried to moblize votes against the deletion. The point is votes so not work as Estavisti has shown when we tried to vote against the redundant template Municipalities of RS. He told me Wikipedia is not a democracy. If we take his point into consideration then voting does nothing. (It stated in Wiki policy). Simply being inflamatory is not a reason. Explain how it would offend anyone? It states the war criminals it is not implying that all serbs are criminals. (A lot of military generals did cause autrocities). Please explain further. Thank you, Vseferović 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to launch a crusade deleting this list will not make it go away. This is one of the things that will pop up again and again. We should have a guideline that controversial and inflamatory information of this type should be only published under peer revision and edits be suggested to a neutral committee who approves or disaproves the edits prior to be on public view. Alf photoman 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I'm accused of being partisan one way or the other on this issue, let me say that I'm simply concerned with the encyclopaedic nature of this entry. Firstly, there is only one page which links to it, Bosniak a word I had never heard of until now so I would never have gone there and so never followed the link. If I was interested in finding a list of Serb war criminals, I certainly wouldn't start by typing in "List of Serb war criminals"; I'd try Serbia, or Bosnia or some such easy title, and still not get there. This is one of the problems with Lists of any descritpion - attached to an article they can be useful. As stand alone articles, they are not going to be found. For this reason, I am voting to delete. If someone wants to merge the information into a more suitable article, that's great. Emeraude 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - I think this article should be deleted, because it doesn't have any purpose. Before anyone start applying to me terms such as bias and partisan, I would just like to add that there is already an article on this Wikipedia, with ALL of shameless people who are indicted by the Tribunal for taking part war: List of ICTY indictees. That list is very good, it has what they are indicted for, it already has filled sentences for ones who were found guilty, ethnicity, and so on. So, I think it's ridiculous to separate all these criminals based on ethnicity, as I just can not see the point of it. If all of them have been involved in the SAME war and conflict, I don't understand why should we now break this already existing list into three smaller lists and list all over again people of croat, serb, albanian and bosnian ethnicity who were indicted. Why change something that is already there, and looks pretty good? Cuz then Serbs will make a Croat, Bosnian and ALbanian list. And then All of them will say "well he is not a criminal, but a hero" and then there will be million reverts and fighting... See my point??

Svetlana Miljkovic 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a number of categories covering war criminals, including List of war criminals, War criminals, People convicted of war crimes, People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, People indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There appears to be some duplication here - what's the difference between a War criminals and People convicted of war crimes? I think the War criminals and People convicted of war crimes categories need to be merged with List of war criminals. I also think using ethnic tags in a war criminal category would be a dangerous precedent. iruka 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Serbs are Gods, they can practically do anything and get away with it, including killing the swedish minster of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh - and have the guts to call it menatl illnes when it was clearly a case of political murder. So what I'm trying to say is, since the serbs are our Gods and all mighty I've realized that it is okey for them to delete this list. I vote for strong delete, and I've had it with you =) Ancient Land of Bosoni

Bosoni, give it a rest.Osli73 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really care anymore whether the list is deleted or kept. However, Osli73 you have serious mental issues yourself. I mean I am not a doctor, but go check yourself out for your own benefit. I think Wikipedia is actually getting to you. Just look at your comment, it is absurd if you are not Serbian (which of course you have stated numerous times)... Thank you Vseferović 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Kseferovic. Thank you. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I neither vandalize nor attack users, but how can someone write a comment like that. "Serbs are Gods...", if he was trying to be sarcastic then he failed at it. I mean people have been giving constructive suggestions and arguments over whether or not to keep or delete the article, and then Osli writes an absurd comment like that. Several users have left comments above that do not fit the constructive encyclopedic goals of wikipedia. Thanks, Vseferović 19:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check, you'll see Bosoni wrote that. I've indented Osli's comment to make it clearly separated. --81.132.189.183 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vennis

[edit]
Vennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Most google hits for "Vennis" point to some guy in the movie industry. The few unique links out there seem to be mirrors of the wiki article. Also, here are the reasons given for keeping the article on the talk page:
  1. Original Research being done to determine the true history of the sport
  2. At least one originally researched paper written or being written to be published on the sport
  3. Rome was not thought of one day at school and neither was Vennis
The first two go right out the window as original research, and the third can be dismissed by the following clarification: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. As the guideline states, "it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it". →Bobby← 14:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaSara FireFox

[edit]
LaSara FireFox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be insufficiently notable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, published author, notable in the pagan community. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the information currently included in the the article, I can"t see much that makes her notable. I'd need some citations that she is "a recognized spokesperson" and/or a leader. Has she accomplished things? Yes, but that, in itself, is not notable. I just need more proof than what is in this entry now, which reads more like promotional copy than an encyclopedia entry. When stripped of the puff words, the promotional resume verbiage, I'm mostly left with her being an author of one book. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough based on references. --Oakshade 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being notable within a community does not mean much. After all, each of us can be notable within our own groups, but that does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I would expect at least notabilty as a representative known outside the community. As stated above, remove the PR and there's not a lot left. Emeraude 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tons of media coverage, it seems. --- RockMFR 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most notable people are not notable outside their community. The pagan community is a distinct minority. Unless you are a member of the community, you will not have heard of many notable Buddhists either. The community itself is the most reliable judge of a person's notability. Let the Hindus decide who is a notable Hindu, the Buddhists who is a notable Buddhist, and the pagans who is a notable pagan. Many who are notable are never noticed by mainstream media. That is as true of other religions and moreso of paganism. —Hanuman Das 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I (nominator) am a practicing pagan with an extensive library and have never heard of her. Not that I'm saying that my hearing of someone equates with notability, but frankly she's a minor figure at best, and the third-party verifiable sources are very minimal. For me, she doesn't meet my personal bar of article-worthiness because of how sub-stubby sticking to only the verifiable facts would make that article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Please note that notability is not governed by a subjective criterion. Notability should be evident regardless of whether one is a member of a particular community or not, by virtue of the independent and verifiable/reliable sources available concerning the subject. In this case, I believe there is enough independent interest in the subject to count her as being notable, but the article needs a lot of work to get rid of the aggrandizing tone and present only notable facts. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. True, notoriety within a community would result in an avalanche of niche entries. However LaSara is also called from outside a community (Playboy, SexTV) to represent the community - and as such is likely to be known outside the community. wolfharper 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Jourdan

[edit]
Carolyn Jourdan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

biographical article on an unreleased book, failed on criteria for notability for people or for book Janarius 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underthrow the Overground (album)

[edit]
Underthrow the Overground (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn album, as per We Are The Dish Ladybirdintheuk 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but due the incoming links I am going to redirect this to Power metal. Someone with more knowledge about the topic should look at the articles listing a band's genre as "Epic metal" and address appropriately. W.marsh 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epic metal

[edit]
Epic metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not a notable subgenre, totally unsourced original research, badly written and confusing (what is the difference between "trapitional epic metal" and "power metal" epic metal?!), contains no information that isn't already in other articles (power metal for example). Article was previously nominated for AFD, result was no consensus (5 delete, 4 keep). IronChris | (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Agree that Epic Metal is not its own subgenre. Bands are often listed as "Epic Power Metal" or "Epic Heavy Metal," but very rarely (or consistently) as simply "Epic Metal." The characteristics listed on the page are too vague too constitute a seperate subgenre. More of a 'sub-subgenre' than anything else.

"Epic" is used as a frequent descriptor for styles of metal, but I've rarely seen it by itself or even associated with power metal.

