Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIP (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 24 October 2006 (added Aikakone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< October 23 October 25 >

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Daniel.Bryant 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Dust

Profoundly NN - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:04, 24 October 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 g11, spam, no notability asserted. NawlinWiki 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Music Institute

The article does not appear to be verifiable from reliable sources. It looks like advertising for a non-notable music school. Most Google hits are from adverising and business directories, and most of the rest are from WP and sites pulling from WP. Donald Albury 00:11, 24 October 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 as below. Please be bold or discuss redirects on talk pages. Deizio talk 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast delay

All info here is covered in Tape delay (broadcasting), it should be a redirect to it The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:39, 24 October 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 nomination withdrawn. Whispering 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walk point

Can this ever be more than a dictdef? If it can't, shouldn't it be in Wiktionary, not here? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn - looks much better. I wouldn't have thought it could be expanded but BusterD proved me wrong - well done. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve Give it a second look, after my redo. It's much better now. If this is given to Mil Hist group, this will get better and earn a deserved place in tactics category. If not, no biggie. Too important a term to discard without due consideration. BusterD 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it is a better-written article now, but it still only offers evidence of the term being used by one person, which falls a long way short of the notability criteria. Only 575 ghits, which suggests that it is a slang term with very limited currency. Maybe, after more investigation, this might turn to be something to incoprorate in another artucle, but it's way short of the evidence needed to justify a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not intending to belabor this, but as an established term in military vernacular, I'm not sure ghits is an appropriate measure of notability in this case. Yet, I get 38,000 ghits on "Walking Point". That's notable. The article needs to be tagged for improvement, not deleted. IMHO, but I'll accept any reasonable ruling. BusterD 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the above (because AfD process is new to me). Is it correct to movepage when an articles up for AfD? Is movepage a possible option in addition to Keep or Delete? When I did this a few months ago I remember being admonished not to do. BusterD 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes they can, but it also requires moving the AFD debate, or at least doing an extra link to it, which people often forget. It's not usually recommended to move a page while afd is in progress, but it is possible. Grutness...wha? 21:16, 24 October 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West african type

Delete are we trying to support race science here? This article violates WP:NEO as neologism and origional research WP:NOR. While this article seems to have citations - I don't know if they're legit or by hacks/racists - the concept of West african type does not seem to be mainstream and rather is a title being made up by the author using a compendium of sources which lead the author to believe that there is a "West African type." For you googlers, note the lack of g-hits. Clearly non-notable fringe theory. WP:NN Strothra 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Czech republic, hence I am not influenced by any politically correct propaganda and I am also not sensitive to the study of racial differences. That's the problem of USA, Great Britain or France, not the problem of WIKIPEDIA. Nice to see that your biggest problem is not with the credibility of the sources, but with the content. And to suspect this article of racism is a sign of mental poorness.
The term "West African type" is used by Hiernaux in his People of Africa (1975). In fact, many authors use various terms for the description of the same anthropological type around the Gulf of Guinea: the :"moderately tall mesomorph". Some authors distinguish two subtypes in this area - hence you can find designations like "Sudanid (Savanna) type" (in West African savanna) or "Paleonegrid/Paleocongoid type" (in :West-Central rain forest). Today we already know that the Sudanid and the Paleonegrid type are of the same genetic origin, differing only by the magnitude of the Pygmy admixture and possibly by natural :adaptation to different climate (hot savanna/wet jungle). The differences between them are not so fundamental that we should distinguish them as separate racial types. Hence Hiernaux classification was :basically correct.
The physiological characteristics of the West African type are unique in comparison with all other human groups (which every athletic fan knows) and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly :valid (although in fact, it is a stabilized racial mixture). Besides this type, there actually exist another four separate "races" in Africa that are both genetically and physioogically very distinct:
1/ Nilotes in East Africa, an example of extreme human adaptation to hot, dry climate. They are descendants of a very old human lineage that separated from the rest of mankind maybe more than 100 000 years ago :and physiologically they are more distant from West Africans than both groups are distant from e.g. Europeans
2/ Khoisan in South Africa, again a very distinct and "old" people, who are distantly related to Nilotes
3/ Pygmies in forests of West-Central Africa, the second oldest human lineage. They are an extreme example of "insular dwarfism", i.e. adaptation to insufficient nutrition
4/ Ethiopid type in Ethiopia/Somalia - a stabilized mixture of "Negroids" (Nilotes, Neonegrids, Pygmies, and even partly Australoids) and Europids; however, genetic research indicates that their origin may be :more complicated and Somalis may be the "cleanest" descendants of the Saharan Neonegrids.
As for the term "Neonegrid", it is naturally new in connection with the population, for which I use it. However, there can't be an established term for these people, because 6 years ago nobody knew that they :have ever existed. Their existence is clear from genetic studies, but archeological evidence is scarce due to the enviroment in the Sahara. Ironically, these "invisible" people are ancestors of about 90% modern :sub-Saharan Africans. As I said in the article, they actually "created" modern Africans, but they are virtually nowhere present in its original form, because they mixed with people north and south of Sahara. :The :"cleanest" representatives of this paleolithic race are probably modern Somalis, in which the "Neonegrid" Y- and mtDNA lineages prevail most.
Anyway, the racial classification of people needs a big revision based on modern genetic research. However, you can't expect that anybody would dare to do it, especially in the Western hemisphere, because he :could be fired from the university. Personally I feel no problem with it, because I am self-employed, hence I can work without restraint, and in the age of the internet, I can have access to a sort of :information that I need. Centrum99 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be "influenced by any politically correct propaganda" but you are apparently influenced by outdated and bad science. Poltical correctness has nothing to do with it. I'm disturbed to see that medical progress does not advance very quickly in your side of the world. I blame the many years of Soviet opression and control. Don't worry, you'll catch up. --Strothra 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and you are desperately brainwashed, mistaking politically motivated demagogy for science. Sorry. I don't think that the 8 men of West African ancestry in every big athletic final of the 100 m since 1988 :::(100% of the last 104 finalists) are "outdated". They are REAL. As well as the fact that you will find ZERO (0,00%) athletes of this origin in races 1500 m or longer, not only since 1988, but since the :::beginning of the athletic sport in the end of the 19th century. Why? My article explains the cause of this phenomena that we can today explain with the help of available (albeit still not 100% satisfactory) :::studies. Centrum99 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to calm down. This is a deletion discussion. Please read Wiki's policies on personal attacks before you are blocked from editing wikipedia. You should further read the policies on Wiki ::::against origional research, WP:NOR, and against neologisms WP:NEO. You should take a period and observe how things are done on wikipedia before you begin creating articles. This will help you ::::better acclamate to the process. Also, unlike your claims, I did question the validity of your sources. --Strothra 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would need to present some arguments. So far you presented none, except some foggy claims about racism and non-mainstream science. I will welcome notes and criticism that can make this article better, but this needs people acquianted with this topic. I needed 5 years to collect relevant material. The references added to the article are only a small excerpt of the most useful literature that I used. I think that the differences in sports performance that we observe between various racial groups are a very interesting phenomena and as I see in the internet, many people seek (or would need) some explanation and sources to it. Since they can't find it, they construct their own explanations that have no real scientific basis and often lead to unfounded prejudices. Centrum99 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cited the specific wikipedia policies which your article violates. Wikipedia is not a soundboard for your research. I suggest that you read these policies before contributing any more "articles" to wikipedia. --Strothra 02:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some other argument except "Delete"? Strothra, your motivations are obviously political, not scientific. You should know that we don't live in the 17th century anymore. And as for others, please present meaningful objections. Not "delete!" Centrum99 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as OR/personal essay/neologism. There's an excel graph and a discussion of sports, and yet the text reads like it was written in 1870. "Exact physiological opposite"? Many of the sources are very old, and most of the more recent ones only refer to very specific claims in the text, not to the overall theme. Even in scare-quotes, no one refers to facial features as "primitive" anymore. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the same case. I welcome a discussion with somebody, who has some idea about this topic. Read the sources and then you can judge. Your opinion without the knowledge of the topic is worthless. What about if I went to some page about physics and cried that I don't understand it and they should delete it? What you mean with the question "exact physiological opposite"? What can be more "opposite" than excellence in the 100 m and the marathon? Remember that I am not a native English speaker. If you find another, better word for the description of this difference, I will use it. Old sources? 80% of the references come from time after 1990. The oldest are anthropological books that are still relevant. Do you think that muscle structure of some population will change within 40 years? I would say that it would need several thousand years. The reason, why there are (almost) no newer books on comparative anthropology is known (and is political). But anthropological measurements are still done for other purposes, so useful data for comparison with older studies can be found. Centrum99 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some other argument except "Delete"? Strothra, your motivations are obviously political, not scientific. You should know that we don't live in the 17th century anymore. And as for others, please present meaningful objections. Not "delete!" And, by the way, this is not my research. I collect research of others. If you want to delete my article, then you can delete the whole Wikipedia, because everything is based on some research. Remember that you will find few people, who would study this topic in such a detailed way like me. If you find another source for the presented information, then I will welcome it. But don't reckon with it. And read above, what the misinterpretation of this topic causes in the public. Centrum99 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's your research or someone else. You are still in violation of using origional research. I will no longer repeat myself, read WP:NOR so that you understand what origional research is and how it may not be used. --Strothra 03:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sthrothra, I am not particularly interested in your opinion to this article. Your first post clearly indicates, what's behind your effort to delete it. My article is "a synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments", but not in a way "that builds a particular case favored by the editor". I quote all available research that tries to explain the problems presented in the article. I can go into more detail in the article, mentioning all problems that are bound with the interpretation of the data (for example, not all findings concerning VO2 max. differences between West Africans and Europeans are statistically significant, yet they betray a clear trend). No problem. But reckon with that the article will be quite large.

If you want, I can substitute the term "Neonegrid" for "bearers of Y-haplogroup E and mtDNA haplogroup L3" to avoid "neologism". But as you see, the first variant is much shorter (and this is why I use it). You can certainly catch me that I can't attribute "that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". But this is an article dealing with several topics together, they don't appear anywhere in a "reputable source" together. I can list Tanner's book from 1964 or Bloomfield's CD from 2003 as an introduction in racial differences in body morphology and their relevance to sports performance, Coon's Living Races of Man (1965) as an introduction into general racial differences (+later studies that verify it), Entine's TABOO as an introduction into athletic history and racial differences in sports performance (I could actually use this book as a source of "a synthesis" of the article, but since it is not objective in all areas, I can't do it). And article reviews concerning endocrinology or skeletal/muscle build could be also available.

I thought that we can discuss this topic and gradually improve the article. I am not interested in opinions of people, who have zero knowledge of this topic and their only argument is "Delete!". They can't judge its objectivity. However, I welcome meaningful, factical arguments. Centrum99 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe origin of the term which has been deemed a neologism is thirty years old, so it is not a neologism. The article is well-sourced. Old sources on physical type are still good sources, since the measuring tools were available at that time. It is not a personal essay, since the whole thing seems to be sourced. There seems to be no reason for deletion of this article.---Dark Tichondrias 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that the term is in wise use as to make it notable? There are no google hits for it. Also, this article is not written to present the topic as historical, but rather contemporary. To present this as real contemporary science is counter to the idea of an credible encyclopedia. Also, old sources are not good sources when it comes to anthropology and science. Old sources can only be used in presenting the history of an idea, but that is not how they are used in the article. These sources often promote the political agendas of their period. Further, the article uses origional research clearly violating WP:NOR which states classifies origional research as "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." This article is origional research. --Strothra 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this term in Cavalli-Sforza's HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF HUMAN GENES (1994). To be 100% objective, I didn't read Hiernaux book, because it is not available anywhere in my country. I only read the conclusions from it presented in Sforza's book and then data concerning body morphology quoted from the book by others. Hiernaux actually only finished the work of other anthropologists, who came to the same (or almost the same) conclusions during the last century. The physical differences between anthropological types in Africa are namely very marked, which can be seen from the "athletic graph". The physique needed for excellence in such different disciplines like the 100 m and the 10 000 m is very, very different. Hiernaux data are comparable with the results of recent studies, like e.g. Rebacz' article on East African physique that I list on the page about The Nilotic type. I can make you certain that the people haven't changed during the recent 40 years. Centrum99 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more exact, Hiernaux includes both above mentioned types (in his conception West Sudan=Sudanid, Paleonegrid=Guinea Rain Forest) into one broad cathegory with the location in West Africa. An internet link to the scan from Hiernaux (actually Sforza's) book can be found here: http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1138552682 Hence you can argue that he actually doesn't call it a "West African type" explicitly, but I use it as a geographical term including both these anthropological types, because they have a relatively recent common origin. I think this is really better than using a term "West Sudanid and Guinea Rain Forest type". Hiernaux classification agrees with the observations of all other anthropologists before him, with little differences, of course, but the basic distribution of sub-Saharan Africans into 5-6 main groups (with Nilotes and Ethiopids forming sometimes single cathegories, which is fully correct) has survived the test of time. It is not perfectly correct from the genetic point of view, it is primarily an anthropological survey that can be very good as a general description of physical differences between African populations. I will add some maps of respected anthropologists to the article. Their versions of this classification don't differ much. I will even add recent anthropometric data on West African nations. Centrum99 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all above. Does not belong here because I would like to see a general community decision on what we should do about these types of articles, which can be quite controversial (and offensive).UberCryxic 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's offensive on this article? Are you joking? Remember please that I am not interested in any political agenda that you are taught in America or elsewhere. That's your problem. This is WIKIPEDIA. Let ideology to ideologists and science to scientists! Well, I thought that I would make a relatively brief article, but it seems that I will have to post much more of the data that I have, including photographs and pictures. I do hope that they will be instructive even for moderately blind people. Centrum99 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber's point is that race science such as what you are espousing is imperfect, and is a pseudo-science and ultimately political in nature. It's considered by most people to be exactly what you are criticizing others of. Most people view race science as Nazi/Neo-nazi fascist propaganda. --Strothra 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, I said it before: I am not interested in any political agenda coming from the United States or elsewhere. If you have problems with the relationship with other racial groups, solve it in your countries and don't force your politically correct speech upon others. I present scientific research; if you like to argue, argue with facts. "Delete!" is an argument of narrow-minded medieval jezuites, who also wanted to silence all free-thinking people that didn't agree with the official ideology. Centrum99 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while it may be possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this topic, this article is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Centrum has admitted that her/his ideas about race are novel ("The model that I presented above comes from the combination of anthropology and modern genetic studies. It needs no sophisticated deductive abilities, only the knowledge of anthropological differences and Y/mtDNA-haplogroups. I can't find anybody in the scientific world, who would try to combine it and produce a more modern racial classification"). These ideas fall outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Guettarda 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Guettarda. To expand on his point, the article also includes at least one other part where the author explicitly talks in the first person, saying how he/she is using terms and synthesizing information. This is a textbook example of original research; it's written like a college paper. Certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --The Way 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/I said it already: What would you like more: "Neonegrids" or "bearers of Y-haplogroup E and mtDNA haplogroup L3"? Well, if you like the second one more, I will correct it. But then please don't complain that it's hard to read.