  • Keep. The confusion of 'epic power metal', 'epic black metal' and so on comes because the epic tag is often misapplied to bands that use an epic style of lyrics. Epic metal itself is a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal; bands like Manilla Road, Feanor and Cirith Ungol have a distinctive sound that doesn't fit into the other subgenres. AGGoH 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism per WP:CSD#G3. -- Merope 16:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chanhassen High School

[edit]
Chanhassen High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; unbuilt high school, article blatant speculation Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Apart from the speculation, article appears to be a hoax:
"Chanhassen High School is going to have many unique features. Every desk in the school is going to have a platinum trimming with 40 inch rims on the side. The desk has been voted "most likely to be a wheelchair" according to www.district112.org. Every student will also be designated a customized grill."
And:
"On top of the suspended building, there will be a herd of Big Angry Male Flamingos. "They will increase school efficiency by 2000%" says the district survey analyst."
It could probably be speedied as patent nonsense, but I guess we can let the debate run its course. →Bobby← 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Isnt there a policy somewhere that says "innocent unitl proven guilty" to me that should apply here. This article should be considered true until one of you can prove that this article is false. The fact that some of these things are far fetched dosent mean that they are untrue. So this article should be kept until you are able to disprove the article beyond reason of a doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfujesus (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - With extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. For example, I couldn't claim that I saw a flying hippo and then create an article on Flying Hippos without first providing proof about the existence of flying hippos. →Bobby← 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You might find Burden of Proof a good article to consult. You can see there that the concept of "burden of proof" that you are using applies to the criminal justice system of some countries, but that most other matters have a very different burden of proof. A quote from the article: "The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires". Darkspots 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt, block, these people are wasting our time. yandman 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and salt This article should be deleted as its speculation that isnt even supported by Official(government) documentation, the source cited doesnt have a listing for the school. Due to the comments within the article it should be salted to prevent a repeat of such nonsense. Gnangarra 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Time Scale

[edit]
Technology Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Civilization Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Original research? Google turns up answers.com (the first time I've ever seen it appear above the Wikipedia article). RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Should Civilization Time Scale and Category:Civilization Time Scale also get the axe? Same author, same lack of references or substantiation. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, I'm adding Civilization Time Scale above. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Such scales exist in history of technology books, science museums, and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, which has one covering a large wall, but none are referenced in this original research article, so a good article could someday be created referencing such documented scales.Edison 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is absolute rubbish. Firstly, it hardly makes sense. Secondly, the few parts that do make sense are perverse and open to serious dispute (e.g. a technology timescale should start from the dawn of technology, not arbitrarily from the Industrial Revolution - a period in hisory and not a point in time in any case.) Emeraude 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete as per Edison & Emeraude. Compiling a time scale is not necessarily OR, and these two articles are just attempts at forming categories and links. But they are very poor attempts. DGG 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequately referenced, and, I suspect, OR. WMMartin 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceuticals (Pakistan)

[edit]
Pharmaceuticals (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is just a list of companies, it does not even deserve to be turned into a list - as there is nothing especially note worthy of listing all pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan or any country, though maybe of the world. If you look at one of the blue links (there are hardly any) most link back to articles on non-Pakistan based companies anywayLethaniol 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lang

[edit]
Eric Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. He may be notable: I hope he is, but the article does not establish it in my opinion. RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game exists, for sure, but there's not enough verifiable information on Lang to construct an article. Trebor 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, merge/redirect still possible. Also, the bulk of this article is a copy and paste job from their official history, which I will remove. W.marsh 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade

[edit]
130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article paraphrases the parent - Boys' Brigade, without claiming any specific notability for this chapter. - Tiswas(t/c) 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's one of the oldest units of its type and should be kept. Rlevse 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Rlevse. As a comment, I am always suspicious of nominations that use the incorrect nomenclature. It shows that the proposed deletion has not been researched enough. This is not a "chapter", but a "company" of the Boys' Brigade, just as Scouts have "troops" or "groups". The term "chapter" would not be understood in Glasgow about anything, let alone a BB Company. It is a US term. I also do not understand the phrase "paraphrases the parent - Boys' Brigade" (NB I also corrected that link above). One is about the whole organisation. The other is about one notable company. --Bduke 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As another comment: Let's not get hung up on incorrect nomenclature. I'm willing to bet Glaswegians are not as unintelligent as you make out and although they might not use the term 'chapter' to refer to a company of the BB, they will know or be able to work out what it means if only because they have heard of Hell's Angels chapters. If a simple Londoner like me can do it, a Glaswegian can. Back to the debate: The fact that it's one of the oldest BB companies may be significant within the BB, in which case it could be mentioned in the BB article. I see nothing that merits a separate article. Emeraude 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlevse and Bduke. --Oakshade 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boys' Brigade - 205Ghits for "130th Glasgow Company" and only 22 seem to be unique; they go to the company's homepage or WP/mirrors. Can't see any demonstration of notability, which is further underlined by the total lack of references. And I speak as a Glaswegian, former BB member, and someone who figured out what "chapter" meant without any assistance. --DeLarge 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the use of the word chapter, and because it's not always possible to avoid being a dick. Most commonly used in the context of US college fraternities, it can also be used, in the (literal) canonical sense, to refer to meetings / groups within religious orders. Particularly apt in this example. The use of the butchers's apostrophe was an egregious typo, but I'm always happy to see poor typing being pointed out (even at the expense of weegies, I fear). To my original AfD proposition - My comment was cursory and hasty. In hindsight, the article is anything but a rewording of the Buoy's Brigade piece, although the lack of notability is still an issue.- Tiswas(t/c) 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a unique article and is worthy of being kept. Rlevse is correct - it discusses one of the oldest BB Companies in the world. The history of the Company and the uniqueness of the text suggests it should be kept. 87.81.62.126 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is some unique history here. 86.131.225.108 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — 86.131.225.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I am deeply perturbed by the current balance in this debate, which is edging towards keeping this article. I do not doubt that this organisation is important to its members, but as presented in this article no evidence of notability has been provided. The Boys Brigade is an important organisation, but if we keep this article we will shortly be inundated by a wave of articles about every Scout troop, and so on. This, I believe, would be deeply unwise. My key point is this: the article, as it stands, does not show notability for this company ( it's clearly not even the first of its kind ! ). I hope that the closing administrator for this debate will feel able to find a way of holding a wider debate on this issue. WMMartin 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd have speedied this as a club with no assertion of notability, but as we're talking about it now... There's no reliable sources, no indication of any notability, the text is a homepage-type advertisement. Those wishing to keep are not arguing based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sandstein 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within the context of notability, as spoken about by users above, the article is as notable, if not more so, that the one millionth article on Wikipedia - Jordanhill_railway_station The article contributes enough to merit it's existence. BASociety 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — BASociety (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. The Boys' Brigade is notable for having half a million members. This chapter is not. There is no reliable secondary sources for this small an organization. The content is about talent shows, uniforms and what they like to do for fun. Drunken Pirate 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Reality 2

[edit]
Kill Reality 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While reverting Kill Reality 2's repeatedly vandalized page, I attempted to verify the information to be sure I did not revert good information. Searching for a second season of Kill Reality resulted in no results, except those here at Wikipedia. Sources I checked included http://www.imdb.org/, http://www.tvguide.com/, and http://www.eonline.com. (the producer of the show's original season). One reference indicates that the show was cancelled/ended after its first season. There are only three Wikipedia encyclopedic articles linking to this page, along with a few user pages (including warnings about defacement of the page). I have no problem keeping this page alive if the information is true, but otherwise it seems to be a breeding ground for vandalism. (P.S. This is my first afd request, so please be kind if I did anything improper or un-Wiki-ish. Thanks! :-) --Willscrlt 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am one of the producers of the original Kill Reality show on E! and the show was NOT renewed. This article is fake and should be deleted.HollywoodProducer 30 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Samsa (band)

[edit]
Gregor Samsa (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This oft-speedy deleted page was restored by A DRV consensus citing evidence of notability, for which, see the DRV. The version here AfD'ed is the most recent, but gems may be found in the article history. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, single purpose account discounted. Sandstein 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interreality

[edit]
Interreality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be original research. The user name leads me to believe that the author is the same person as the originator of the theory, as stated in the article ("defined by Dr. Jacob van Kokswijk"). LittleOldMe 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: - It might be possible to recreate this article later, if/when verifiable, reliable sources can be provided. Until then, this is definitely unsourced original research, hence not properly encyclopedic. Doc Tropics 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several refs have recently been added to the article. Review indicates very few scholarly sources, one or more of which included (this article's) author's contributions. The balance are somewhat borderline in terms of applicability and verifiability. It seems that the author is a dedicated new contributor, anxious to add content to WP. I would suggest working on other articles for a while...this still seems to be a neologism, and an element of original research remains. Doc Tropics 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research or not, it doesn't look encyclopedic at all. Perhaps it could be saved, but at this point I don't see much reason for it to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelston (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I recommend that the above request to keep the article be discounted because it is the user's one-and-only contribution to Wikipedia. LittleOldMe 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry User:LittleOldMe: Is a WP user only a serious user when he/she has an ancien WP record? Or don't you have arguments against my amazement? I still don't understand nor get clear why this word, used since the 60ties, in many different context, also in peer reviewed science, even in a popular television programm, should be neologism or original research... What I read in this article is an impressive and interesting encyclopedic (hi)story from cartoon phantasy to criminal behavior, with links to a lot of excisting WP data and other sources. What do you know that I don't know? Please convince me or remove your comment! --00hara 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against newcomers, in fact, a review of my postings will show that I have welcomed, assisted, and defended newcomers. However, I made the recommendation to discount your argument because I suspect that you are engaging in sock puppetry because your entire focus is on the this one article. Your posts show all the characteristics of a sock puppet, as such I have created a suspected sock puppet entry. LittleOldMe 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it seems to me that you sink your teeth into a virtual suspect, or play the wise shot, in stead of looking objective to the text. BTW, I don't like to discuss your defective suspicions, because you ruin more than you welcome. Discussion closed. --00hara 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Haven (CDP), Connecticut