2/I explicitly ask people, who have no idea about this topic, not to meddle into it. The racial classification that I presented on that page has little in common with this article and I didn't intrude it upon anybody, which I explicitly stressed. The anthropological distribution that I present here has been established during the last century and is nothing new. The "new thing" in it is only genetics, because with genetics we can establish genetic connections between Khoisan and Nilotes, for example, but genetic talk is not a subject of discussion of this article, except the distribution of Y- and mtDNA haplogroups in West African nations, which can be verified by x-sources. Centrum99 06:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centrum, you don't seem to understand that the number one problem here is that the entire article violates the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding use of original research. Indeed, judging from your above comments it appears that the article is your original research. For example, the phrase "A note: The title "Neonegrid", used in this connection, is no official scientific term; it is a designation of the editor of this article coming from books of older anthropologists, who used it for "more advanced", more Europoid-looking African populations," which I took straight from the article in question, is a perfect example of what original research is. It directly states that the 'editor of this article' is responsible for the formulation and use of the term within the article. That's perfectly fine, indeed it is expected, in a academic paper. However, the Wikipedia is NOT a repository for academic papers. Unfortunately, replacing that with 'bearers of Y-haplogroup E...' will not solve the underlying problem that the entire article seems to be YOUR synthesis of the conclusions of a number of different authors which, again, constitutes original research. Finally, please refrain from continually telling people who aren't experts on the subject to 'not meddle.' Arguing over deletion is an administrative function open to all Wikipedia editors and it necessarily does not require any expertise as deletion is based upon particular, generalized guidelines about whether a given topic justifies an article. The guidelines apply equally well to all articles and don't require expertise on the given subject. --The Way 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how many references do I need to create an article here? These things are normally accepted by people, who know what's going on: See at least (very brief) article about racial differences in body proportions and sports performance in Bloomfield et al. (2003). However, almost all people here are crying "Delete!" without even checking the references I posted. I expected notes and factical discussion, not arguments "I don't like it. Erase it!" Then, please, erase my article with the whole Wikipedia. The information there is a synthesis of original resarch that I can no longer trust. Since every study is an original research, there is no study in the world that could be verified. We should rather abolish the whole science and return to the middle ages. Centrum99 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, you obviously have no clue, what this article is about. I describe a really existing racial type (more concretely, two slightly different racial types) that exist in West Africa. Hence I write "West African type". This type (or his two sub-cathegories) was independently identified in works of different authors, but sometimes with different terminology:

Hiernaux: "West Africa" (West Sudan+Guinea rain forest)

Biasutti: Sudanese + Silvestre (Sudanic type + Forest type)

Lundman: Sudanid/Senegalid type + Hylaenegrid type

Eickstedt: Sudanid + Paleonegrid

Coon: "Negroes" (distinguishes the forest Pygmy-Negro mixture)

If you are so strict, I can make two separate pages on "Sudanid type" and "Forest type", but their description will be almost the same. Centrum99 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a matter of how many references you have. Rather, it's a matter of how you present them. First of all, you lay everything down as fact which is not necessarily the case. Second of all, you use no in-text citations even though you include page numbers in the reference section. All the individual premises in an article of this nature need to have the citations included in the text to show that they are conclusions reached by published material. Thirdly, an encyclopedia article can NEVER refer to the articles author; that implies original research. Finally, the article needs to be structurally set up so that it is clear that the purported facts are properly placed in the context of the research that led to them, meaning that it should be clear which authors argue what and attention must be drawn to show where different researches agree and disagree. Even then, POV problems are still possible. I won't even address the argument that some here may call this pseudoscience (and it very well may be, though I'm not making an opinion either way) but the fact is that wikipedia allows pseudoscience so long as its placed into context with the field at large. Finally, Centrum, in looking at your past contributions it is clear that you are a new editor here and your other contribution has run into similar problems. As such, may I suggest that you please look over all of wikipedia's guidelines (they can be found under 'community portal' which is located on the left-hand side of the screen) so you can avoid mistakes in the future which should make your editing less frustrating to both yourself and other editors since it will help to avoid miscommunication? Wikipedia has a great number of guidelines that editors apply when working on the site. --The Way 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People on Wikipedia complain that articles are too long. It is no problem for me to write a more detailed page with exact numbers, all available studies quoted (not all in agreement, of course), statements beginning with the name of their author etc. But I have no doubt that then I will hear again: "It is too long. I don't understand it. Delete it!" Better said, I can write a general article on racial differences in sports performance - which was, after all, the original motivation to this synthesis. Then we can avoid a hot discussion about "a West African type". But it will exist irrespectively if you want it or not. P.S. I really don't know, how to quote a published material and, at the same time, not to list its source. Centrum99 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain to me how an article with over 30 books in the references section fails NOR. See my comments on Afd:Niolotic type [1] for my reasoning. We have an article on Eugenics, which is surely a reprehensible subject, we have an article on Slavery, same deal. Just because you are repulsed by a topic does not mean it does not merit an article. Should we discover that the sources do not support the article, we can edit the article, and if all we have in the end is "A term used by racial science promoters in the early 20th century, no longer used" with history and so on, that's what we'll have. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Delete, see rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilotic type KillerChihuahua?!? 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the answer to your question is in WP:NOR. This is original research because it is the editor's own synthesis of the listed references. It is original research based on the references rather than an encyclopedia entry drawing entirely from the references without adding new ideas of the editor's own devising QuiteUnusual 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that makes it a candidate for cleanup. Look at Jesus now, and Jesus in 2001. Completely OR in 2001. Did we delete it? We did not. We fixed it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus was a notable subject matter. This is not. This term cannot be found in scholarly journals or even a google search. This user has only been able to cite one occasion in which he has found the term, but I hardly feel that we can take his word on it as he is clearly biased. The term has and never has had popular usage either in the public or in scientific communities. --Strothra 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article fails WP:NOR (I'm fairly sure it does) and is an obscure term that offends some people, what's the use in keeping it? Pcbene 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, POV...et al. Did User:Centrum99 just call me a coon? "Them's Fightin' words." L0b0t 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. --Aaron 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont really know what to make of this. Most of all I'm kind of underwhelmed by the categorisation of 'Europeans' as just 'Europeans': Celtic peoples, for instance, fall into two distinct 'types' - so why is there no article describing how their athletic prowess differs? Likewise is there no nordic 'type'? No hispanic type? How do these various white types perform in sports? Why are all Europeans just lumped together as 'European'? I'd welcome your comments on this Centrum99. Marcus22 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per WP:NOR violation, clear even by the author's admission. I could launch into a long explanation as to the how and why most anthropologists today do not embrace a racial view of human diversity, but a more clinal view (see the works of Lieberman, Beals et al, Cavalli-Sforva et al to begin with), but I won't. The article's original conclusions could be contested on the basis of this work. But the objection is much more fundamental, one that you absolutely don't need to know anything about anthropology to realize: this is obvious original research, and as such has no place in Wikipedia. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles (at least the long-standing ones) have steered clear of original research and discuss of matters and issues already reviewed in one or more secondary sources. The subject of this article has no secondary sources: it is in and of itself a primary source, based on piecing together information from a commendably wide variety of sources. But the analysis it makes is clearly OR, and as such, not suitable for Wikipedia. I would also take this opportunity to kindly remind the author to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Stating that another editor's knowledge is insufficient to judge the article on even general guidelines can certainly be construed as a personal attack. 'Nuff said!--Ramdrake 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR as explained by Ramdrake. Sandstein 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research -- you suppose this author is trying so hard to promote his ideas on Wikipedia because he can't get them published anywhere else? NawlinWiki 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, particularly when he says things like, "Personally I feel no problem with it, because I am self-employed, hence I can work without restraint." --Strothra 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are cites. What part of it are you disputing? Gottoupload 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are not in-line cites, to start. Second, this is a highly disputed area and nothing in the article acknowledged that, and last but not least, this is for the most part OR through and through, and as such, unsitable for Wikipedia. Please take the time to read the other comments and familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR guideline. It should become clear then.--Ramdrake 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand. What's highly disputed exactly? That's there's a type of people that come from West Africa? When are we going to get over our paranoia about race? Sorry but we're not all the same. There are different types of people: tall ones, short ones, black ones, white ones, red ones, brown ones, and yellow ones, men and women, adults and children. Diversity is a good thing. Gottoupload
Nobody disputes that biodiversity exists. What is disputed is the way it is best represented. Currently, there are two major competing views: cluster (which find races) and clinal, which finds that human biodiversity is spread as a rather continuous differential for the diverse characteristics of humanity rather than in neat "clumps" called races. Possibly the best representation of this is: go from Oslo to Nairobi and tell me when you stop seeing "White" people and start seeing "Black" people. You won't - what you'll see is a continuum of skin tone from lighter to darker. The concept of races, in the clinal view, thus imposes artificial boundaries on biogeographic diversity. And, last time I checked, the clinal view was the one that was gaining most of the support among anthropologists. Thus, my statement that the very existence of races (and even more sub-races and types such as "West African Type" and "Nilotic") is disputed.--Ramdrake 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your barking up the wrong tree on this one. Not only am I not Centrum 99, this is the first I've heard of him or her. Gottoupload 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that they are not the same character. Sadly, there are, in fact, some people who believe this pseudo-science. Regardless, the article clearly fails to meet notability and origional research standards. Not to mention that the term is not even in academic or popular usage. --Strothra 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This nomination is a koan. Very evocative of each user's personal attitudes. IMHO, unfinished article content possesses encyclopedic tone, has lots of documentation (if this had been AfD'd WITH inline cites we wouldn't be on this page discussing this), and happens to be written on a subject most think controversial (human race and racial typing). As an example of homo sapiens, I wouldn't be adverse to an article on my racial type, but it's not as clearly differentiated and documented as this particular discussion. I disagree about neo on the merits, given a factual Hiernaux cite. Given proper inline citation (and some personal reading), I might disagree with nor (have no way of knowing in the article's current state). Every plant and animal has noted variation within a given population, and IMHO, denial of a documented scientific discussion on this related subject seems incorrect and perhaps POV. Body type is a large part of sports technology and sports medicine. No sock here, and no expert on this subject. I'm just not offended by what the article intends. BusterD 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again I must interject. This has to be the most contentious AfD debate I've seen in some time. I will admit that the topic MAY have encyclopedic value, however the way it is currently presented is wholly unencyclopedic for several reasons:
1. No in-line citations, which are especially important with non-internet sources.
2. The article is written in such a way so as to directly discuss the creator of the article and the way in which the article's creator synthesized the material. This is clearly original research; all mentions of the article's author must be expunged, terms that are from the source materials are the only ones that should be used and the article must not synthesize the information but rather should directly report that information (meaning, the information should be properly attributed to the authors and the editor of the article can't draw any conclusions)
3. The article reports the material as if it is 100% verified fact. In reality, the material here is highly contentious and the article should reflect this. The work needs to be placed into the context of anthropology, biology and other relevant fields and it needs to be pointed out how important this research is considered in those fields; is it widely accepted, is it a niche in the field?
4. The term itself doesn't seem to originate with any of the works cited. I may be wrong about this, but others here have claimed to have done searches of scholarly journals and google with no relevant finds. I'll try a search of JSTOR later, if I can (I can only do it from the university library and am currently on crutches... it's a long walk). If the term is a creation of the article's author then the article can't be salvaged.
If these four problems can be addressed, the article might be worth keeping. --The Way 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see few differences between my position and that expressed above by The Way. BusterD 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using a term which isn't even used widely in academic or popular circles. It's a neologism - otherwise it would have to be an accepted anthropological term which it is not - I haven't been able to find it in any anthropological journal. The article relies solely on primary sources and dubious secondary sources which aren't even about the topic of west african type, but are rather used by the author to extract data to make a point - clearly violating WP:NOR. Most of the concepts in this article were abandoned by the anthropological community in the mid 20th century when the discipline began to realize that physical differences were not as genetic as they were environmental, thus race science which had been used to support practices such as eugenics was abandoned as well, primarily in the United States and western Europe. None of the works used as citations actually refer to "West african type" but are rather used to support the term thru the author's own synthesis again violating WP:NOR. I mean honestly, the author called black people "coons"....These ideas are not science, they find their origions in 1930's Europe, predominately Nazi Germany, with the development of race science which espoused ideas such as cranial measurements to identify race. --Strothra 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find it a little joke but it does seem to think it has some research and i dont give a hoop about Google hits, its not a popularity contest. I dont like the slant of the article but it does try to debate its case. And for the sake of silly information i think people need information about these kinds of "thinking". Just like the mad definitions of black people, put them up there, so history can remember how silly we were. And just because it is nonsense doesnt mean we should delete it.all that high-brow ranting on Engels seem to get first place, who is googling that madness? I mean even the World Health organization has different condoms for African and Asian people, they study states the average penis size for an Africa is much greater than that for the average European and Asian. So this article should stay because clearly the thinking behind it is something organizations use. And the whole prostate cancer study (in AA men) is washed with the same information. --Halaqah 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No answer to my comment (above) suggests to me that this article exists solely to make a spurious point about race. It is complete nonsense to categorise all Europeans as a single 'European' (type?) and then, ignoring this significant and convenient oversight, make rather crass comparisons between 'Europeans' and various African 'types'. But by all means correct me on this, I'd love to hear the justification... Marcus22 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you? I am returning after one day's ban for the insult of Strothra. Nice to see that he eventually ridiculed himself and showed his level, mistaking one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century, Carleton Coon, for a coon. I wonder if the calibre of many other "reviewers" here is substantially higher, and I must say that this experience with Wikipedia is disgusting for me. Obviously, many people are so indoctrinated by their life-long exposure to PC "standards" that they are simply unable to think about it openly.

I think that the best solution at this moment would be to erase both the article WEST AFRICAN TYPE and NILOTIC TYPE, and start a new page about Physical anthropology of Africa, where I will discuss the topic in broader connections, starting with the traditional racial classification of the 20th century, adding modern genetic and anthropometric data, and finishing with "Race and Sports". I think it would be better than quarrels about a term that can be easily attacked as a "neologism". I suppose that all the company present here will come together again on another discussion forum. Centrum99 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you wrote, "Coon: "Negroes" (distinguishes the forest Pygmy-Negro mixture)," it was misread by more authors than just myself. Please attempt to write in a clear fashion, especially when you are attempting to make an argument. Further, please stop attempting to create articles until you have more experience on Wiki and you know more about the process. When you violate so many wiki procedures you make things more difficult for the other editors who have to clean up after you. Also, please note that you are walking a thin line with the other editors so you should watch what you say lest you become blocked again for a longer period. --Strothra 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I misread that myself, and the only thing I am indoctrinated by is many years of ignorant racism. Since you are from behind the iron curtain, allow me to lay a little knowledge on ya. The word "coon" has been used for many years as a perjorative for black people, and if you were to call a black person "coon" in my neighborhood you would find yourself on the receiving end of an ass kicking. My apologies for misinterpreting your writing. L0b0t 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Centrum, you still don't seem to understand that, aside from the scientific and political merits of the article, perhaps the biggest problem is the violation of wikipedia's well-established guidelines concerning original research. You REALLY need to look over Wikipedia's guidelines. The way you have presented the article is by writing it as if it were an academic paper. Now, academic papers are great for school and academic journals; I'm a graduate student so I've written many myself. However, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal, and, as such, has very different criteria for what is and is not appropriate. You'd NEVER see an article like this, written in this way, in the Encyclopedia Brittannica nor should you see it here. The problem is you are SYNTHESIZING the material when you should be REPORTING it. You're suggestion that you create a new article will likely run into the same problems if you approach it as you approached these ideas. An article on the Wikipedia can NEVER refer to its authors and can't put out anything that is a conclusion of those authors, everything in an article must come from other published sources. You can't make up terms and you certainly can't draw ANY conclusions from the material. You also must place the research presented in context of the field at large meaning you must answer questions such as 'how widely accepted is this view?,' 'what do other approaches to this field have to say about this research?' 'how important is this research to the field?' and so on. Furthermore, for an article of this nature all the premises in the article MUST be accompanied my in-text citations. This article has met none of these requirements. Even if the topic weren't controversial I would support deletion because these criteria have not been met. Now, there is also resistance here because it is politically sensitive; this is considered by many to be 'race science' which is considered in much of the english-speaking world to be a pseudoscience. However, this is not the reason for supporting deletion; even pseudoscience and racist ideologies can be on wikipedia, we're not exactly pc around here. Yet, such theories must be relevant to their field and be notable. Given that the very name of this article seems to be made up by you (appearing in only one source is not enough to qualify it as notable enough for Wikipedia) it seems to fail this requirement. I personally think this work, though presented in a convincingly academic language, is pseudoscience and largely false however if it were a well-known concept it would still deserve an article. Yet, it doesn't seem to be a well-known concept. --The Way 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is very valid research. Just because the sources can't be found on-line is not a reason to delete. On the contrary, the sources are so encyclopedic that they can only be found in scholarly text books instead of popular web pages. Timelist 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources can only be found in "scholarly text books" because this racist pablum has not been considered valid since the first half of the 20th century. That however, is not the reason for this AfD. This AfD was started because the author of the article has engaged in speculative original research and that is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Have you bothered to read all the postings in this discussion? L0b0t 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is NOT valid research! "and physiologically they are more distant from West Africans than both groups are distant from e.g. Europeans"? There is NO single 'European Type'; no "valid research" would make such a fundamentally flawed statement. Marcus22 09:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your quotation: In the context, where I wrote it, it is obviously appropriate. West Africans and East Africans represent two opposite pools of running physiology; there are no other groups in the world that would be more antithetic - or how to say it in English - in this regard. Europoids (Europeans, North Africans) fall in the middle. Or didn't you see the graph? Sprinters of West African ancestry utterly dominate the 100-400 m, yet the whole athletic history knows NO - not one! - full-blooded athlete of West African ancestry, who would be competetive in races 1500 m or longer. The opposite is valid for East Africans: they virtually sweep off the rest of the world in the 5000 m-marathon, but they can't usually find enough good runners, who would be at least able to qualify for the first round of an international competition in the 100-200 m. As for the "relevance" of the research, there already exists a special international institute for the study of the "East African running science" at the University of Glasgow called "ICEARS" http://www.icears.org/index.htm. Recently they have also added West African (Nigerian) sprinters to their area of interest http://www.icears.org/research.htm

Thus this is a regular field of scientific research that has developed since mid 80's. I see that most of people here have never heard about this topic and they look at it like if I just brought it from the Moon. But you will understand it, after you have read more about it. And I understand that I should limit "my" articles to quoting data from sources and avoiding my own interpretations. I do hope that the article about anthropology that I prepare, will be considerably more acceptable. However, it will take some time to finish it. Centrum99 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have certainly heard of physical anthropology. People also know that it is a pseudoscience which is no longer accepted by mainstream scholars of anthropology. Any articles written on biological or physical anthropology must be written in a historical since to present the history of the idea, not to present the idea as truth - that would make the article unencyclopedic. Physical anthropology is a form of study developed during the 19th century lasting through the middle of the 20th century, but anthropology as a discipline has advanced far beyond that and has since left that field behind. --Strothra 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Even though Wikipedia is not censored, this violates WP:NOR. Though my personal preference would have this article deleted, Wikipedia is not censored. However, this article violates WP:NOR, and would be easier to accept as a "historical review" of what some anthropologists have worked on, as this is non-mainstream. Thanks Ramdrake for your informative comments on biodiversity. Delta Tango • Talk 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the idea about the "clinal view" presented by Ramdrake as incorrect. Naturally, there are (mostly) no strict borders between traditionally defined races, but it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist. The cores of the classical races came into being mostly between 100 000-35 000 years ago due to geographical isolation of less numerous groups of humans. This is evident from Y-chromosomal lineages. For example, the ancestors of Nilotes and Khoisan diverged from the rest of humans about 100 000 years ago. Pygmies diverged maybe 60 000-80 000 years ago. When in warmer periods the population of such isolated groups increased and the people expanded to other regions, they naturally encountered people of other groups and mixed with them. Hence the transition between these racial cores is clinal, but the original cores still preserve characteristic physical traits that evolved during the time of the isolation. In short, this "clinal view" is only another attempt, how to "circumvent" the classical racial concept and avoid using the term "race" at any cost. Centrum99 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well, you might be right if all those "populations" which "branched off" so many thousands of yers ago had lived in complete isolation from each other ever since. However, that's just not the case. Intermarriages, to various degrees (some very extensive) have been occuring ever since, and this is why say population B, living between populations A and C will tend to have physical characteristics intermediate between the two. Please reivew the works of Cavalli-Sforza, Beals et al and and Lieberman as I suggested before before you say again the clinal view is "incorrect". The "racial" view is a theory born of empirical observation when we had no idea what was causing the biodiversity. Now that we know in good part what is causing it, indeed the clinal view is what has become best accepted by anthropologists in general. "Race" as a concept basically divides the human race into several subspecies. Studies of the human genetic varaiation found that only 6-15% of the total genetic variation is due to "race", and that over 85% of the variation exists between two randow individuals (that are unrelated). That basically says "race" as a way of partitioning the human race is indeed a weak concept.--Ramdrake 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Centrum, you said "The physiological characteristics of the West African type are unique in comparison with all other human groups... and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly valid". Could one not also argue that, just by way of example, 'The socio-psychological characteristics of the 'East European type' are unique in comparsion with all other human groups... and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly valid'? If so, do we not, ultimately, end up without any class 'Human' and just as many 'races' as there are individuals? You would surely not wish to go down that path?? Marcus22 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is precisely where and why the clinal view came into favor. At the limit, if one takes into view all the different characteristics and their variations, subdividing humanity into a small number of "races" based on a handful of physical characteristics while ignoring others began to make less and less sense. At the limit, the clinal view states that if you take all characteristics into consideration, then likely you will end up with as many (or nearly as many) "races" as individuals.--Ramdrake 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, I would like to ask you to use your own brain (and especially common sense), not to use Lewontine's brain, especially when the brain is quite antiquated (1973). The mantra about "15% variation within races, 85% variation within individuals" is already boring. Most human genes are "junk" genes with no function and it is the little part of the functional genes that matters most. Those "handful" physical characterists are just those characterists that have accumlated over time in a geographically isolated group and this is just these characteristics that define race. It is funny that medicine is still forced to stay desperately "backward" and study racial differences due to different reaction of each race to diseases and drugs. Hence scientific reasearch is now aimed at finding genetic mutations specific to each race, which will help during treatment of racially mixed individuals. Unfortunately, accepting "clinal concept" in medicine would lead to almost sure clin(ic)al death of the patient. (But there certainly exist many people, who would rather die instead of living with the feeling that they had to abandon their progressive scientific view.) Anyway, it is depressing to see that science now entered a new "dark age". If you have no idea, what an opinion you defend, read Andersen's Emperor's New Clothes. That's a nice allegory of today's world of PC. We must wait several decades, after the end of multiethnic civil wars in Western countries, when common sense again wins. (By the way, I heard in the media, that "clinal" rioters in Paris again burn cars and buildings.) Centrum99 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centrum, making personal attacks isn't going to help. Also, you comment on Lewontine's braing being 'antiquated' since his work was published in 1973: aren't many of the studies this article relies on from the 1970s and 1960s, too? --The Way 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will see personal attacks in whatever I say. I simply recommended to him to think independently and not to parrot ideologically motivated claims of others. Centrum99 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never seen the Caine Mutiny, only just read something about the plot a while ago. Tell me, please, what an allegory to this discussion you want to indicate. I think we both could proclaim that we see our opponents in the story.

  • The Caine Mutiny: Towards the very end, in a wonderful but rather touching scene, Captain Queeg - brilliantly portrayed by Bogart I might add - reveals his previously in-question paranoia to the court. It is great piece of cinema. One of Bogart's best roles. And well worth watching. The relevance of that? Well your last paragraph, above, reminds of that scene. You've certainly removed any vestige of doubt in my mind as to the thought processes underlying your 'research'. Marcus22 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have no doubts that I am acquianted with the topic "Race and IQ", but this is not an area that I am interested most. Or do you think that I am a "racist", when I say that black people outclass Europeans in some sport disciplines? What I resent is the fact that in an effort to cover racial differences in IQ and behaviour, even physical anthropology is politically suppressed. In fact, the whole field of the study of population differences is ostracized and censored. Centrum99 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither ostracized nor censored; it is merely becoming more and more obsolete as our understanding of the genetic causes and mechanisms underlying biodiversity increases.--Ramdrake 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: I just got a warning from my countryman here on Wikipedia that discussing the topic "race" with Americans is futile and leads nowhere even after many months. So let's leave this discussion, please, I must write the new article. However, I think that English is the international language Number 1 and English Wikipedia doesn't belong only to Americans or Britons. Centrum99 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be pleased to know that I am neither British, nor American, nor is English my first language. :)--Ramdrake 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WOW,I don't where to start with all that. Can you name a single Western country currently engaged in a civil war, multiethnic or otherwise? Medical students may be forced to study things but medicine is not forced to study anything at all. The only "dark age" of recent note is the 1st half of the 20th century and the Eugenics that seem to entrance you so. Centrum you still do not seem to understand that this AfD is not a referendum on the existance of races but rather, on the way you wrote the article. Drawing your own conclusions from outside sources and incorporating those conclusions into an article is a blatant violation of WP:OR, using terms that you have coined or that have been coined too recently to be in common useage violates WP:NEO. Also, the race-baiting does nothing to win editors over to your side and instead, gives people a very good reason to discount ANYTHING you may have to contribute. L0b0t 20:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ain't that the truth. --Strothra 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I decided to go ahead and check some of the references. Abe et al. reference does not use term "West African type". Ama, et. al. not actually in May, 1986 Journal of Applied Physiology according to table of contents at [2]. Ama & Ambassa 1997, do not use term "West African type". Gerace 1994 (which is at page 255, not page 263 of The American Journal of Human Biology 1994 Volume 6) does not use term "West African type". Dupertuis Structural Profile does not use ther term "West African type". The CDC link is the welcome page for participants in the National Center for Health Statistics National Health and Nutrition Examination Study, and does not use the term "West African type"; the data improperly referenced is at [3] and does not use the term "West African type" either. Salas 2002 does not use the term "West African type"; "West African" is used as an adjective in a number of sentences that I admit I don't understand. Rahmani, Locatelli, & Lacour 2004 no use of term "West African type". I'm noticing a pattern which leads me to agree with the claim this article's a WP:NOR violation. The Literate Engineer 21:01, 28 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Bhumihars

Badly-named indiscriminate list. Prod by Utcursch (talk · contribs) with the comment "Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys". Prod removed by Sbei78 (talk · contribs), which appears to be a single purpose account created for contesting prods and AfDs of similar lists. I find the precedents for the previous deletions persuasive, and agree that this list should be removed, however, if the list is not deleted, I would recommend renaming it to Lists of Bhumihars List of Bhumihars, to remove the inherently POV term "famous", and to make it clear that this is a list. Xtifr tälk 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename - famous is POV, yet lists are a better alternative to caste based cats, which are horrible.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:18, 24 October 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle nunchaku

The article makes no assertion of notability for this sport, other than the fact that there's an internet forum devoted to it. A Google search for the phrase "Freestyle Nunchaku" brings up 4,230 hits, the top three of which are said internet forum and two Wikimirrors. From there, its nothing but a sea of blogs, forums, unrelated web sites, and commercial sites. Consequentially 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's like saying we should keep a band that "will someday be famous." If the sport explodes onto the international scene and attracts third-party press and attention we can always remake. But in the here and now, there is nothing on the web that suggests this meets WP:N. Consequentially 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My assumption is that it is presented chaotically because its of limited popularity, and relevant to an extremely specific demographic group. There are plenty of haphazard ideas and associations floating around on the internet -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Consequentially 03:29, 26 October 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. Dakota 06:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilotic type