[edit]
North Haven (CDP), Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CDP is identical to the town of the same name. All information on CDP article is already in the town article. --Polaron | Talk 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nowhere to merge to now. W.marsh 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exstreamer

[edit]
Exstreamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn software, and I'm unsure A7 applies to software Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joely Bear Appeal

[edit]
The Joely Bear Appeal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod from way back when. Little known charity. The page is clearly contradicting Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tried to do a bit of cleanup. Not much more than a stub now (well... it wasn't before either), but obviously the "calendar of events" thing had to go. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr Fruitsmaak, you are welcome to do the explaining you suggested. DGG, it's allowed (per WP:CSD#G4 e contrario) to recreate this in an encyclopedic fashion, with reliable independent sources attesting to the department's notability. As pointed out by Pan Dan, a redirect would be of questionable value. Sandstein 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

[edit]
Systems Engineering Department, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I gather that most university departments are not notable enough to have their own articles, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. Spammy besides. Speedied as copyvio, recreated with some paraphrasing, prodded and deprodded. Pan Dan 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stanford

[edit]
Peter Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was speedy-deleted under CSD A7. A DRV consensus overturned, finding the cited sources sufficient evidence of an assertion of notability. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."
While Stanford is indeed published. I can find no evidence that the biography he penned received multiple independant reviews. It has no sales on Amazon, and I can't find much about it on google. That being said, I did find an article which suggests that Stanford is working on creating a televised bio which could boost his notability. If anyone can throw some more sources in the article, I'll be happy to revisit this issue. →Bobby← 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the lack of sales is because your link is to the 1994 biography. The 2003 biography has the title The Outcast's Outcast. There are reviews of some of the books on Amazon (please see my comment below). Alan Pascoe 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've significantly expanded the article. Stanford has written for several national newspapers, and has had numerous books published. Copies of professional reviews of some of the books (The Devil, The Legend of Pope Joan, and Heaven) can be seen by following the ISBN links to amazon.com. A Google search of Peter Stanford produces many results. Alan Pascoe 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author and journalist. Note to BOBBY: I can't understand how you can use Amazon and not conclude that this a notable author. I note you used Amazon.ca (29 results). Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk give similar results (admittedly, a few appear to be by authors with the same name - a major failing of Amazon) but checking on any of these gives respectable sales. Emeraude 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very impressive journalist credits. It's ironic that we use articles from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, and The Independent as examples of published works from reliable sources that establish notability, yet a person who actually writes those published works is considered not-notable to some people. --Oakshade 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade and Emeraude. Stanford has an impressive trackrecord in journalism. I think that Alan Pascoe's edits have significantly boosted this article's status too. --Erebus555 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again per Oakshade and Emeraude. While not a household name, Stanford is a journalist well-known beyond the profession. 81.138.12.5 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, forgot I wasn't signed in. Barnabypage 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, gaming clan. NawlinWiki 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Own and Bone

[edit]
Own and Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No other pages, aside from a redirect, link to this page. It seems more of an advertisement for the clan. Mwutz 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. By A7. →Bobby← 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collin McCarver

[edit]
Collin McCarver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't state it's importance, possible vanity. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already moved elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Nikolić (war criminal)

[edit]
Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per the other spelling above. POV title, unneeded with a non-pov titled article that exists Localzuk(talk) 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This really should be under RfD since it's not an article. That fact notwithstanding, I'm not sure we can really call the link POV (Record of Conviction for Crimes Against Humanity) but we can at least be mindful of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the redirect is unlikely to be typed in as it appears, and as such it does seem to exist for malicious reasons. →Bobby← 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and move back to (war criminal) This is part of a move war] over the disambiguator. Since Dragan Nikolić pled guilty to four counts and has been sentenced, the claim that this is POV is doubtful. There is a Serbian actor of the same name, so using the plain name is unrealistic. (Also, the article omits the guilty plea, and is obfuscatory.) Septentrionalis 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title removing War Criminal. The fact that he was convicted does not give him an additional title. As far as I know we don't have Charles Manson (murderer) or Alphonso Capone (mafia boss) as title either. Alf photoman 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or possibly merge, read on) I'm really confused. Is Dragan Nikolić the same person? If not, as he is totally unrealated to this person and it would appear slanderous to not separate, it makes sense that a title affectation of "(war criminal)" was added to this person's name as being a war criminal is what he is notable for. --Oakshade 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks to Septentrionalis' comment below. I'll start over. There's already an article for a different person named Dragan Nikolić. This particular Dragan Nikolić needs a description affectation and "war criminal is fine as that's what he's notable for. --Oakshade 05:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment War Criminal is POV - he wasn't convicted as a war criminal, he was convicted of various crimes... Also, the article is at the same name with (commander) after it which is neutral Localzuk(talk) 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Labelling someone primarily famous for being convicted of crimes against humanity a "commander" is POV, or at least weasel-wording. We can't drop the disambiguating suffix entirely, and this one fits well enough. WP:BLP doesn't require us to whitewash history, of if it does, it's faulty. BCoates 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The man's profession was 'commander'. Labelling someone per their ciminal activity is inherently POV. I have not seen any other articles on this site that label someone in the same manner. BLP states that we have to source all claims - have you got a source showing that this person is in fact a 'war criminal' (using the exact wording)? Localzuk(talk) 13:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and change title Obviously notable, but whoever decided to use this title has a lot to learn. DGG 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Húsönd 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Nikolic (war criminal)

[edit]
Dragan Nikolic (war criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The redirect is a POV and useless redirect. The original article is suffice, no redirect is needed. Localzuk(talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original article refered to by the nom is Dragan Nikolić (commander). Doc Tropics 17:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ediê

[edit]
Ediê (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. This article is about a non-notable, madeup language, with no reference except a page at a social networking site. WP:NFT. --Elonka 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, about a language which does not yet exist. -Elmer Clark 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Let's do it this way... find reliable third party sources (see WP:RS, WP:V) with information on this then we'll keep the article. W.marsh 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Goo Girls

[edit]
German Goo Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is inappropriate for anyone to be viewing on Wikipedia. There is also some vanity involved with a user on the discussion page stating he owns the rights to the production of the German Goo Girls. Debaser23 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteAppears to be a unsourced promotion piece. No reviews from independent reliable sources are presented to show notability. As for the statement "..inappropriate for anyone to be viewing.." remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is vanity and/or advertisement. The owner is also causing trouble by pushing the content in a specific direction, which makes the article his P.O.V. The importance/notoriety of the subject is also questionnable. Lgriot
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability and not showing any WP:RS that would allow WP:V. Valrith 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The films this company produces are actually fairly notable within it's pornographic fetish genre. It's wikipedia entry is fairly accurate as well. Could be cleaned up a bit though. Static Universe 07:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notably disgusting lot. Though the POV is positive, the negative aspects are obvious enough not to need discussing.DGG 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill German porn, of no notable importance. Seems this page was only put up so the owner can send people to his affiliate program. He removes others links and gets nasty like he owns Wiki. DELETE.Theclaytop 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Theclaytop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - although it fails WP:V at the moment, I do believe it's quite notable in its niche, and doesn't warrant deletion of the article yet. Let's see if some sources or references can be added, and it can always be nominated again after a month or two. Jayden54 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gangbang's & cumshots are absolutely no novelty in porn. What is the point of this page? It is nothing more than an advert for a particular studio line, one among many. The more I read this vacuous article more I think it should go. Getting an award at Venus amounts to very little. It is a trade show that hands out lots of meaningless awards every year with no serious selection or voting policy (normally the only criteria for inclusion being the the hire of a stand or promotion spend). Delete now. As mentioned before gangbang's & cumshots are no novelty, why waste any more time later. M casios 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — M casios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep A lot of no name's in here trying to get this page taken down. Those are probably the same people whose links we keep removing because they only go to spammy pages selling DVDs(which is against Wiki TOS the last i checked, no??? direct links to commercial sites with ref codes?). John Thompson is a very well known producer in Europe and especially Germany. as you can see by looking at the IMDB listing, sadly they stopped listing after 52 titles. As well you can see here the GGG line is notable enough to have 99 reviews about their movies on adultdvdtalk.com. if those are not acceptable references I'm not sure what you need? Yes we run an affiliate program, but we got tired of affiliates fighting over this link so we just removed the affiliate codes from them. No one from our company wrote this article. In fact there are a number of inaccuracies about it that we just don't care to change. We are merely tired of hearing the fighting about what affiliate gets to claim this link so we removed their affiliate codes, thats is all. I left all of the links not relevant to us or our affiliate program. In fact some of them I found to be very interesting. I do not know who removed the others. look at the edit history, i guess. Ianwww 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj passport

[edit]
Hajj passport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason The article does not cite any evidence that a "Hajj passport" exists. It is possibly total fiction.

The one reference I can verify (the claim that a Hajj passport is issued by the United Kingdom) is untrue, the British Passport Office does not issue different types of passport. To issue a document only persons of a specified religion would be considered discrimination.

A google search for Hajj passport finds only this article and mirrors. TiffaF 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added a reference to a Pakistani news article discussing them, so at least they appear to be real. A Pakistani source used the term, but a Saudi source just referred to Hajj visas to be used with ordinary passports. Thus a "Hajj passport" might become a "Venezuela Passport" if the owner obtained the correct visa the next week. This does not rule out the possibility some countries issue such single use passports, but I could not readily find evidence of it. Edison 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first source (State Bank of Pakistan) merely mentioned it in passing in a way that may not have implied that they are passports of a special type. The list of issuing nations needs to be sourced; a comment above provides a reason (if confirmed) that the UK needs to be removed from this list. If sources are added which clearly provide evidence of some nations issuing these single-purpose passports, then keep and cleanup; lacking firm sources, delete per WP:V. Barno 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try searching for "Haj passport" instead of "Hajj passport". According to this press release from the Malaysian Department of Foreign Affairs, the "Tabung Haji issues the green-coloured Haj passport". There are also several more newspaper and government references, so I'm pretty sure this isn't "total fiction". --Canley 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be verified (it seems to be Malaysian practice at the very least) into the article on the Hajj itself - probably a new section on the technical issues or something. From a non-Muslim perspective, it would answer the commonly-asked question of "how do they make sure that only Muslims get into Mecca?" The Saudi practice of only issuing Hajj visas from specific times of the year should also turn up in such a section. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew family

[edit]
Mathew family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No references or sources to were this huge amount of information has come from, there are barely any links to this page and this page hardly seems relevant to anything either. Debaser23 10:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge still possible. W.marsh 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mount Waldorf School

[edit]
Michael Mount Waldorf School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Come on guys this is a waste of space. We are an encyclopedia not a list of schools. Debaser23 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This school is obviously special is a number of ways, including being the area's only Waldorf Education school. The nomination's "Come on guys this is a waste of space" rationale is not only unnecessarily inflammatory, it doesn't cite any policy-based reasons for itself. (The nomination also lacks an apparent understanding of punctuation and sentence structure, but I won't dwell on the irony.) Highfructosecornsyrup 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think "The nomination also lacks an apparent understanding of punctuation and sentence structure" is completely pointless towards this debate. Considering I am new here I am still a little bit confused about all of the policies so at least try to be a little bit considerate. I just thought it is a little irrelevant if we put every so called 'special' school on here. Debaser23 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (reply to Highfructose) "Special" and "unique" do not equal "notable," unless outside publishers have taken note of the school's uniqueness and decided to therefore publish things about the school. But it doesn't look like they have in this case. And, association with a non-notable (or even notable) recording artist, youth conference, or organic market, do not imply notability of the school. Pan Dan 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that some school is the "only" school of a particular type is a disingenuous region, it easily leads to all religious schools being notable so long as they are the "only" school of their denomination in the area: St. Joe's Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Nursery School of Podunk -- quite different of course than St. Paul's Lutheran (non-Missouri Synod) Nursery School of Podunk -- c'mon. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure how the school's status as the only Waldorf education school in its area makes it notable. Extraordinary Machine 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This school grants high-school diplomas, extrapolating from the information available in the article. The argument has been made that every secondary school is notable. Darkspots 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination does not give any policy reasons why this article should be deleted. Also, as this article is a stub, it could be expanded to be more noteworthy. - Raker 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability -- this school does not appear to be described in many (or any) non-trivial outside sources from which to write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Sources included in article weakly support a claim of notability. I searched for additional sources at various sites, though the difficulty may be related to its remote location in South Africa. Justification of "waste of space" is not a valid reason and article has far more information than required by WP:NOT to exceed a directory entry. Having an AfD that doesn't even attempt to reference a relevant Wikipedia standard or guideline is not a good sign of responsible nomination. Alansohn 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Bryanston, Gauteng since there is little info about the school (the only really non-trivial detail that the school is a Waldorf school is apparent in the school name). Being the only school of a given type in a specific suburb is not a claim of notability especially when no indedenent sources have felt a need to discuss the matter. I agree with some of the keeps that the nomnination is less than compelling if not outright ridiculous but that shouldn't stop us from evaluating the article now that it is here on AfD. In so far as that, the school fails the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS and doesn't come even close to meeting the conditions in any draft of WP:SCHOOLS3. It is hard to justify this as a separate article. JoshuaZ 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If one of the most notable things is that a farmers market is held on the property, though apparently not under their sponsorship, the article is absurd. DGG 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel O'Connor

[edit]
Nigel O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a vanity page. This person has probably made it of himself to show off to his friends. He has clearly achieved nothing so why the hell make a Wikipedia page? Delete... Quickly. Debaser23 11:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_Gunzburger

[edit]
Ron_Gunzburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mamma mia. This crap is mind blowing. This guy is known for nothing other than a blog and was clearly written by the man himself. I hereby decree this wiki page "nominated for deletion". Amanduhh 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fool (rock band)

[edit]
The Fool (rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Basically a vanity page repeatedly edited by the same people. The only link is to the bands Myspace page and they haven't released an album. The article basically just explains were they have played. All in all these seems a pretty pointless waste of space. Matthewbarnard 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move but article needs to be revised. W.marsh 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kruse (inventor)

[edit]
Tom Kruse (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pure vanity page clearly created to promote commercial interests. Bruceberry 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley William Moore II

[edit]
Stanley William Moore II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears non-notable: I could not find any reliable source that is independent on the subject and backs up what's written in there. Tizio 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any independent sources either; unless they're found, it can't be kept. Trebor 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I listed the page for deletion because there are no independent sources available for this artist. Simple high school art students aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. 71.19.6.223 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was about to nominate this myself once the Übersite AfD concludes, but it's all the same. Okay, let's see: The artwork in question was covered in a Digg article. Got a few hundred diggs and some comments. Umm... that's about that. That's still probably not enough of fame to get an article; I'm not familiar enough with Digg culture, but I'd definitely say "delete" on someone who's been subject of one Slashdot story, you know, the kind of story that would get tagged "slownewsday" these days. =) (Getting your project to Slashdot would make your project vaguely notable, but not necessarily you...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is what we typically do here. W.marsh 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June Child

[edit]
June Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. NN, beyond being the wife of Marc Bolan. Ckessler 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JR King

[edit]
JR King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Twelve-year-old author just published first book, first in a trilogy. Bully for him/her, but not notable. Book's sales rank on Amazon.com is higher than 85,000. Further, the publisher of the book is Reagent Press, heretofore known only to publish Robert Stanek novels, and there has been plenty of controversy here about him and his notability (See Talk:Robert Stanek). —Wrathchild (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the following in this AfD:

Also note: Category:Skyhall

  • Comment Delete - If J.R. King is indeed a teenage author who has already been published (and his book has made the top 100K books on Amazon) then there is an excellent case for notability. However, I'm a bit skeptical about the age claim, and would like to see solid proof before voting for keep. Unfortunately, google searches for JR King come back with a lot on Martin Luther King JR. Not much more appears when I add periods. It seems surprising (given the nature of the press) that a teenage author would not receive significant news coverage. I'm also a bit wary about an author named J R King writing books in the same genre as J K Rowling. If someone could find sources, I'd be interested to read them. →Bobby← 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I searched on "j r king" "skyhall" and get: Wikipedia (and clones), the official site, the author's site, the publisher's site, several dozen online bookstores, and several dozen reviews sites that accept submissions from all and sundry. A couple of the message board postings I've seen look like astroturfing, too. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the publisher is a vanity press, which will publish anyone willing to pay; this is not noteworthy, except as an instance of a teen-ager with a large allowance. Note that it took (according to the article) several years for him to publish. Septentrionalis 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. It's a little surprising (if he is so young) that there hasn't been any independent coverage of his actions. Unless that's found, I don't think there's enough information for an article. Trebor 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Aaron 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I have spent quite a long time looking for sources. There is no information about the author that I can find anywhere except on the publisher's web site which has been known to contain some unverifiable facts in the past. It is possible that the 14-year-old's parents want to protect him from too much press, but that wouldn't change the fact that the article needs verification.Bonadea 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless sourced. I am in total agreement with the points made here. Alucard (Dr.) 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetralectic constant

[edit]
Tetralectic constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Utter blithering nonsense. "Tetralectic" is a theological term (see these google results) which has nothing to do with mathematics, and may be a neologism even in theology; and the content is gibberish. Septentrionalis 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - The reciprocal of a composite number divided by a prime is equal to the prime divided by the composite. Since the composites get "bigger" much more slowly than the primes (due to the greater frequency of composite numbers once we get out of single digits) there is absolutely no way that sums of these quotients could converge (since each subsequent value would be greater than the last). The chart given below as a justification doesn't even make sense. It seems like the "Primes" and "Composites" column are supposed to say how many of each type of number exist in the range from 1 to F6. However, since all even numbers (with the exception of two) are composites (proof: divisible by 2), it is impossible to have more primes than composite in any range once you get above 12. I must admit that the article made for a good laugh in my analysis class, but it is certainly not suitable for WP. →Bobby← 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources on the page link to Yahoo! searches (?), so unverified (and if the above is correct, untrue). Trebor 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent original research (contributor's name is same as the author of the "famous" theorem). Proved in 2006, but famous already? Yet no google hits for "tetralectic theorem" or "tetralectic constant". Phiwum 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delelte. No reliable sources like peer-reviewed journals, hence not verifiable. Additionally, I don't think it's correct, though I'm not sure because I don't quite understand what the gentleman means. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very poorly written uninteresting original research. Long comments follow.
The only non-religious Google hit on "tetralectic" appears to be [48] and copies of that text. I don't know Spanish but my machine translation gave no verifiable sources and looked like non-notable hype to me. It mentions "Javier Ruiz", who must be the discoverer of the "famous result" in Tetralectic constant (and possibly also the author). Apart from mentioning "tetralectic" and primes, I see no relation between the Google hit and the mathematics of the article. I haven't examined the Spanish Google hits on "tetraléctica".
I guessed how the poorly explained columns in the article are defined.
Let the left unnamed column be x.
F6 = number with x-1 3's followed by one 4 = (10^x+2)/3
PRIMES = pi(10^x) (number of primes below 10^x)
COMPOSITES = F6 - PRIMES (why use F6 here instead of 10^x?)
C/P = COMPOSITES/PRIMES = (F6 - PRIMES)/PRIMES = F6/PRIMES - 1
Dif Major-mInor = (C/P in next line) - (C/P in this line)
log is the natural logarithm.
By the prime number theorem, PRIMES = pi(10^x) is approximately
(10^x)/(log(10^x)) = (10^x)/(x*log(10))
Then C/P = F6/PRIMES - 1 is approximately
(10^x/3) / ((10^x)/(x*log(10))) = x*log(10)/3 - 1
Dif Major-mInor for the line with x is approximately
((x+1)*log(10)/3 - 1) - (x*log(10)/3 - 1) = log(10)/3 = 0.76752836...
I guess from the article that the so-called "Tetralectic constant" is the article's mentioned "constant c < 0.767661013369489", and that this c is intended to be the limit of "Dif Major-mInor" when x tends to infinite. Then we simply get c = log(10)/3. This c value is the result of (apparently arbitrarily) choosing to define F6 = (10^x+2)/3, and PRIMES = pi(10^x).
Once the meaning of the undefined terms has been guessed, this is elementary mathematics. I see no value in it. I guess the author just played around with prime counts and thought it was significant that a constant emerged from some arbitrary choices.
A lot could be done to clarify the article but I think the end result would be uninteresting and useless statistics and observations. I see nothing notable which isn't already placed much better in prime counting function and prime number theorem. And the term "Tetralectic constant" has no reference and no Google hits, so there is no reason to redirect. PrimeHunter 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per PrimeHunter. Note also that the F6 column (among others) was obviously generated on a computer (without understanding of what it means), because of the trailing 0s. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Carver

[edit]
Arthur Carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a hoax. There are no relevant hits in Google on any variation of this name or "Enrico Pauli"; neither man is mentioned in our comprehensive History of television article; and neither man is mentioned in either of these works:

  • Abramson, Albert. The History of Television, 1880 to 1941. (1987). Jefferson, NC: McFarland. ISBN 0899502849.
  • Burns, R. W. Television: An international history of the formative years. (1998) IEE History of Technology Series, 22. IEE: London. ISBN 0852969147.

I also checked the Dictionary of Scientific Biography and a couple other scientific biographical dictionaries; no mention. The "inventor of television" should be considerably more prominent than this; therefore this article seems to be patent nonsense and I'm moving to delete it as untrue. --phoebe 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wright

[edit]
Sean Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clearly fails WP:BIO. This is a footballer who has never made any senior appearances (see soccerbase) and is not even attached to a club. Gasheadsteve 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping e-mail abuse

[edit]
Stopping e-mail abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A tips guide masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and failing at both. Possibly it could be moved to Wikibooks Dtcdthingy 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can you explain in more detail what exactly about this article is wrong and why those things can not be changed? I've read through WP:NOT and such, and I don't see anything that jumps out at me as making this article not worth fixing. Mind you, I don't much like the current article, I think it is too much of a jumble of stuff, but I find that to be true for most of the anti-spam articles. Wrs1864 20:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been 5 days since I posted the above comment and I confess that I'm a little disappointed that the people who have proposed deleting this article have not come forward to answer the question I asked above: "why can't this article be fixed?". Simply stating that "this is an instruction manual" does not make it so. AfD are supposed to be about discussing things to reach a consensus. If this article *can't* be fixed, then there isn't any reason to try rewriting it. If it *can* be fixed, then people need a clearer idea of what the pro-delete people find objectional. Wrs1864 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an Internet guide. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I looked at that before I posted my comments above. The "Internet Guide" part seems to be talking about websites and basically how it shouldn't be a feature list/advertising. This, however, this is a general topic. I still don't see what part of the guidelines are being violated, and more importantly, why it can't be fixed. Wrs1864 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems this is an instruction manual Chanchino 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reason proposed but perhaps look to merge any particularly useful parts with other articles. 81.151.13.29 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I've thought about this and I don't think this should be deleted because I think there is substantial content there that is encyclopedic in nature. While some parts give directions, most of it is an overview of the various techniques used to stop spam, and their advantages and disadvantages. Wrs1864 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a lengthy article on a useful topic. Puppy Mill 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Antispam redirects to this page- this is essentially our antispam article, except with a very poor name. A brief re-write should fix any "not a guide" worries. --- RockMFR 05:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the "main article" off Email spam#Avoiding spam. Rename to Anti-spam efforts or somesuch and remove/rewrite inproperly-toned tips and instructions. --Justanother 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a how to do it manual, but an attempt to organize, and which could and should lead to more detailed sections or articles, DGG 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the diversity in approaches to dealing with spam this article may actually be more remarkable for how good it is. This is, after all, Wikipedia. That means multiple authors. The different sections are most probably written by proponents of the techniques described in the sections. Where else can you find anything that approaches the coverage of the topic of dealing with e-mail abuse (where "e-mail abuse" appearsw mostly to mean "spam.") If a section has a problem identify that section and identify the problem. Don't throw the whole thing out because some parts aren't perfect. Minasbeede 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the previous 6 or so posters pointed out: this is Wikipedia's main article on the subject, and it would would be almost scandalous if Wikipedia had no article on such an important and high-profile topic; and the article does present a lot of information. I suggest the editors should identify the target audience(s), structure the article accordingly, and improve the presentation by increasing use of "chunking" and decreasing verbosity (Web users want to scan, not read). My own thoughts on target audience(s), in descending priority order: home / small business users; owners of small Web sites (vulnerable to form email, blog, guestbook and comments spam); system administrators; people involved in anti-spam initiatives and research. In other words, visitors with the least prior knowledge get priority treatment. There should be links to additional "advanced" pages, both within and outside Wikipedia.Philcha 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I read through the article, and I agree that it is poorly worded in some areas. It just needs to be rewritten, however; deletion implies that the topic of the article is worthless when in fact this (stopping e-mail abuse) is an important topic of research. The article has tons of good information about the different methods used, it would be criminal to delete it. Moreover, this does not look like a guide in most areas. The intent of the article is clearly encyclopedic and clearly not just for the purpose of disseminating some random guy's ideas about how he blocked spam one day at 2:00 in the afternoon because he was bored.Goldsmitharmy 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mv to wikibooks The Fox Man of Fire 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, keeping the article and moving (copying) it to wikibooks are not mutually exclusive and is likely the proper course. The area of spam control and reduction is a large and important one and most of this article is just fine. Some of it would also be useful as a How-To guide on wikibooks. --Justanother 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was zapped per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICT Class of 2007