Delete Nice support of racial science... I would say that this violate WP:NEO but I found three instances of this term being used in an anthropological sense but they were in a scholarly journals from 1907, 1939 and 1947....go figure. This wasn't a mainstream category then and certainly isn't now. The article uses origional research to back up these outdated and pseudo-scientific claims, see WP:NOR. For you googlers, notice the lack of g-hits. The sources in this article aren't cited in-line so who knows if they're even verifiable or reliable and not just by hacks/racists. Strothra 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that WIKIPEDIA is a source of knowledge and it unites intelligent people. If you meddled into my "West African type", I could take it as a controversal topic, but refuting such a well-established, well-measured fact like Nilotic physique is too much. Centrum99 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without wishing to commit personal attack on Mr.Centrum, having considered the "User Contribution" data available, my vote is for deletion on the grounds of POV, possible OR, and overall perceived bias. --Simon Cursitor
  • Here's the problem, as I see it: statistical studies of body features that do not reference underlying genes are extremely susceptible to bias and preconceived notions, and to incorrect conclusions due to unobserved environmental and dietary factors. If this article classified atheletes by genotype, then I would have no problem at all. However, classifications by tribe, race, or body type are notoriously inaccurate, and subject to too many ways in which the conclusions can be slanted to favor whatever conclusions the author wishes to make, consciously or not. I am well aware that the scientific sports literature deals with such issues without reference to genes, in peer-reviewed journals, but speaking as a professional medical biostatistician I have to say that I question whether any of this "research" can stand up to close scrutiny. If this article were to admit in its first paragraph that concepts such as "Nilotic type" have no scientific basis in genetics, or alternatively, if it were actually to specify the genes that define the Nilotic type, then I would be much more favorably disposed. — Aetheling 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia rules, personal attacks are used especially in cases, when a person uses it "as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement". However, I can document all what I say with exact numbers, from the skull length, face width, limb length, body mass index, muscle+fat width, even calf girth. What about you? Do you also know some other English word except "Delete"? It would improve our communication. Centrum99 09:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup: the editor who wrote these has stated that he is having trouble understanding how to correctly cite an article. As he lists a dozen works in his references section, albeit incorrectly, I am not convinced this falls under NOR. If others would help him figure out how to cite the assertions made in the article correctly, we might be able to get past the NOR issue, and address any NPOV or bias issues. The works are dated from 1989 to 2006. I comprehend that those voting "delete" are concerned about OR, Bias, and inaccurate articles which present disproved science as though it were current, but this may not be the case here. I myself was only able to find a reference in a 1907 work; that does not mean it does not have currency elsewhere and until we figure out what sources Centrum99 is using and whether they support his article, we cannot judge whether it is OR. If there is bias, it can be addressed - and if the article is indeed OR and promoting a disused term, then we can address that. We do indeed have an article on Racial science, and it is disputed and very poorly sourced, but IMHO it is not a candidate for deletion. Could it not be the case here? We have an article on Flat earth, which I believe just made FA. We have articles on many topics which are either proven false, disputed, or crank theories, but we have them. This term, dating to 1907, is most assuredly not a neologism. It may be outdated poor science, and then again it may be something else. Those voting "delete as OR" for an article with 12 books in the references, and "delete as neologism" for a term making an appearance at least by 1907, are surely allowing distaste for Racial science to affect their neutrality. We do not have to like something or agree with it in order for it to be worthy of inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete changed from keep, above - see comment, below. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not nominate this article based on WP:NEO. As I clearly state in my nom, the term, although historical, is not used any longer by credible anthropologists nor does this article explain the historical use. Rather, this article expands on the orgional definition by using origional research, see WP:NOR, which leads to a a conclusion supporting the political agenda of the author promoting race science as if it were good or even real science. The term is offensive and generalizing not to mention no longer accepted by any established scientific communities. The fact that it is no longer in use and was never widespread even at the time means that this term also fails the standards of notability. Just because a handful of quacks promoted the idea in whatever form does not make it notable and falls more under the heading of a hoax masquerading as reality in the minds of some fringe groups. You are seeing the term and assuming that it was, at one point notable, but it was not else it would be more readily found in historical scholarly journals when, in fact, only a few instances can be found. --Strothra 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 11:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment please explain how an article with 12 books as references fails NOR. I have asked the editor who wrote the article to give better cites, explaining where and how his sources support the content of the article. He is confused, and I am willing to give the time necessary to work with him and determine whether the sources do indeed support the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because none of those books deal with the idea of the nilotic type, rather they are used in order to garner data which the author is synthesizing into supporting another topic, the nilotic type. To quote WP:NOR, it is a "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Here, that position is race science, an archaic pseudo-scientific inquiry which has repeatedly been condemned by all modern medical establishments. It's a fringe belief that is hardly mainstream unless one currently lives in Germany between the years 1937-1949. --Strothra 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If the references do not indeed support any of the article content, then yes by all means delete. I have received no response from my post to the auther, nor has jossi, who pointed him/her to WP:CITE. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You received no reply from me, because I must also sleep sometimes. The term "Nilotic/Nilotid type/race/physique" was regularly used by anthropologists until ca. 60-70's. Note that the large article of Roberts, Bainbridge "Nilotic Physique" that is still frequently cited as one of the most detailed studies on East African physique, was published in 1963. I can post maps from books of Lundman or Biasutti, which are authorities from 50's-60's, who use the term "Nilotid" or "Razza Nilotica" respectively. After this generation of anthropologists finished their lifelong work, the new generation born after WW II subdued to the demands of the new age and comparative anthropology was, in fact, buried. The anthropological division that was established during the first half of the 20th century was substituted by more "politically correct" geographical terms, so, for example, you no longer study a "Nilotic type", but "East African pastoralists" or simply "East Africans". Gradually even this division was discredited as "no more meaningful" and since a certain time, scientists in Western Europe/North America must pretend that racial differences don't exist all. This absurd situation probably reached its top in 2003 with the public TV fraud called "Race: The Power Of An Illusion". I am not the only one, who complains about it. Recently I was in correspondence with a French anthropologist, who apologized that he has no newer data on the physique of Europeans, only those from his study wrote in 80's, because a broad anthropological comparison of today's Europeans is simply unthinkable. So you shouldn't be surprised that many people - if they want to discuss physical variability in Europe - must quote Carleton Coon's Races of Europe, written in 1939. There virtually exist no newer studies or synthesis since ca. mid 70's, when Hiernaux book People of Africa was published. However, since some data are needed for medical reasons, there exist recent studies in which you can find some basic anthropometric measurements like e.g. height, sitting height, arm length, body diameters etc.
To Aetheling: I think your arguments are not appropriate. Body proportions are generally geneticly determined traits, adaptations to enviroment that don't change so plasticly like stature. Since leg length is bound with nutrition, you can observe a small increase of relative leg length (in comparison to stature) in industrialized nations during the last century. However, the increase is very small in comparison with height and obviously hitted a genetic limit during the last decades. For example, Japanese were notoriously known as small, extremely short-legged people. Their trunk index (trunk height/body height ratio) was around 54% 50 years ago. Now it is around 53,6% and appears to be stabilized. This is still far from the average of about 52% found in Europeans, 50-51% in West Africans and Ethiopids, and 48% found in the Nilotes and the majority of Australian Aboriginals. Note please, how the trunk index is bound with climate: numbers between 53-54% can be found in East Asians and Eskimos, 52% in Europeans, 50-51% in steppe-forest Africans, 48% in populations adapted to hot, dry desert. This is a climatic adaptation resulting from the need to handle with excessive or insufficient body temperature. Limbs have big volume relative to their height, hence they are the first part of the body that reacts to climatic change. In hot climate, long thin limbs better dissipate heat than short, volumnous limbs that, on the other hand, better preserve body temperature in cold climate. Since distal limb segments like forearms and calves are the thinnest, they are also most influenced: for example, Neanderthals had extremely small forearm/upper arm and calf/thigh ratio that can't be found in any modern human population, because modern Arctic humans still are not perfectly adapted to Arctic climate like Neanderthals. Nilotes and Australian Aboriginals represent the other extreme, with extremely long limbs and extremely long forearms and calves. And as for genetics, I would add that Nilotes are one of the most archaic human groups that can be well separated as a single race. They posess a special subclade of Y-haplogroup A (A3b2), a sub-branch of the subclades found in Khoisan. They must have separated from the Khoisan people a long time ago and since they have lived in their enviroment for thousands of years, their adaptation to hot climate is the most extreme of all human groups. Irrespectively if you like it or not, and irrespectively if the term "Nilotic" is "officially allowed" or not, this physical type still exists. The only way, how to erase the Nilotic type from the world is to go to Sudan with a sufficiently large army and exterminate all Nilotes. 82.100.61.114 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed response. Based on this, here is how I think you can clean up this article. (1) In the lead paragraph, document (with references) the genetic existence of the Nilotic as a "well-separated race", and describe what is known from genetics of its ancestry and geographic dispersal. Give a lot more detail (with references) on how they fit into the broader panorama of known genetic groups of Africa. (2) Shift the primary emphasis of the article away from physique, and towards the genetic identity of this group. Avoid any characterization that is not based in the bedrock of genetics, because every other aspect of phenotype may be heavily influenced by health, nutrition, environment, and culture. Why even mention height, when, as you say, it may largely depend on living style? (3) I recommend that you be very careful with your physical descriptions. You used the words "slim" and "slender", for example, yet this slimness may be purely nutritional. Is there any evidence at all that this slimness derives from genotype? (4) In your second paragraph, I suggest that you give some of the history of the word "Nilotic" itself. You might mention explicitly that the "Nilotic" concept dates back to the days when anthropological classifications were based on little more than physical stereotypes, as part of a program for establishing a heirarchy of races, from "primitive" to "advanced". Mention that the term has not been used since the 1960s, and tell us why it fell out of favor. Is there another term that is now preferred? (5) Push all the aspects of physique into a separate section, just before the sport section. — Aetheling 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nilotic type/physique" is no original research, but a well-known and established term, at least for those, who have ever read something about anthropology. But as I said on the discussion to West african type, I will start from the beginning, with a new article about physical anthropology of Africa. Centrum99 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete I decided to check the references. Beall et al. do not use the terms "nilotic" or "nilote". Campbell, Leslie, Campbell (2006) do not use either term and their research is a comparison between nomadic and settled populations within one ethnicity, not a comparison of one ethnicity to another, and thus seems totally unrelated to this entry's nominal topic. Entiene and Hiernaux I could not check. The first Larsen, et al., the one from 2000, as far as I can tell does not exist: No article featuring Larsen as its author appeared in any 2000 volume, a search for "h.b. larsen" or "larsen, h.b." as an author yields no results, and searches for "kenyan" in the title of an article yielded me no results regardless of whether or not I specified 2000 as the article year. The second Larsen, at al. (from 2004) does not speak of "nilote" or "nilotic type", although it does state "In this light the purpose of the present study was to describe body dimensions, running economy, aerobic power, and related variables and relate them to habitual daily physical activity level of Nandi town and village boys in western Kenya. The hypothesis was that the characteristics of east African elite distance runners can be observed in adolescent Nandi boys regardless of where they live." The study identifies genetics as a possible factor in Nandi running. The Little and Rębacz sources I couldn't get, as the University of Minnesota doesn't have online access to the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology or Collegium Antropologicum. Ditto J. H. de Ridder, E. Smith, C. Wilders, C. Underhay, as the University of Minnesota doesn't provide me with access to the Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. Roberts (1963)... talks about a Nilotic group, although we have Ramdrake saying that a clinal approach has supplanted one of Roberts's fundamental assumptions. Both Saltin et al., I couldn't get ahold of: University of Minnesota doesn't give online access to the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. So, what I could get ahold of gives me 1 source that as best I can tell doesn't exist, 1 source that someone disputes as reliable, and 3 sources that in my opinion only link to the topic at hand by violating a provision of WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." We have Aetheling's suggestions for a rewrite, we have the existing entry, and we have an author ascribing delete reccomendations and the apparent irrelevance of multiple sources to political motivations - that last something that always makes me think the lady doth protest too much. In all, while after I see it I might welcome an article along the lines of what Aetheling suggests, at the present time I think the entry requires deletion. The Literate Engineer 22:32, 28 October 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 Other V.F.D. Animals. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V.F.D. Bats

Fictional animals in the Unfortunate Incidents books. (Closing admin: this is a procedural listing so please count me as neutral.) - BanyanTree 01:28, 24 October 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 Angela Rippon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Plum

Fictional fairy character. (Note to closing admin: This is a procedural listing, so please count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 01:39, 24 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Press Pass

Appears to be a sub-stub for a television program airing on a student-run campus television network. Delete as lacking reliable sources indicating any sort of notability, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, i.e., TV Guide for every single student-produced program. If anything, this could be briefly mentioned at the article for the network itself... no merge, since this article barely has anything, let along content worth merging. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide implies an episodic listing. The purpose of these articles is to provide information about the series in general and history show. When in non-stub form, the articles could include other information such as notable alumni etc. Nobody1234 02:27, 24 October 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/redirect. Proto::type 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think I Canada

The only The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa episode article I could find, a discontinued Disney television series. It's unlikely to be expanded, and serves little purpose if no other episodes are covered. Delta Tango (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To reply to the above two editors; the primary reason this is up for AfD is because it violates Wikipedia guidelines on notability and TV shows (I don't have the links at hand but may be able to be convinced to find them). Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing. TV show articles that are simply summaries are not supposed to be around; only articles which explain how a particular episode caused a controversy, was news worthy or was a landmark in the series or in television in general should exist. Again, the fact that other shows have many articles does NOT in anyway imply that this article should exist. Indeed, according to Wikipedia's guidelines most of these other TV show articles should ALSO be deleted and I may get around to nominating them soon. --The Way 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on all counts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you disagreeing with? Should all episodes of notable TV series have their own article? And do you really disagree to "Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing"? Delta Tango • Talk 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all episodes should have articles. And I don't agree with providing "information on every concievable random thing." I simply have a hard time believing that a well-known cartoon from Disney would fall under that umbrella. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. Secondly, deleting something because "no other episodes are covered" is a profoundly stupid reason... Wikipedia always will have somewhat asymetric coverage because the editors/writers decide what is interesting to them. It is not a paper work, as has been brought out. The proper way to handle unreasonable asymetry is to focus on expanding the other content not to destroy what is already there! Bryce 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully this is enough to end debate... In looking up specific Wikipedia policies you can find on WP:NOT the following rules which imply that this article should be deleted.
1. Wikipedia articles can NOT simply be 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." Does this particular episode have a major, real-world context? Has it provoked controversy? Is it genre-defining? If not, then delete.
2. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business" are not allowed. Essentially, having articles for individual TV episode falls under the category of 'TV guides' and amounts to a directory, therefore it is not allowed.
3. According to Wikipedia's notability standards for fiction, "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own." If the information in this article must be kept, then it really needs to be merged into the article about the television show itself. --The Way 18:21, 26 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-Up