[edit]

This is simply a class roster Class projects, author has removed speedy request & prod SkierRMH 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford masters commission

[edit]
Rockford masters commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing particularly notable about this group. It's written like a sales pamphlet. No sources other than the group's own web page. [Check Google hits] Ghits number 558 but only 29 are "unique" and none of them are very useful. Contested speedy. ... discospinster talk 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Rockford Master's Commission was the second Master's Commission program to become an affiliate of the Master's Commission International network. Their director, Jeremy Deweerdt, sits on the board of the MCIN and is head of the European Master's Commission Network. The Rockford Master's Commission is one the premier Master's Commission programs in the entire world and many other Master's Commission programs look to them as a solid model for what a Master's Commission should look like.

The Rockford Master's Commission is a model that other Master's Commissions, Churches, youth groups, and non-profit organizations, look to for direction. Someone who does not know about the Master's Commission "world" would not understand the purpose of this article. However there are 10s of thousands of Master's Commission students and alumni worldwide as well as members of the church who would benefit from this article.

Jamesbarlow143 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete:The MCIN is a network of over 10,000 members worldwide and hold a yearly conference in Phoenix, AZ. It is a cross denominational movement. If you google master's commission you'll see how large of a movement it is. Please do not delete this article.

Jamesbarlow143 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a very simple way to solve this problem, introduce references into the article from non-trivial secondary sources (meaning not principals or participants in the organization) that establish that it's notable by WP notability standards, see WP:NOTE for details. Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOTE, no references by reliable sources that this organization is notable outside its circle of participants. Tubezone 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this particular local group of the organization, and the contents talk only about the organization in general. There seems to be no WP article on "Master's commission: and it would seem from the arguments above that there should be. James, why don't you write one if you know about them?DGG 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: References have been added. There are two seperate references to the Masters Commission International Network. This is the best external reference for Master's Commission. Is it agreed that we can remove the deletion talk page at this point? Jamesbarlow143 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references added are all to the Rockford masters commission's own sites. You need to provide reliable external sources as evidence of notability. ... discospinster talk 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by admin per (CSD A7). Agent 86 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed Sticks

[edit]

Non-notable band, only together 3 years, won one contest, nn persons list at end of article SkierRMH 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Harris (footballer)

[edit]
James Harris (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable footballer, never made a professional appearance, appears to be without a club fchd 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. So tagged. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Activism per WP:BOLD. Aaron 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social activist

[edit]
Social activist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is simply a list of names. The list is subjective, similiar to other opinion categories like "List of gay icons". Bytebear 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the topic should be kept, but not the list, shouldn't the article be Social activism or as Simoes points out, Activism? (Note: Social activism redirects to Social activist currently.) Bytebear 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As an unsourced noelogism slang term, this would likely have been an uncontroversial speedy. Given that, and the discussion below, I've deleted. Friday (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad grimple

[edit]
Carlsbad grimple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original nomination wound up as no consensus; Deletion Review narrowly endorsed that result. However no meaningful improvement/reliable sources have been added to the article since that AFD, and I believe both discussions were compromised by the disruptive comments by now-banned user Billy Blythe. So I'm bringing this back to AFD for a second look. Delete as neologism/hoax. -- nae'blis 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rory096 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rooms

[edit]
List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - What makes these rooms notable? That they appear in any kind of fiction? Couldn't every work of fiction set inside a building appear on this list? This is not well defined enough. --Vossanova o< 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems harmless. If anyone wants to merge the content that would probably be okay. W.marsh 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Morrison

[edit]
Camp Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a non notable scout camp. Nothing distinguishing at all Nuttah68 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ViridaeTalk 07:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q the band

[edit]
Q the band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has been admittedly created by members of the band, who I do not believe understand the purpose of a band article or the WP:Music notability guidelines. See User talk:MER-C for what I mean. Contested prod, but still does not assert nobability. Tractorkingsfan 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckpaypal.net

[edit]
Fuckpaypal.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I beleive Article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions as very little has changed since T-rex gave initial deletion warning on date of article creation. It has been suggested by JoshuaZ to have an open debate before deletion.

I see Many reason for Fuckpaypal.net's deletion. They include:

  • Fuckpaypal.net is an attack page which serves no other purpose but to disparage the subject WP:CSD#G10
  • Article appears to have created exclusively promote the Fuckpaypal.net site WP:CSD#G11
  • Fuckpaypal.net is an article about web content WP:CSD#A7
  • "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda or advertising" WP:NOT#SOAPBOX
  • "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred" WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

Hu12 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't see have a strong opinion on this but it isn't an attack page since it doesn't attack the webpage in question (and attack page would be a page that attacked Fuckpappal.net). Also, the website has been covered in reliable sources including a magazine and so may meet WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB clearly states;
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (emphasis mine)
The mention in this hacker magazine, the article in which is not actually given in the link (that I could find) doesnt constitute multiple; even if we include the "trivial" link from a slashdot post. Also, Alexa.com rank (I know I hate them too) is over 1 million... delete  Glen  21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G11. Further, it makes no assertion of notability. A small court claim is not notable. Neither is any generic scam on paypal, nor is entry in 2600, a VERY niche magazine notability. 2600 publishes dozens of small articles similar to this one yearly, none of which are otherwise notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want to stick to WP:WEB to a T, you need multiple Non-trivial sources, which means even if 2600 is notable (which I think it is, go look at the subscriber base size) it is still only one non-trivial source. It was linked to on slashdot in a post not dedicated to it. Thus it only has 1 non-trivial source. I'm assuming wikipedia policies which refer to multiple sources mean more than one. Since it doesn't have MULTIPLE non-trivial sources it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Too bad since I would've preferred to keep it otherwise. --Quirex 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, I'm convinced by Quirex especially since I'm unable to find another source. JoshuaZ 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Web page about single NN small-claims case, one about a kajillion filed in the USA every day. Judge Judy does cases that are larger and more notable than this. Tubezone 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Only a regular delete; WP:NOT is not reason to speedy-delete, it has likely claims of fame (2600 article, lawsuit, etc) and it's not an attack page (The subject may be as annoying as imaginable, as long as the article is not abusive). I don't think this qualifies as G11 blatant ad either. I think this thing should be kind of chainsaw-trimmed and put to Criticisms of PayPal or something. Probably not famous enough for an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable enough, as it has only one source. The page also spends much too much time on the site creator's personal story with PayPal, which is not exactly encyclopedia-worthy and suggests that the page was created mainly to air criticisms of Paypal. Heimstern Läufer 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this article should stay. For one, there is an article in 2600 Magazine about this guy and his problem. However, since it is a paper publication, there is no way to site it other than the link provided. Also, referring to your reasons for deleting: 1) It is not an attack page. It is not attacking fuckpaypal.net. 2) It doesn't seem this way to me. It seems to be your point of view that this is a promotion of the site. I see this article as a warning to people that use paypal. I believe there was a link to the site in the PayPal wikipedia article in the criticism section, but was removed when the section was cleaned. I don't see this as a promotion of the site or a personal grudge. I see it as a documentation of the 'fuckpaypal' movement. Maybe a name change from 'fuckpaypal.net' to 'fuckpaypal' would satisfy you.68.193.81.111 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about merging or renaming this into an article Criticisms of PayPal. I would note that buyers and sellers routinely have beefs with PayPal, Ebay, Mastercard, Visa, Amex, etc, and buyer and seller fraud is a big problem. Ebay even has a "Dispute Console", indicating that they expect disputes. The only thing notable about this dispute is that he put up the fuckpaypal.net website. Large companies deal with larger disputes and buyer fraud regularly, spammers and phishers scam the public for millions. A $600 gyp is not notable, unless it happens to me, in which case you will see a WP page on it. Tubezone 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an issue of a few hundred bucks is not a very big deal, I'm sure PayPal deals with that sort of thing all the time. If it can be sourced, though, it would probably make a good addition to a "criticism of PayPal" section. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabaster Reem

[edit]
Alabaster Reem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alabster Reem does not exist Pontificake 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. This was a procedural nom and no valid deletion rational has been given at this point and the subject meets WP:BIO. As the person who brought the procedural nom I am withdrawing it.--Isotope23 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Phil Hine

[edit]

This ariticle has undergone an incomplete AfD, PROD, PROD removal, and re-PROD; all without the editors commenting on this. I'm bringing this to AfD so this can go through an actual community review. The original PROD reason was "notability", which I assume is supposed to mean the PROD'er finds this person non-notable. The article is completely unverified, but I'm not convinced it is unverifiable and the subject may meet WP:BIO. Regardless, I have no real opinion here, this is just procedural so an actual consensus can hopefully be reached.--Isotope23 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Original bad faith nom (I brought it to the admins' attention before, and they said they would deal with it[50]), and the prodder has been repeatedly warned for vandalism[51]. Add to that the fact that Phil Hine's book, Condensed Chaos, is about the most recommended book on chaos magic to beginners, I'd say he's notable. --Tsuzuki26 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - bad faith nom by vandal. Hine is extremely notable in the field of Chaos Magick as well as AMOOKOS. -999 (Talk) 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definately notable. Cannot see that any WP policies have been breached. As noted on other AfDs, the nominator has nominated a relatively high number of similar articles. Mallanox 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I take exception to being called a vandal for an edit made in good faith. Phil Hine, although an author of the occult, does not satisfy notability, as per. When SUZUKI says, "one of the most commended books fo beginners..." who exactly is doing the referring?
    Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Wikipedia editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs) — 71.219.142.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep,I suspect this is from the same person that nominated quite a few other rather notable people in the field, such as Peter Carroll, as well. If so, this may perhaps be a clear WP:POINT and the user ought to be warned as such. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the nomination, however and defend as such. Hine is well-known in occultist circles, published for at least two books by reputable publishers, and his books are located in print bookshops in addition to online ones. While that may not be a direct qualification, I think that it can be a useful adjunct to the bio policy in that if Barnes and Nobel thinks he warrents shelf-space he's probably at least notable enough. His books are also the subject of review in websites and in print. The article cites sources, and deals with an author of verifiable notability. While notability is not just in the eyes of wikipedia editors, it is also not simply in the hands of the mainstream. The fact that his writing is important only to a subculture is not an impeachment of his notability. Chaos Magic is a notable new religious/philosophical movement, and as a major writer of the field, Hine is as well. Wintermut3 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as others have said, Phil's work is seminal in chaos magic, which apparently the nominator doesn't believe in. I don't believe in Chrsitianity, but I don't go nominating Christian articles for deletion. Looking at the noms contribs, this is a clear violation of WP:POINT as has already been suggested. —Hanuman Das 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, no need to further this WP:POINT any more. RFerreira 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This was nominated by 71.219.142.172 who obviously has a problem with Chaos magicians as he has nominated Jan Fries, Ian Read, Phil Hine, etc. WITHOUT REGISTERING! FK0071a 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 policy-based argument for keeping has been submitted. I would have speedied this as blatant spam (WP:CSD#G11). Sandstein 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapak

[edit]
Zapak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was originally prodded by User:SkierRMH with the comment "Spam, even with extensive re-writes this article is simply a long ad for a bunch of softwear". The prod was removed without comment by User:220.227.55.18 (talk), an apparent single purpose account. In 220.227.55.18's defense, he left a comment on SkierRMH's talk page (since blanked) asking how/if the article could be saved. SkierRMH re-added the prod tag, which is not the right thing to do, so I've taken the article to AfD instead. It does smell somewhat spammy, and I think it's a not-yet-launched portal, which would fall short of our notability guidelines, but I'm not entirely sure, and I'm a little concerned about the prodder's peremptory behavior (and his spelling), so I'm not sure of my own position on this yet. Therefore, this nomination should be considered procedural (although I reserve the right to choose a side later after further study). Xtifr tälk 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Text available on request for any moves. Sandstein 05:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (wrestling)

[edit]
Fire and Ice (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fire and Ice were a short lived team in WCW. The article can't be expanded much more, and doesn't serve much purpose. There is many wrestling articles like this, so this is just the start of teams nominations. Just because they have a team name doesn't make them more notable. RobJ1981 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand Somebdy just needs to be willing to put the effort in. TJ Spyke 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The team existed for only a few months, there isn't much to expand... unless the article becomes just a list of each match they had (which isn't how wrestling articles should be set up). RobJ1981 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit that the article wouldn't be big, but there is room to expand without adding in cruft like matches. TJ Spyke 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A team around for only a few months can't be expanded. How hard is that to understand? The only way to expand the page is listing each and every match they were in. There is NOTHING else to add. A short lived team isn't that notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to every short lived tag team that had an official team name. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to wrestling wiki While the team was notable in professional wrestling, they didn't accomplish anything, no championships and hardly any wins at all and are thus not notable enough for Wikipedia. semper fi — Moe 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree they were not around long enough to have an article as a team. I barely remember them as a tag team. Stephen Day 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn; consensus to keep in any event. Agent 86 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Eaton

[edit]
Sally Eaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Still not notable Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samethanahalli Rama Rao

[edit]
Samethanahalli Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly notable but I don't find him in my copy of Britannica 2007 and he has only 42 google hits, most of these being Wikipedia mirrors Mikker (...) 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe stronger. At least some of his books can be verified at [52], including plays and the autobiography. --Mereda 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) And it's not a good source, but [53] credits him with a book that became a TV miniseries by G. V. Iyer. Mereda 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per Mereda. Needs expand/cleanup.Bakaman 06:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Baka. The books and other publications should be listed, and then it would be a keep.
      • commentThere seem to be about 25% of the AfDs that could be rescued, and there should be some way of trying to rencourage this--not just by waiting a few months, but by getting in touch with the editors. (I, of course, am not volunteeering to do this.) ;)DGG 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InsurgentSort

[edit]
InsurgentSort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not a widely recognized (or performant) sort algorithm; clearly intended as a joke. Milyle 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— 30sman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know of two commercial products that utilize this algorithm.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Feel free to recreate once reliable third-party sources are found, but mere promises that they will appear someday aren't enough. W.marsh 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Conservative and Unionist Association

[edit]