Article asserts notability but has had an unreferenced tag since August 2006. I can find no sources to backup the claim. Smells like linkspam. — Moondyne 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: being "real" is not an issue (and is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia—lots of real things don't have or deserve WP articles). The questions are: is it notable? (Does it meet WP:CORP?) And is it a blatant ad? (Wikipedia is not an advertising service.) The refs may help address the first point (though I'd have to review them), but the second point is far more important! WP is being innundated with spam, and a new shoot-on-sight policy has been instituted (see WP:CSD#G11). An article about an internet advertising company, in particular, is going to have to bend over backwards to avoid even the slightest appearance of being spam in order to avoid being deleted. If you can rewrite the article to avoid even the faintest hint of spamminess, I will happily change my vote (but see WP:COI). I, however, have no interest in rewriting the article for you. Having this article deleted now will not prevent anyone from writing a non-spammy article in the future, so really, it's no big deal. Either fix it now, or just chill. Xtifr tälk 23:08, 27 October 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 (keep). Canderson7 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos (Greek)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article was prodded but removed by creator. There is no reliable source given for the article and content is little more than a dictionary entry in a greek lexicon. ju66l3r 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article is currently more than a simple definition, it briefly mentions it's connection with Xenia and use in culture, and around these areas I believe it has room for expansion. Further, lack of sources is reason to find sources, not for deletion. --Falcorian (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline of Verifiability puts the burden on the person who adds the content to provide the resources necessary to verify the subject matter. Considering there was absolutely no source given at all, it made the content unverifiable and therefore subject to review for deletion. The current reference given is for Xenia (not Xenos) which as far as I can tell doesn't actually address Xenos and is a registration/subscription site as well. ju66l3r 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately that is the only source I have access to at this point, although it does infact deal with Xenos. You'll either have to trust me on that or go down to your local library and verify it yourself. Just because a source is subscription based does not mean one can ignore it, else we'd be force to remove almost ever scholarly journal. --Falcorian (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article is more than a mere dictionary definition.--Húsönd 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have attempted to expand the article, although I'm no expert on the subject. I would ask that it be reconsidered with the new edit in mind, and with the idea that it could indeed be expanded by someone with more expertise than I. --Falcorian (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. wikipedia not a Greek dictionary. Essentially a list of different meanings of a greek word. Not a big deal when translated betwee different languages. 100% dicdef. `'mikkanarxi 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the word has a variety of meanings does not make it 'more than a dictionary definition.' A lot of words have a wide array of meanings in English, let alone other languages. We can't have an article for every foreign word with a few different meanings. If its culturally important, put it in the article on Greek culture. If it has a semantic importance, merge it into the article for the Greek Language. Otherwise, maybe send it to the Wiktionary but it does not merit an article here. --The Way 05:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from Wikipedia. At this moment, it's still not notable enough. Good for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. - SpLoT / (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary had already had wikt:ξένος for 9 months at the time that this Wikipedia article was created. It has plenty of room for quotations and usage notes, which it requires in order to be a full dictionary article but still lacks. Uncle G 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is being worked on, is much more than a dictionary entry and there clearly is a lot lying beneath the surface which should be brought out in a full article.

--Mike 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from Wikipedia. ""Divergent concepts" belong to wictionary. If any of these "divergent concepts" may grow into a referenced encyclopedic articles, by all means, turn this page into disambiguation page. Mukadderat 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. This is a very important concept (not just word) in Ancient Greek culture, and the article can be vastly expanded. It's fledgling, but that's because it's new. Give the article a chance. I'm going to list it on the Ancient Greek WikiProject. I have great confidence that, with enough work and minds, we can have a great article here. (Ed: The article has already been added to the project. Once again, I ask that it be given a chance to be edited). CaveatLectorTalk 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per CaveatLector. Once again, WP is on the verge of deleting something that formed part of the society that gave us democracy, the scientific method, and so much more, but WP will keep every 2-bit school, pokemon character, or episode of and contestants on "reality" shows. A shame, really, on us. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article just needs more fleshing out, such as its notable impact on society (for example: Xenophobia). - Lex 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46 --Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important concept in Greek literature. I know one shouldn't mention Pokemon but... JASpencer 22:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful page, well written, important long established concept, root of many other words. I can think of no reason whatsoever to delete this article. Xj 11:03, 31 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie Game

Complete speculation (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), unverified, prod tag removed twice. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both myself and Andypandy.UK tried and were unable to verify this information. According to Jimbo, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" (as found on WP:V). Though we're not talking about libel here, Wikipedia is not for random rumors. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 03:23, 24 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof K E Viswanathan

Fails WP:V (probably there is an issue of Conflict of Interest too)  Doctor Bruno  02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this fails WP:V -- Librarianofages 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources have been given  Doctor Bruno  02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you tried to verify the information yourself? -- Librarianofages 03:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article and more Articles [4] Doctor Bruno 
Please avoid the term Vanity. We can better use Conflict of Interest for that Doctor Bruno 
Less results using "-wikipedia" flag: [5]. utcursch | talk 05:18, 24 October 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, doesn't assert notability (no source for the alleged "hit single"). NawlinWiki 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy MacMannis

Contested PROD. Originally PRODded with message "fails to meet notability requirements at WP:MUSIC, appears self-authored." PROD2ed by nom without further comment. DePRODded bu anon (who has contributed to the article,) without an edit summary. RoninBKETC 03:00, 24 October 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 -- sorry to say, but unfortunately, large "group" AfDs like this tend to turn into a mess. It looks like there are strong camps in all areas -- merge, keep, and delete. If I happen to have missed a particularly strong consensus to delete any two or three of these pages, I'd recommend starting a second nomination for just those, linking to this one. Other than that, I'd recommend giving the mergists some time to do their work, and then starting smaller group (or even individual) AfD proceedings. The other trick is to put one through as a "tester" to establish a general consensus, before putting in the group. So again, rather than objecting to this close on my talk page, please feel free to head to deletion review or start second noms for particularly problematic or other individual pages. Best of luck and happy editing to all. Luna Santin 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Squirtle Squad

There's a number of pokemon articles that say nothing except a plot summary (something just a one sentence long summary, as in the case of this squitle episode), an info box, and sometimes a cast list (=indiscriminate collection of information, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We don't need 500+ pokemon episode articles (only a matter of time before someone makes an article similar to this one for each pokemon episode, not hard to do either) if all they're going to contain only plot summaries and an indiscriminate dump of cast information.

This isn't a nomination for deletion for all pokemon articles (just the ones listed here). Some, like Electric_Soldier_Porygon, are significant for good reason. And has an article that does have commentary and real life context. With information which can be verified and sourced (although it currently is not). However, there is no evidence that the 500 other pokemon articles will ever reach this stage.

Actually, it seems like there just isn't anything to say about them - For example, even the very first pokemon episode Pokémon, I Choose You!, which is probably the most famous episode (being the very first) is just a plot summary. Although a far longer plot summary (which isn't a good thing. A scene-by-scene synopsis is something to be avoided as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes

There's nothing wrong with episode articles if they're good and well developed, but that isn't the case here. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says:

"Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show."
"Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles."

There's no indication of there even being enough "independently verifiable information" to write articles on each season, let along articles for each episode. If people really have so much to write about, they should start with good season articles, (or articles for part of the season, so like episodes 1-20, season 1. since pokemon seasons are LONG), and then expand into episode articles only when there is more to say about an individual episode.

These are the articles i'm nominating:

note - the Ice Cave and Holidy Jynx articles do contain a "contraversy" section. However, the contraversy sections are just a copy (or shortened copy) of what's already been said at the Banned episodes of Pokémon article. So really, there's nothing new on them except the very short episode summaries.

And just for clarification, these articles are NOT being included in this AfD

`/aksha 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All Do you plan on doing this for every TV show? Many shows have articles for every episode, even Star Trek with it's 700+ episodes among the 5 series. TJ Spyke 03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only for the TV shows where the episode articles contain only summaries. And when they can obviously be merged into season (or other logical divisions) of episode articles. Defintely not planning to nominate everything. For example, i'm certianly not planning to nominate Buffy episodes. Since the articles defintely have more than just a summary (See Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode), especially note the section on "Writing"). It's obvious someone's made an effort to actually write an encyclopedic article, rather than just an episode summary. They're all well organized, and the summaries themselves are actually good - as in they're detailed but not a dry scene-by-scene recall. With like...these pokemon episodes. I don't think people can even squeeze enough out of them to make decent encyclopedic season articles, let along encyclopedic epidosde articles. As for Star Trek, i'm not sure. I'm defintely planning to go in there and clean out the mass of trivia when i find spare time. As for actually nominating the articles for deletion, i am tempted to do so. They are also just a mass of summaries, although they are quite obviously a step up from the kind of articles in this nomination and in the 4400 episodes nomination. Using season articles for summaries of that size will cause article length problems. Don't suppose you could point me to something that explains where wikipedia stands with huge long detailed summaries that provide no commetary and otherwise encyclopedic information? --`/aksha 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All TV episode articles are acceptable for most series, and Pokemon is more notable than most. At least one of these has been up for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Catches a Pokémon) and the result was a near-unanimous consensus to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precedent and previous AfDs do not override official Wikipedia policies. WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. WP:NOT states that articles that consist only of episode summaries are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, these must be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All The Wikipedia can't possibly be expected to have separate articles for every single episode of every TV show ever made; it would be ridiculous (not to mention the amount of server space required). Thus, allowing these to exist sets this as a precedent. Only the most notable episodes (particulary of highly notable TV shows, think I Love Lucy, Happy Days, etc) should have their own articles. The fact that full episode guides exist for other shows (including Star Trek, which I am a fan of) does not mean that these articles should be kept, rather it indicates those articles should be deleted as well. --The Way 05:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would say merge all the short ones to lists by season, with redirects that can be someday turned into real articles. --Brianyoumans 07:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above /Blaxthos 08:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline to vote when so many entries are being block-genocided. Makes it impossible to distinguish between sheep and goats, and renders AfD a mockery -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete all, even with short summaries, the articles cannot sufficiently demonstrate their usefulness nor notability. - SpLoT / (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'd like the "stubby" ones merged and the more developed ones either merged or retained separately. In some cases, particular episodes of a show are important enough to fandom that folks want to list details, commentary, allusion to other works, etc. -- and I don't want to rain on that parade. But countless stubs are a pain in the neck, especially when using the random article button. BTW – Has the "mega-genre" of collectable card games, video games and Japanese animation produced a lion’s share of these stubs or is it just my imagination? -House of Scandal 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not the only source of useless stubs (we have country roads, and asteroids, and episodes of current mainstream TV shows, and obscure villages, and every album ever published ever it seems, and obscure pro sports players in every sport you can imagine, any school with at least three students, and many others), but theese are particularly unpopular stubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comments above make an untenable assertion without even offering an argument for it. Labeling the entry in questions "indiscriminate collection of information," for disposal does not advance the debate, it merely brands this topic for disdain. Let's hear the argument and not the sentiment first. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep With regard to the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes guidelines, I can't agree that it provides an argument for deletion. It suggests a goal which can not necessarily be reached and it does not rule out extended episode development. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on Possible Compromise I was thinking, this is an issue that seems to pop up here rather often and needs to become better resolved. Perhaps, rather than a simple total deletion (which is what I currently support) what about having, for television shows with many existing articles on their individual episodes, a number of pages dedicated to each season, rather than one page that has all the summaries (which would be too bulky) or many individual pages for each episode (which is too much and rather impractical)? It seems having the summaries placed in articles that discusses the season they occured in as a whole would be preferable and a good way of compromising what seems to be the two dominant positions here, plus it would have the added benefit of providing context for individual episodes. I also believe, but am not sure, that this is how the articles for the show Lost are set up. --The Way 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I suggested in the first comment, and it's the consensus already established at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • THese articles should also be included in the nomination
  1. Pokéball Peril
  2. The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
  3. The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
  4. Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
  5. Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
  6. Find Pikachu! Route 202!
  7. Meowth Rules!
  8. Get the Show on the Road
  9. A Ruin with a View
  10. Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
  11. Mean With Envy
  12. Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
  13. The Scuffle of the Legends
  14. Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
  15. Pacifidlog Jam
  16. Eight Ain't Enough
  • — Possible single purpose account: Pokeant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Case by case basis; for those short, stubby ones; merge and redirect relevent info into a season summary. The longer ones need to be merged, redirected, and compressed, but since these episodes are more significant, they should take up more of the season summary. Finally, episodes like Electric Soldier Porygon, which have ample potential to expand outside of plot summary (which they already have, if I'm not mistaken), should stay. Plus, external links to a pokewiki in season articles will work wonders. — Deckiller 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, i agree Electric Soldier Porygon should stay. That's why it's not being listed for deletion. Notice how Electric Soldier Porygon is listed in the "these articles are NOT being included in this AfD" list. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (case-by-case) - Many of the articles contain valid information; certainly those with a Controversy section, even if duplicated elsewhere, cannot be said to be "solely plot summaries." However, if the articles cannot be expanded sufficiently (for my suggested qualifications, more than about two paragraphs, or 12 sentences) it may be better to merge them into a more generalized article, such as a "Pokemon Season 1 Episodes" or similar. Please note that by "Merge" I do not mean deleting a certain portion of the article and moving the rest; rather, I mean taking the whole content of each article, as most of the articles are what could be described as the perfect size for sections of a multi-episode article. Additionally, I would like to point out that just because one episode has its own article doesn't mean that every episode needs its own article. While it may look good for the sake of uniformity, I think it is highly possible that out of Season X (or however you want to break it down) only two or three episodes will have enough important content to deserve their own article, which can be linked to from the main episode list. Finally, one more time, for emphasis: no content should be deleted. Moved, perhaps, but it should definitely be retained. -- Y|yukichigai 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, episodes that deserve their own article for whatever unique reasons should get their own article. Notice how i have not simply listed all pokemon articles for deletion. Electric Soldier Porygon, an episode which does deserve its own article for the huge contraversy it caused, is deliberatly not listed. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold merging for all. It was done, but then the sockpuppet factory popped up and interfered with all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into articles by season, if not a single article for the entire series. If these were sufficiently notable to have their own articles, we'd be able to write more than a stub for each. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking (72.232.215.170 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge all by season I entirely agree with Ashibaka -- lucasbfr talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all of the episodes needs alot of work. They need to be more encyclopedia form. Starwarsrebel (01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge most. All banned episodes with Banned episodes of Pokémon, the rest with their respective episode lists. However, keep Pokémon, I Choose You!. It's the first episode of the anime, so it deserves its own article, with some expansion. -Amarkov babble 01:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superlative delete all. Blow the pokecruft out the goddamned airlock. —ptk✰fgs 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... was that really necessary? -Amarkov babble 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate heap of trivial nonsense. —ptk✰fgs 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "goddamned airlock", not your opinion. -Amarkov babble 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fails WP:NOT in terms of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is all just fancruft hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some These episodes should be keep: Pokémon I Choose You!, Pokémon Emergency!, Ash Catches A Pokémon, Showdown in Pewter City, The Path to the Pokémon League, Island of the Giant Pokémon, The Problem with Paras, Who, What, When, Where, Wynaut?, Shaking Island Battle! Dojotchi VS Namazun!!, Saved by the Beldum & The Ice Cave!.

Please delete these instead of reverting them.

  1. Pokéball Peril
  2. Beauty and the Beach
  3. The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
  4. The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
  5. Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
  6. Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
  7. Find Pikachu! Route 202!
  8. Meowth Rules!
  9. Get the Show on the Road
  10. A Ruin with a View
  11. Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
  12. Mean With Envy
  13. Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
  14. The Scuffle of the Legends
  15. Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
  16. Pacifidlog Jam
  17. Eight Ain't Enough

Ragnaroknike 06:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the articles that were already merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Would you care to provide a reason for that? Because this isn't a vote. -Amarkov babble 23:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, or delete. Most TV episode articles are completely unnecessary, containing only plot summaries and the cast (which is 99% identical from one episode to another). A TV series can be much better described in a series of season's articles, where you get all the relevant info together. This is a well-reasoned nomination, and I would support the deletion but for the announced merge effort by the project, which is admirable and hopefully will be a much followed precedent. Fram 09:11, 30 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Rules! Language

Restored after deleting it per A7 because of some second thoughts. I believe the article is not a notable programming language. Nishkid64 03:29, 24 October 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. JYolkowski // talk 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilroy College

No assertion of notability of school. Appears to be completely unspectacular. Also a frequent target of vandalism, but that's beside the point. riana_dzasta 03:35, 24 October 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 flagged as copyvio from [7]. Speedy doesn't apply as it is over 48 hours old. T REXspeak 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne (rapper)

Article appears to be an autobiography with no verifiable information Skywolf 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was on #wikipedia-bootcamp with this user for about a half-hour trying to find out information. I also did a google test, using "John Wayne" +rapper -wikipedia -movie -actor -film [8] (to get rid of John Wayne the actor), and got 932 results. The page is also (as pointed out to me by User:Skywolf on bootcamp) a direct copy of this. Myspace is not WP:V. Period. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:05, 24 October 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. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gibson

No ghits, totally unverifiable, likely hoax Seraphimblade 04:14, 24 October 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: recurring hoaxer. `'mikkanarxi

Jack Spoonie

(also nominating the redirect Spoonie)

Nomination for deletion Likely hoax. Cannot find relevant hit in Google Books[9] or on Google[10], despite serial killers being a popular subject. The word "spoonie" does not appear in the Clockwork Orange[11]

Article creator User:Cro..Scream has a history of vandalism [12] and hoaxing[13].

Props to User:Calton for first noticing this may be a hoax.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgie Dimitrov (Fantasy Writer) for afd for another article by same editor.

Bwithh 04:16, 24 October 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: recurring hoaxer. `'mikkanarxi

Georgie Dimitrov (Fantasy Writer)

Nominaton for deletion Suspected hoax, created by same editor who created Jack Spoonie. No sources to be found - fails WP:V. No claim made for encyclopedic notability.

Article creator User:Cro..Scream has a history of vandalism [14] and hoaxing[15].

Bwithh 04:27, 24 October 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. Nothing to translate; random babble in Polish. `'mikkanarxi 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pl.soc.polityka

Not english, translate tag has been in place for 2 weeks, no one has bothered, so AfD is prescribed as the next step. This seems to be an article about a usenet news group, so by that measure, this might quality for db under web. Akradecki 04:32, 24 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords (Star Wars)

Delete and/or Redirect. There isn't really anything to merge; it's a term used a couple times in the novel Darksaber; nothing big. Deletion or redirect seems the best option. — Deckiller 04:35, 24 October 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. Proto::type 09:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms of the Imperial Navy (Star Wars)

Delete. I believe the title of the article explains, so I'll keep the nomination short; this article is essensially a trivial description guidel also doesn't really assert any significance, if we'd like to get extremely technical :). — Deckiller 04:51, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rense

Delete non notable conspiracy theorist. Criticism doesn't make him notable - he's a consipiracy theorist who clearly represents a fringe minority and thus will be the natural subject of criticism, but it doesn't make him notable. Further, beware that google hits will be slightly inaccurate with this one. He does not meet WP:BIO standards. Strothra 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article had AfD nomination in June here, passed as consensual keep.

  • Keep, Its hard to keep my fingers from typing out D*E*L*E*T*E, but that’s says more about me than about Rense. In the interest of fairness, I think he reached a level of notability a few years ago that justify his inclusion in WP. He has fallen out of not just the Talkers 100, but even the Talkers 250 in recent years, but that’s now,…a has-been for sure, but he was semi-significant in the world of talk radio once upon a time. Brimba 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable kook, well-known to those who pay attention to this stuff. There are 33 Factiva newspaper hits, which would qualify as multiple, non-trivial sources. According to an article from The Pantagraph, for example, rense.com "has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains 'a great deal of unreliable information." ("U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources". The Pantagraph. 23 November 2005. p. A6.) Zagalejo 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went looking for this article, hoping it would count. The only thing I found was this blurb:
Article 2 of 3, Article ID: 0500488637
Published November 23, 2005, in the Pantagraph - Bloomington, Illinois
U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources
I write this to bring attention to an important Web site that can be found through Google. The Web site I am referring to is that of the Jeff Rense radio talk show program. It is special because it has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains "a great deal of unreliable information." If you go to the site, scroll down a little ways and on the left-hand side you'll see the word "Datapages." Under that is a
Get complete article (272 words)
Getting the complete article costs $3, which I'm not willing to spend on a minor part of my Wikipedia hobby, but this header and length does not sound like an article as such. Note that 272 words is short - you've just read half the "article" right here. It is written in the first person, which is not a standard journalistic practice. It refers to the reader as "you", again, not very journalistic. It starts with "I write this to bring attention" - how many articles start like that? It reads like a "letter to the editor", or at best a poorly written editorial. The US SD mention seems to be that it was part of a long list of conspiracy sites, again, not something granting special notability to it. Please show me I'm wrong. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, rense.com is one of only a handful of conspiracy sites that the state department explicitly mentions: [16]. I do agree that the article I listed might not be the best source - the more I look at it, it does seem to be some sort of letter to the editor - but I'm sure there are some substantial sources out there. This guy was the host of a nationally radio show, after all, so give me some time to do some searching. Zagalejo 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The state department mention does seem to be just as an example of a type. Will wait, and if you can find a good citation, I will change my opinion. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find an article that is actually about Rense and his website in BusinessWorld (Philippines). Here's an excerpt:
The aliens are not just out there in outerspace. They are in cyberspace, too.
If you still can't believe it, try Sightings site (at http://www.sightings.com) and get a load of the stories and photos from many sources from around the globe.
The site is based on the Sightings on Radio (formerly The End of the Line) program by Jeff Rense, a television news director and anchor for 12 years, the site explained. "The show presents advanced information and alternative views that rarely, if ever, appear in the mainstream media," it continued. [...]
Under the heading HOAX!, Mr. Rense explained how the site Webmaster was able to analyze that the UFO photo turned out to be a photo of a stage prop, particularly, stage lights.
"My Webmaster, James Neff, a brilliant analyst in his own right... determined that the new photo is indeed a stage prop as you can see from his enhanced computer work," explained Mr. Rense. (Silva, Veronica C. "Cyberspace: Host to Host". BusinessWorld. 4 September 1997. p. 18.)
In addition, there are plenty of brief mentions in other sources, eg this one from the Skeptical Inquirer and this one from Whole Earth. Does any of this confer notability...? Zagalejo 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15 Google scholar hits. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh.... There clearly are a lot of unrelated mentions, treating him as if he is well known. Will change my opinion, below. The BusinessWorld ref needs to be added to the article, that's at least more than just his site name, it's a couple of paragraphs. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 50% advertising + 50% accusations of anti-Semitism = 0% WP:N. If someone cleans it up, I'll change my vote. --Aaron 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is possibly as painful as Brimba's keep, but for me the pain is procedural - I am against renominating an article for deletion on a regular basis. That said, though, this article does not have enough citations from Reliable sources. There is a Popular Mechanics article that mentions Rense's site, but he is clearly not its focus. Even so, if there were just one more like that, I'd feel comfortable keeping, but there isn't. The other sources are from conspiracy sites that don't rate Wikipedia articles of their own. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changing my opinion per these and other mentions. They're small, but there are a lot of them. Here are more, in fact, here is a Google Books search - 30 books refer to him. [17] Yes, I'd feel more comfortable if there were another article mainly about him, but I think enough unrelated casual mentions by semi-reliable sources treating him as if he is notable do add up to notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without commenting on Jeff Rense, the bottom line is that this article previously received a Keep result in an afd discussion and nothing significant has changed in the article. It is important in the interest of consistency and closure that the results of previous afd discussions remain in place barring major changes to the article. Dugwiki 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the last discussion was tainted because I had nominated the article and some of the people arguing to keep were doing so because I had been in an edit disput with them at the time over a completely different article. I think that it is good to start over again from a fresh perspective in which no one is chasing me around wiki trying to destroy my edits and contributions. --Strothra 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that an AfD that resulted in a consensual keep should be disregarded because you believe certain editors voted "keep" out of spite? *Sparkhead 20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a part of an area or field, he's a fringe conspiracy theorist. These individuals typically act alone and have a small readership of individuals some who criticize them and some who support the theorist. This does not make him notable since he does not have a cult following. --Strothra 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire industry around conpiracy theorizing, e.g., Nexus magazine. It is an area of thought, and Rense is well-known in that area. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are compendiums of theories. You're essentially arguing that conspiracy theorizing is a field. If he was notable in a particular conspiracy theory (as long as the theory was notable), either establishing it or making some breaking discovery in it then I would be more inclined to agree with his notability under that particular theory. Just because there is an industry around it doesn't make it an institutionalized entity which would make it a field of research. --Strothra 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Among some groups of people, i.e., those interested in conspiracy theorizing and similar political thought, Rense is highly notable. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your belief. --Strothra 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[insert pointless last-word comment here] — goethean ॐ 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; with 783 unique hits on Google, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if his views were not WP:CB. "Jeff Rense lives in Southern Oregon", should not be the lead, if the article survives this review. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per June keep and re-nom by same editor doesn't seem to have anything new in terms of reasons, but an agenda to promote. ThuranX 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous AfD nom. However: The Jeff Rense program show is broadcast over radio networks, satellite and the internet five times a week, Please update the article for the sake of proving notability: WHICH radio networks? A syndicated radio show host is notable, someone who puts their podcast on shortwave repeaters is not. WHICH satellite? If your show is on Sirius/XM, that's more notable that someone putting their podcast on Free-to-Air. And the internet, people pay to listen - could be notable, question is - HOW MANY? SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whole Earth (magazine) said in its Winter 2002 edition on p. 40 "Jeff Rense broadcasts interviews and conspiracy reports via his Internet radio show for three hours every night of the week and claims over 7 million hits a month. His site archives these shows and also provides innumerable daily news articles on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. A much linked-to site." Bejnar 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subject is non-notable outside of the walled garden of conspiracy theories, but little to no mention in mainstream press. Fails WP:BIO. Morton devonshire 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bit soon to nominate this one again since the last one was keep, and while consensus can change I'd hate to see AfD become a pitch-till-you-win scenario. There have been no new complaints about the article, and the article has not changed that substantially since the last keep. Thus, I'd say let the kook be for another few months unless new complaints can be lodge. He appears to be a notable kook, at present.--Rosicrucian 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this article could possibly use a rewrite and some more credible sources. Johnwwatson 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperstrong KEEP Give the Paranormal boys a chance at this. Martial Law 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He once had (still in the archives) a article about a British National who hacked the U.S. Defense system computers to get UFO info. He found something that the US govt. does'nt want released. He also has another article depicting how North Korean troops could defeat the US in war. Martial Law 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary Comment: If you see red or colored links on his articles, Bold BLACK links, either click on them, or access these seperately. Those are the sources of the articles submitted to him, such as the one example placed here referring to Concentration/Internment Camps in America intended to deal with "troublesome" Americans when the NWO is in place, according to its author. Martial Law 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third Comment: The reason I said to give the Paranormal boys a chance at this, is that 1/4 to 1/2 of the articles reference UFO and/or paranormal matters. Martial Law 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too soon for another AfD, agree with Rosicrucian this is not pitch til you win, per Sparkhead and AnonEMouse having found several mainstream references, although his theories are not my cup of tea. Seems a notable kook. We do not have to agree his theories are valid or even rational for him to have an article, but a significant proportion of the population do share some theories he publicizes. Edison 01:05, 29 October 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. --Coredesat 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Africa wins again

The article is of dubious notability; the only two sources do not give an account of where the phrase originated or how common it is plus the sources themselves don't seem like proper sources for an encyclopedia. The article, which is essentially a stub, doesn't even completely agree with its definition for the phrase with the sources it quotes. This is not a dictionary for phrases and articles need proper sources that can at least establish some notability. On top of all this, the article is isolated: virtually no other articles link to it The Way 04:56, 24 October 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. Dakota 06:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Posse Girls

KeepDefinitely local interest, but not solely, given the troupe's affiliation with the national fetish scene, reference sources outside Arizona, and presence on the Web.Gutterkitty 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: User Gutterkitty's only edits are to the Pussy Posse Girls article and this AfD. JIP | Talk 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is true. I am new to Wikipedia. But for the record, I have no professional affiliation with this troupe and did not write the entry as a "promo."Gutterkitty 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see mention of "National Aspirations" for the group, but no real evidence that they have achieved any notability beyond their local scene. There is one non-AZ source cited, but that one seems of dubious notability itself, not to mention questionable reliability. I think this group may well be on its way to achieving notability, but I don't think they've "arrived" yet. It won't hurt anyone to wait for a while before creating a Wikipedia article, so I counsel patience. Xtifr tälk 20:42, 25 October 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 criteria G11 and A7. Guy 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicky woo

This article probably fails WP:WEB. The author removed the prod tag and vandalized my userpage. Sbluen 05:09, 24 October 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. Dakota 06:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D2jsp

Non-notable software Seraphimblade 05:56, 24 October 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 Biker Mice from Mars. --Ezeu 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Karbunkle (Biker mice from Mars character)

Article about a fictional non-notable character; We should merge into Biker Mice from Mars, then delete, per WP:FICTION. Vectro 05:56, 24 October 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. Dakota 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher F Silver

ISBN number provided in article does not exist, google produces no hits for name or books. Likely hoax, totally NN person if not. Seraphimblade 06:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are correct and this is not a CV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinfoniaba (talk • contribs) 06:48, Oct 24, 2006 (UTC).