Delete - although a branch of a national political party, this club itself isn't notable. Otherwise we would have articles on every major political party's branch in every university and in every town. See the debate on the St Andrews' SNP branch here for further discussion. The content of course leaves a lot to be desired too - a huge chunk of quoted text plus a list of student committee members. The unsubstantiated and entirely unconvincing claim of notability does however save it from a speedy, I guess. --SandyDancer 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to a large extent. However, perhaps, in its establishment in the 1860s it may well be amongst the oldest Conservative groups at any University; considering there were only three universities in England at this time; Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, I do believe. I think this ought to be looked into. If not then, true, it is not notable.--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But St Andrews is in Scotland and there were more than three universities there. Also from the article it is clear that groups from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities were older.Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per deletion of similar articles on student associations. Catchpole 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the age of the association, provided the continuous existence of the group is verified with good references. (There is no consistent practice to delete "similar articles on student associations" - each has to be judged on its own merits.) Or weak delete with no prejudice against recreation of a better version, if nobody bothers to work on improving the article now. Upp◦land 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment longetivity = notability? I think not. And where are these "good references"? There isn't one, apart from the huge quote from an old newspaper which makes up most of the article. --SandyDancer 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, longevity often equals notability. As for the good references, I have no idea where they are. I was hoping somebody who cares about this article would rise to the challenge and produce them. Upp◦land 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be good, yes. "Multiple non-trivial references" are needed. --SandyDancer 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This should be a notably sized branch and thus worth including.DGG 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity does not seem to constitute notability, see the Oxford Monarchists, recently deleted, which was one of the oldest Societies in Oxford.--Couter-revolutionary 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is no precedent. As the comment of the closing admin makes clear, it was the lack of cited sources that was the problem, and that seems to be the problem with this one too. Upp◦land 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I will personally make sure this is updated within the next couple of months. I have access to a wealth of information which can be added to this article (with appropriate references)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestpa (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That this is a student society is not relevant. If it were notable I would advocate keeping, but it is not. The article indicates that the society is old, but this is not per se notable. The article does not establish how the society is different from any other student political society. Why should anyone outside St Andrew's have heard of it ? What does this society do that other similar societies do not ? The questions are not answered. Notability is not proven. WMMartin 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Longevity is an insufficient claim to notability (per SandyDancer and WMMartin); the only other claim of notability is a membership of 250, which is nothing special. - mholland 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the above two comments, per the proposed WP:ORG, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And none can be, it seems, in this case. Sandstein 05:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month cooking

[edit]
Once a month cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody's trivial freetime activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OAMC (talk • contribs). — OAMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The AfD was added by a new user 5 minutes after account creation with account name that matches article acronym. —Doug Bell talk 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperar

[edit]
Imperar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy McIntyre

[edit]
Sandy McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The mine mine might be notable, but this prospector most certainly is not. Mikker (...) 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Misshapes

[edit]
The Misshapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possibly non-notable and looking for consensus. Article placed by PR team. AKeen 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tannin Schwartzstein

[edit]
Tannin Schwartzstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason the page should be deleted: non-notable --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that the article should be deleted, but my problem is that I was trying to edit the article but couldn't find any information about Schwartzstein from an independent, reliable source. The fact that we apparently needed to link to her WitchSchool article to "verify" that she was clergy (and I question that, because I think that if you state in an article that someone is ordained clergy, you need to specify what they are ordained clergy of) indicates that there is a dearth of verifiable information here. I haven't found any independent review of the books she co-authored on a website that's not trying to sell it. I just don't know how we can do this without it turning into an advert. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AdelaMae. Jkelly 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The verifiable information seems to be a thimbleful at most. She's authored two books, that's verifiable, and they are published by a popular publisher of neopagan and spiritual books. They do have reviews on Amazon (the one-star review of The Urban Primitive is especially good reading) but that seems to be about it; not much critical reaction anywhere, and I haven't heard mention of them myself. It's also verified that she's taught a class at a spiritual festival, but that's not much; I've taught classes at equivalently sized events, and I don't consider myself notable enough for Wikipedia. Beyond that, things are only verifiable through sites she controls; her WitchVox listing (self-published ad) and her store's website. I don't think once sentence of verifiable info is enough to make a viable article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable whatsoever. - WeniWidiWiki 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up-and-coming author and lecturer in the field, published by one of the leading book publishers in that genre. Rosencomet 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she owns a shop and has co-written a couple of books - but hasn't written one entirely by herself. Nothing notable here - Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Totnesmartin 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosencomet. —Hanuman Das 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosencomet and Hanuman Das. —Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - published author. Frater Xyzzy 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, which dictates we only keep "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Neither reviews or awards are in evidence, as are no other reliable sources, as noted by Morwen. Rosencomet et al. do not address this and do not make any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rooms

[edit]
List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was recently AfD'd and withdrawn before I could add my input, so I prodded it and it was removed citing the reason being that it is "no different from any other fictional item list". This is an unmaintainable, unsourced, unencyclopedic, potentially endless list. What makes this subject notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Who set the criteria to only include fictional rooms in real buildings? I don't see the usefulness of this list. VegaDark 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Change Title to something like fictional rooms in real buildings. The problem is the scope of the article is too big as it currently is. I feel like it could be useful and interesting, in case someone wants to know if a room they saw in a movie actually exists in reality. Sourcing is the problem, but that might be fixable. --Tractorkingsfan 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(AMA) 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure you can so easily cite precedent in cases like this. Does the existence of an article on Tom Hanks create a precedent for an article about me? I think the comparison is fair. Also, just because we have X doesn't mean we automatically need Y.--Dmz5 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would make sense if you believe that the War Room of the White House or the Basement of the Alamo is less significant than anything in, say, List_of_fictional_brands_in_South_Park. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to your point; yes, I do abhor inconsistent application of principle. If there is not a need to remove other fictional list articles, especially those with arguably equivalent or lower notability, there should not be a need to remove this one. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't be bothered to read the articles they are voting on, the intro paragraph indicates the following scope: This is a list of fictional rooms or accessible spaces in structures or establishments that are or were otherwise real, but the rooms/spaces described do not and never did exist. (boldface mine) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're (at least partially) talking to me, why the attitude? The reason I put "change title" in my vote is because, though I read the article and am capable of understanding the scope laid out there, I think the article could still do with a title change, I often think its a good idea for an article's purpose to be clearly understandable from the title. That way you know what's going on right away. The way it is, the title makes you think you are going to be reading about any fictional room in any fictional locale ever imagined, and then the first paragraph narrows it down. Why not have the scope defined from the get-go? Sorry to activate your condescencion reflex. --Tractorkingsfan 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a way this distinction makes the article even worse; any conceivable angle of minutiae could be fair game in such a list, and you could create "list of famous people who did not own dogs but who starred in movies in which their characters owned dogs" and "list of fictional people with first names that are the same as names of delegates to the United Nations."--Dmz5 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are examples of coincidences; this is an entirely intentional story device. BCoates 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Alright, I hear that. Your ninja-like reasoning has convinced me. Let's delete it. I was just kind of focused on the wrong thing here. Delete --Tractorkingsfan 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete -- Apart from the intro para criterion, these entries have no commonality; the list is clearly capable of infinite expansion; its compilation serves (IMHO) no useful prupose within W~paedia. -- Simon Cursitor 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list appears to be well-defined and finite, collects information about fairly common device in fiction that would be hard to search for otherwise. Unsourced now but trivially sourcable; bonus points if someone can get a source for the story about Reagan wanting to see the war room... BCoates 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this list is finite?--Dmz5 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of "rooms or accessable spaces" mentioned by a WP:RS is large and very slowly growing but finite. The fraction that are fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings is a tiny fraction of that, both finite and reasonably small. If filled out and sourced, this could be the starting point for a nice little article on the literary device. BCoates 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added "well-known" to the intro paragraph (all of the existing examples were well-known). This counters the notability argument, and the previous poster has a fine justification of its usefulness and encyclopaedic nature. Matchups 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This raises a POV issue, because who is to say what "well known" means? Yes, a climactic scene of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure takes place at the Alamo, but is the "fictional room" in which the scene happens notable?--Dmz5 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30k ghits, pretty good for a four-word phrase describing a place that doesn't exist.[54]. Lots of usage not directly related to the movie as a general piece of pop culture. BCoates 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the main character spends the majority of the movie looking for it, I'd say, uh, yes. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junjdy

[edit]
Junjdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Probable hoax, google traces the term only to the "Australian Yowie Research Centre", not the most reliable source. -- Shunpiker 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Happee

[edit]
DJ Happee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. A Google search shows no non-trivial reliable mentions, and two albums on Amazon with unlisted labels. Speedied four times, prodded, deleted, and recreated. Pan Dan 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When curiosity met insanity

[edit]
When curiosity met insanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable webcomic, speedied already as db-web; prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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