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Tuam. Aaron 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuam people

Page is a list of nine people from Tuam with no incoming links and no categorization. All content has been duplicated in the Tuam article in a "Tuam people" section. Thus, the article is entirely redundant. —  AjaxSmack  06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. This doesn't need an AfD; it's a plausible search term. ColourBurst 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Aaron 14:53, 24 October 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 CANCELLED. Simple harrassment and meat/sockpuppeting. Blocks either in place or forthcoming. -Splash - tk 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Card Catalog

I only created this article to apease a troll who was using this to clutter up another article with needless information. Non-notable, unrefrenced, hell not even an ISBN or LOC cite! Ponch's Disco 06:14, 24 October 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 Final Destination 3. --Ezeu 01:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 3 DVD

An obvious fancruft page. Important information should be put onto the Final Destination 3 page. There doesn't need to be articles for special edtion DVD's, if that were right... then Wikipedia would be flooded with many of them (seeing as how.. most/all DVD's have special editions). RobJ1981 06:18, 24 October 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/Blake Stringer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Scully

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Younessi

Non notable oral surgeon; previous prod removed. Brianyoumans 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only sentence the author User:Ojy added was "He has published several articles in various medical journals and is presently working on a book on Australian Idioms." Several articles? Google finds only one (11 ghits in all outside Wikipedia). The author's name looks suspicious, and all his contributions were to this article. And what have Australian idioms to do with dentistry? So, definite signs that this is a vanity piece by James Younessi himself. --Pan Gerwazy 08:29, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie minera

del nn vanity with quicktime filmography. `'mikkanarxi 07:14, 24 October 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Montgomery

del nn vanity radio singer `'mikkanarxi 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I made it, not Mercedes Montgomery. She's well known in her realm of work. countryfan

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:42, 4 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. --Ezeu 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either this page has outlived its usefulness, or I don't get what it's about. A nearly unintelligible list of all articles related to China, best covered by searching the category 'China'. There are nearly no red links. Also nominated is its lower section List of China-related topics M-Z. Proposed deletion on grounds of WP:NOT indiscriminate information, virtually impossible to keep up to date. Ohconfucius 07:20, 24 October 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. Dakota 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hecklers

del nn "high school basketball fan group" `'mikkanarxi 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and a vanity piece. BTLizard 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely non-notable.. (We're not meant to say 'vanity' any more, but hey, they've nothing to be vain about.) Emeraude 12:14, 24 October 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. --Ezeu 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High - Series One - Episode One

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Budgiekiller 07:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Budgiekiller 07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This was just added; it looks like the author might be intending to go through and make entries on all of the episodes. I think the article is way over-detailed, but that is something that could be discussed on the talk page. The series was at least successful enough to get a second season; having basic articles on the episodes is OK with me; they are low maintainence. --Brianyoumans 10:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but cleanup, etc. Obviously a work in progress. There's plenty of precedent for TV series to have individual episode articles. If this remains the only episode of this series with its own article in, say, 6 months, then let's revisit the question. 23skidoo 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It now has another episode and has been appropriately renamed since the AfD began.--Kchase T 12:21, 3 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. --Coredesat 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir tibon

del vanity: nn journalist. `'mikkanarxi 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Only article by its creator, for what it's worth. Emeraude 12:12, 24 October 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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chonga

Slang definition purporting to trace the evolution of an ethnic stereotype. If the term is widely used it is possible that there is an article to be written, but this one is trivial, POV, and probably offensive. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all that is holy. --Kinu 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will never be convinced that this is encyclopedic. Pschemp | Talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Let's make this a paleologism at least as far as WP goes. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 7, 2006, 07:23 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This is a realistic term that thousands of people know. The information is absolutely true. And although it is a stereotype, it is one that is extremely common in South Florida. Please do not delete the article. No one here is from South Florida. They have no knowledge of the term - Unsigned comment by 168.221.143.68 at 05:36, February 7, 2006
  • Comment : What is notable in south Floridia may not be notable for Wikipedia. Truth has little to do with this debate. Pschemp | Talk 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Extremely Unencyclopædic. Avi 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This article was very useful for my thesis on ethnic stereotypes in Miami. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia/dictionary which was able to accompany my research. This page was excellent, and should be kept for future research on ethnic stereotypes. - George H.
Unlikely — Same IP as last Do Not Delete comment. Can this 'discussion' be ended soon?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 8, 2006, 16:28 (UTC)
mmm hmm -- the article has been in existence for about 36 hours. how useful could it have been for your "thesis"? bikeable (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and apparent sockpuppetry. Stifle 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Just because you might not like the use of a term doesn't mean that it should be deleted from dictionaries (that's directed at you Orwellian 1984 delete crazy psychos). If we're going to delete this entry then the entry for the "n" word and bitch should have to go as well. This term is as much part of american encyclopedic history as any other coloquial term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.76.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Do Not Delete The previous "Do Not Delete" edit has an excellent point. If the stereotype wigger is on Wikipedia, then there is no reason why this Chonga stereotype article cannot be on it. All this article needs is a little more editing and it will be acceptable. I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Simon H.
  • Do Not Delete This should not be deleted for the same reasons mentioned above. the use of the "n" word, or even the term wigger, this is indeed a stereotype but is not to be deleted because someone does not like it.
  • Do Not Delete!! In reference to the 1984 Orwellion bikeable. The fact that you counted the hours which this page had been in existence shows yours distatste for this entry, and your distant location in Boston probably adds to the distate which you dislpay towards this article. It just so happens that I researched wikipedia while this page was still under construction. If the terms "wigger" and the "n" word can be used as research items, than so should the term "chonga." -George H.
  • Note the excellent use of references in Wigger. If you can provide real, verifiable references to use of the word, and its importance beyond being a slang definition (since wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the article could be rewritten as an encyclopedic discussion of a cultural phenomenon and not in the current mocking tone, then it might possibly be worth an article. I'd recommend starting with references. Just my two cents as a "1984 Orwellion"! bikeable (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW — Urbandictionary.com does recognize this definition. My vote remains delete as above, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But I thought this fact should be noted. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 9, 2006, 02:24 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE- this article has been very useful to numerous friends of mine here in south florida who are not familiar with the term "chonga", those of you that dont agree, dont know the term and have nothing to do it, but as for the youth of south florida this word has become very popular and has grown extensively. i plead that this article SHOULD NOT be deleted.--168.221.143.68 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Gabriel F.[reply]

  • This article should not be deleted. It is, for all intensive purposes, similar to a stub. If anything, this article should not be considered for deletion: it should be considered for extension. References to the word chonga are difficult to find (in print, the internet, etc.) because it is not a word that has garnered world-wide usage. If you'd like references that you MIGHT be able to find, listen to radio station El Zol 95, a local station here in Miami. It's not easy to find references for a rather new term. Also, this is not a definitionesque article. If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. The way it stands now, everyone in Miami that I know that has seen the article (and in the past 24 hours, word has spread FAST) agrees that it is truthful and not in any way just a slang term with no relevance. This article contains the history, the evolution of said chonga, and is, in no way, offensive. If a girl is dressed like one, she knows what she's doing, and she knows what she's attempting to look like. If I wear a gold chain around my neck, 3 inches thick, with a spinner on the end, a thick Ecko sweater, and my pants around my ankles, you'd immediately say I'm trying to be "gangster" or "gangster-like". This is because I AM. You do not look a certain way without being able to be labeled. This is just a new label for a certain female demographic, primarily found in South Florida which has not found national usage yet. --Gmasterluis 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — All these people who want to see this article become encyclopedic (and therefore acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia) should focus their attentions on improving the article. Is is acceptable, encouraged in fact, for the article to be edited, expanded, and improved during the deletion discussion. The criticisms levelled above by the delete voters are common here. Many new articles suffer these same faults. Occasionally an article can be improved enough during the deletion process to cause people to change their votes. The faults noted above are somewhat subjective, but based on objective observations. Gmasterluis says If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. Articles should only be edited by people who understand the subject matter, the keep voters here claim to understand the subject, the delete voters clearly do not (from your POV). So the delete voters need to put their heads together and re-write the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. And they need to do it quickly before a deletion decision is made.
      — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 10, 2006, 01:39 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE!!! This article is extremely helpful to people new to South Florida who do not understand the term.
  • DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS VERY TRUE OF SOUTHERN FLORIDIANS AND IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL AS THE OFFENSIVE N WORD USED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS. CHONGA'S ARE PROUND OF WHAT THEY ARE, SOME OF THEM EVEN PURCHASE APPAREL WITH THIS WORD WRITTEN ON IT. PEOPLE FROM OTHER STATES AND EVEN OTHER CITIES HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD, BUT TO US IN SOUTH FLORIDA IT IS VERY REAL. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BECUASE IT CALL HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND SOUTH FLORIDA'S CULUTRE AND PEOPLE.----HOTTEETS.COM
    • Comment — You're still missing the point. No one is claiming that this is not a real word. The issue here is the article in question, and it's appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Try reading the comments and suggestions that I (and others) have posted here. Take these ideas to heart, and work to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Coming here and bitching (you) HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD is not productive. And it won't do any good. The administrator that decides the final outcome of this discussion will not be swayed by TYPING IN ALL CAPS and moaning about how you don't understand us. The only issue here is the quality of the article. If you approach the phenomenon of "Chonga" from a sociological and cultural perspective, write an article from that POV, and write it at a level of quality commensurate with other articles, you will find that the word is kept, and you will win this fight. Read the comments by bikeable above and use those articles as a guide to improving this one. Bringing in a bunch of your friends to scream DO NOT DELTE is not going to help. (And, by the way, the term we usually use here is Keep. Not "do not delete")
      — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 10, 2006, 03:12 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10000 sockpuppets an intro paragraph that mainly argues (unsuccessfully) for keeping the page... (ESkog)(Talk) 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article just needs to be worked on. It has not been here for very long, and requires INTELLIGENT people to work on it. I've been working on it a bit, even though it isn't originally my work, and I am not someone with all the background info, though I can ensure everyone that it's all true and valid information. The people complaining, I don't agree with them, because they aren't making valid arguments. However, this topic should not be for deletion, as I stated before. We (people who are well aware of the term) are trying our best to improve the article and continue make it grow into a more encyclopedic source of information.
  • do not delete this article. it is hilarious and is very useful to people who do not know what a Chonga is. Everything in this article is true, i should know because i am a teen living in S. FLorida. But people who do not know what Chonga means can learn from this article. p.s. if you are intersted in seeing Chongas for yourself, go to International Mall or Santa's Enchanted Forest.


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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetX

Fails WP:CORP, non-notable ad agency, linkspam — Moondyne 07:29, 24 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurvinder Jagdev

del nn lower-level official. `'mikkanarxi 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am sure that less than 5 people of the electorate of the "Local elections" would have ever known about Wikipedia and not more than 2 would read this article. That is the level of penetration of Internet in India (except in Cities)  Doctor Bruno  22:36, 24 October 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. Daniel.Bryant 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jory

del. about a name. `'mikkanarxi 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete "as an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." (CSD A7). Look at the Origin section. Just a vanity page autobiography. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. This article is nonsense. We have plenty of articles about names (see Category:Given names), and if and when someone wants to write a serious article about the name, it might be OK. --Brianyoumans 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion, but this article has been completely rewritten about a different subject, a film entitled Jory. Nominator and those who have expressed opinions may wish to review the current page. GassyGuy 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is in fact a completely different article; this one is perfectly reasonable. --Brianyoumans 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:No personal attacks. Then, please review both the page history of this article and reread my comment above (and IslaySolomon's own speedy keep comment directly following it) and review whether your accusation might have been a tad hasty. Thank you. GassyGuy 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not list this article for deletion, Mikkalai did, and with good reason. However, the content of the article has completely changed and, if you look above, I have actually voted to keep it. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I was the one who nominated this for a speedy delete, when I was newpage patrolling. It was patent nonsense at the time--some in-joke gibberishy blather about somebody who happened to be named Jory. In the interim, however, all that's been entirely replaced by a legitimate entry about a legitimately-notable film. That this is being considered for deletion at all is just an artifact of the review system. Let's move on. -- P L E A T H E R talk 18:24, 27 October 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. --Ezeu 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charles Griggs

Musician who made one album in 1973 before dropping out. Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him, but seems to have made few -- if any -- ripples on the music world. The article's creator says [t]he problem is that there simply aren't any other references aside from the one article... making verification, well, difficult. I went so far as to e-mail rock-and-roll historian Ed Ward for help, but he said that while the producer and session musicians were pretty well-known, he's never heard of this guy, either. I mean, good luck on the comeback, but let's wait until that happens or some verification that this made SOME impact on the music world. Calton | Talk 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, include the album, The Legend of Sir Robert Charles Griggs. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of Only reference a recent local newspaper article about him in my nomination did you overlook? What section of my nomination having to do with "associations" did I overlook? What aspect of a single local newspaper article -- for which the subject was, no doubt, the source of the information in it -- counts as "multiple" coverage? Are WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:Reliable sources, WP:References, and WP:CITE the only policies you've decided can be dispensed with, or do you have any more you want to jettison? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't overlook it at all. Taking the situation into consideration, coupled by the fact that all we're looking at right now is online sources, I'm not "dispensing" with any policies. I'm thinking this is one of those times where the "just because a person doesn't meet WP:BIO, they don't have to be deleted" clause comes into effect. This is a unique instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, you HAVE dispensed with every single standard, because -- well, you don't even bother to explain the "because", either. Any more handwaving and we could run a windmill. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to point out that the information in the article is verified by the informational booklet published by Capitol Records for the release of the album, which I will remind you was a nationwide release on one of the biggest record labels in the music industry. This can be confirmed by Capitol Records. Also, I checked this with Gary Paxton, who confirmed it. And Gary no doubt knows more about such things than Ed Ward. In addition, a quick yahoo search will show that Griggs' songs appear on country music playlists for radio stations all across the country. I would also suggest that it is unneccessary to take this discusion and debate so personally. Justinkrivers 06:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest that it is unneccessary [sic] to take this discusion [sic] and debate so personally. If that was aimed at me, you first. I've gone the extra mile to help you: that you've done nothing to actually help yourself choosing instead to argue irrelevancies isn't my problem.
  • Once again, the question is NOT whether this guy and his album ever existed: I should point out that my mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my MUJI AT-DF09R2 Desk Fan in front of me all exist, and they're not getting articles, either. Once again, it's WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (has this guy done enough in the world to rate an article? No.), WP:Reliable sources (a personal conversation you say you had with someone? Not enough.), WP:References (Yahoo searches that are uncited? Which proves what, exactly?) and WP:CITE (one lone local newspaper clipping, with the information presumably coming from the subject?) --Calton | Talk 06:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with saying that this subject doesn't deserve an article simply because he hasn't done enough in your opinion to merit one is that since he is an artist it is impossible to gauge what merits his work will have to future critics. If Wikipedia existed in the 1860's and someone tried to post an article on Emily Dickinson, it could be deleted for the same reasons you are offering now. Because this man is an artist and because he is still living, and therefore able to offer future works, he deserves an article so that future researchers have a starting point.Skylark29 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Skylark29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. Indeed, this was his first edit. – Chacor 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Robert Charles Griggs years ago, he was a pretty notable Nashville guy, wrote a hit, and I think it's good to have him here

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

The result was delete both per WP:NOT and WP:V. The problems mentioned by the nominator have not been addressed despite the heated arguing going on in this AfD discussion. --Coredesat 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Robo Blast 2 and Sonic: Time Attacked

These both have been to AFD previously, approximately a year ago. In those AFDs, users claimed that these projects are "massive," "important," and "among the best-known video games of its kind." However, it's now a year later, and nobody has seen fit to come up with any proof, or make any effort whatsoever to meet WP:SOFTWARE or any effort to verify any of these peacock claims or even add them to the articles. How long do fan projects get to advertise on Wikipedia? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs: Time Attacked, Time Attacked 2, Robo Blast

As I have said before, the article sucks. It keeps getting more and more fancruft added onto it every week, it seems, and its obviously subpar in terms of writing and setup. However, personally I'd consider that true on many articles about official parts of the Sonic series, and even worse, in many parts of the encyclopedia in general. Look at the article on Super Sonic. There's clearly an excessive amount of fancruft with no citations or any standard Wikipedia policy. I agree that passing mention in magazines is not assertion of notability, and neither is decent results on the Google test, however, if the main thing that decides whether or not something is notable at this point is whether a company made it or not, then Wikipedia has seriously dropped from its ideals. Whatever happened to good faith and old fashioned common sense? If policy is the only reason this article should be deleted, feel free, but please make sure to delete the rest of the fancruft swarming around the wiki, starting with the deletion of the articles on practically every video game character, feature, and backstory on here. They're clearly fancruft with no assertion of notability. I don't care if this article lives or dies as long as I see some consistency around here. -MysticEsper 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll just respond to the last part. Believe me, we are trying. But as you can see here, it's not as simple as just nominating something. The fancruft is getting out of hand, and there a dedicated few patrolling trying to scrub non-encyclopedic content from good articles, but remember that pretty much everytime someone removes some cruft, two more people add some to other articles, making it an uphill struggle. Don't take this personally, as it's neither an attack on you or this game, it's about whether or not the article conforms to Wikipedia polcies, and some people think it does and others think it doesn't. The problem is that people seem to get hung up on one particular policy and ignore the fact an article fails on other issues besides that. (WP:N is a good example of one that people focus on exclusively whilst ignoring other issues.) The Kinslayer 10:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policies? I thought most of them were just guidelines, including the ones cited for reasons this article should get the boot. BlazeHedgehog 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I don't see why there is so much enforcement of WP:N to begin with. Obvious vanity needs to die, but simply because something isn't the biggest thing in the world shouldn't nullify as it as important enough for an article. The real incredibly problematic part of notability, especially with web content, is how incredibly difficult it is for even genuinely notable internet material to find legitimate press coverage, especially in areas that simply aren't as gigantic as others. Unless something is some kind of gigantic runaway hit such as YouTube or another similar phenominon and gets tons of press, I simply have no idea where I'd look to find sources. For instance, I have no idea where I'd find some press coverage, of, say, 8-Bit Theater, but I wouldn't imagine going and trying to delete it for notability, because it's clearly popular and well-known in many circles, but even it only has the official website and forums linked as sources. The issue is that I'm sure someone who doesn't read webcomics at all could easily come and find said article and try to delete it as vanity/fancruft because they simply aren't familiar with it themselves, despite being a very well-known website. Where would one draw the line between notable and non-notable on internet projects/websites? The entire system seems incredibly vague here, and it's obviously clear that even Wikipedia doesn't know, as something that was a complete blowout as notable one AfD is now a nearly complete blowout in the opposite direction, when honestly practically nothing has changed in terms of the article content (and in fact, I'd say it's vastly improved in structure since the first time it was put up on AfD). There really needs to be some kind of tangible way to determine what is notable and what is not that isn't based on anyone's opinion, and as far as I'm aware, that simply doesn't exist. -MysticEsper 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems signifigant enough to me, and I don't get this "fangames must be Baleeted!" rule. This game always seemed pretty established, and to have a good fanbase, to me. Also, I thought it was a lot better than any official 3D Sonic game... Darien Shields 02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AMIB. Hbdragon88 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. I can see how a fangame could be percieved as being better than an official product, seeing as Sonic Team's allegedly been doing a pretty poor job lately... --Luigifan 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Why would this page be deleted, when there are far less worthy things included in Wikipedia. Granted, this is the type of thing that wouldn't make it into Britannica, but isn't that the point? 206.165.137.194 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting Keep by saying there are other things that shouldn't have articles is a weak argument. If you see another page that you think shouldn't be here, you can always nominate it for deletion. TJ Spyke 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a weak argument, which is why it isn't my argument for conservation. My argument is that this article is interesting AND something Britannica wouldn't include.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.137.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep, renominate separately I disagree with the lumping of these two articles together, which is totally non-standard; this is going the wrong about deleting two separate articles. SRB2 is a lot more notable than Sonic: Time Attacked, but both were notable last time I checked. That aside, making the presumption that fan games are automatically non-notable is a fallacy of definition and is simply not correct. Can one prove unequivably that it something is not notable by lack of evidence? No. Can one prove unequivably that something can be notable? Possibly. I would've thought that 5,400,000 google hits [27] would've been sufficient for keeping, unless our standard of notability has suddenly risen to eliminate Qubit Field Theory, which only has 2,700,000 google hits [28]? The subject that these two articles cover is more notable than most articles on Wikipedia. --DavidHOzAu 02:58, 30 October 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. --Coredesat 05:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlogExplosion

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Another linkspam attempt methinks — Moondyne 07:40, 24 October 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, see also original AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chonga. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chongas

No references, Original research , see Chonga above.Markb 07:28, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TattleMail

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP, linkspam — Moondyne 07:51, 24 October 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. --Ezeu 01:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Heaven

Non-notable fan work. The article fails Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research, as well as a simple Google test. Most, if not all, of the internal links to the article are from templates. Wikipedia is not a directory of fan works. --Slowking Man 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about fan works created by the same group, and the above criteria apply to them as well:

--Slowking Man 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just found out (after digging through the articles' edit histories) that may be of interest: all of these articles appear to have been created by Liontamer. --Slowking Man 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I started Kong in Concert. No hard feelings, though ;). -- Rmrfstar 10:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there. Since OverClocked ReMix is notable in-and-of-itself, it doesn't seem wrong to potentially Merge some information with the OverClocked ReMix article, rather than delete the articles outright. OC ReMix started using MediaWiki to host its FAQ and other information a few months ago. Wouldn't be opposed to being pointed in the right direction (at my userpage) to learn how to properly apply the various templates in these articles in MediaWiki, so perhaps the articules could be ported there. In any case, I've got no problem with deleting the article per the nom, BUT would rather see a merge. - Liontamer 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fails web inclusion guidelines. I also don't see how the parent site is notable. It doesn't seem to make its case for passing WP:WEB and any article referencinig a website's mission statement in the lead reeks of conflict of insterest. I will nominate seperately. --Kunzite 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please see the AfD of Kong in Concert from April 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kong in Concert. This one at least, is a legitimate album, based on its popularity. I agree there is a lack of quality references, but it is useful enough that to have it is a Good Thing: this article is of high quality and is a useful resource to those who might have heard of the album. -- Rmrfstar 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since that AfD in April 2005, we've gotten much, much, much more serious about requiring quality references from reliable sources. Plenty of articles from that era got kept as "interesting" or "cool" that would never pass muster today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but meanwhile, I'm worried that "has no reliable sources" is used as a catch-all "Hsssh! ...and I've got more hssssh where it came from" kind of excuse for deleting content. Lack of sources is foremost a cleanup criterion, not deletion criterion. I hate it when people bring articles to AfD when it's obvious that articles have at least a good possibility of getting sources. Everyone gets terribly excited when they see "hey, if it's unsourced, you can delete it"; No one gets excited when they see "anyone can and should be constructive and add sources when they doubt the article's statements". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even though these songs were inspired by games, it doesn't necessarily mean it would only be of interest to fans. That's like saying, for example, if a music is inspired by a popular artist, it would only be of interest to fans of that artist. Or saying "This jazz album is up for deletion, since it would only be of interest to people who want to hear jazz." In short, I see no reason to delete this article. .V. 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much of an argument to actually "keep" (let alone "strong keep") the articles there, nor an assertion of the notability of the content, just a disagreement that fan fiction is only of interest to fans, which is pretty well established on Wikipedia. Any ideas re: WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB? Deizio talk 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add headers requesting improvement. You could always just place headers requesting sources and/or establishment of notability, rather than impulsively moving for deletion. Primary sources are in fact available. I'm mildly deletionist myself in my view of Wikipedia, as I see a lot of fancruft added all the time, but have also respected the fact that notable articles which are either stubs or do not contain the necessary sourcing typical of top articles have been kept with the intention of improving them, rather than deleting them as a knee-jerk response. I've struck through my earlier comments, specifically because of Kunzite's comments of OverClocked ReMix itself not meeting notability guidelines.
  1. If you Google "OverClocked ReMix" (with quotes), there are about 186,000 results, and "OC ReMix" (the common abbreviation for the site used in its music tags) lists 135,000 results. Google the word remix, and OverClocked ReMix is the second result out of 76,300,000 behind Remix Magazine. However, keep in mind Google is not a be-all-end-all litmus test ("In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive"). That is specifically why search engine tests are not a factor in Web notability guidelines.
  2. While merely a sub-culture (amateur video game music arrangements), OverClocked ReMix is the most popular and influential site related to that culture, with the largest collection of video game music arrangements on the internet. Especially given the additional information below, I would argue that it is a viable instance of genuinely notable fan culture rather than non-notable.
  3. Support from video game industry professionals - OverClocked ReMix has received praise and support from several notable musicians/professionals in the video games industry not limited to Video Games Live co-creator Tommy Tallarico, Secret of Evermore composer Jeremy Soule (who has contributed an arrangement to the site), Doom lead designer John Romero, Donkey Kong Country series composer David Wise, 7th Guest composer The Fat Man (who has contributed 2 arrangements to the site), and Secret of Mana composer Hiroki Kikuta.
  4. OverClocked ReMix press clippings - I'd argue that coverage from Salon, G4/TechTV, Electronic Gaming Monthly, 1UP.com, and MP3.com are sufficient in terms of point #1 of the Web notability criteria.
  5. In terms of Music notability criteria, I believe OverClocked ReMix satisfies the first and fifth bullet points of the "Others" section in regards to the video game music arrangement genre, which is outside mass media traditions: "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre" and "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" (in this case, magazines, television, and leading websites devoted to video games [Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gamer, Game Informer, Edge], technology [G4techTV], and online music [MP3.com], respectively). Though it's easy to do and looks convincing I'm sure, there's no excuse for Slowking Man flippantly linking to the same music notability page in the deletion nom if a proper explanation isn't given as to why the albums would fail the linked criteria.
  6. By extension, my conclusion is that since the music entity is notable, the albums created by it are notable. As noted in the Albums section of the music notability guidelines, it is viewed by some as a controversial extrapolation, but one that I support in this case (and all other cases).

If the album articles are deleted and/or OverClocked ReMix is nomimated for deletion, I will have the decision taken up at Deletion review. I believe that the nominating admin is assuming bad faith on both the group's notability and the potential verifiability of the information listed in these articles, that the group's notability is legitimate thereby permitting the existence of these articles, and that the procedural action being taken should be to label the articles as needing improvement rather than deletion. - Liontamer 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pre-emptively threatening to take something to DRV is not, imho, terribly appropriate. Cross that bridge if-and-when. And instead of "Keep, add headers requesting improvement", how about "Keep, I created / love / cherish these articles and I'll be happy to add the citations, notable press coverage and whatever else needs to be done to demonstrably bring these articles in line with WP:MUSIC"? My opinion was certainly offered in good faith, and if the articles (rather than the AfD discussion) demonstrate that these topics pass the bar, I'll happily change it to keep. Deizio talk 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely felt your specific observations were in good faith, Deiz, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. My issue is with the nomination and most of the conclusions drawn in the discussion being in bad faith, particularly the intention to AfD OverClocked ReMix's article. Which is why I kept it in mind to use 'if' regarding deletion review. Since it seems not many here are even familiar with OverClocked ReMix or video game music sub-culture, it would have been more appropriate to discuss questions of notability in the appropriate Talk pages first. The articles can be improved, I agree. My end of the discussion aims to clarify that the subject matter of the articles is notable enough where the articles should be flagged to be improved by attaching proper cleanup headers. With my points stated, that's now left for others to decide. Contrary to your thinking, however, if the AfD discussion demonstrates that these topics pass the bar, the articles should be left to be expanded upon and better formatted. You're criticizing the nommed articles for not demonstrating notability enough, and that's fine. But there's no sense in taking any article on a potentially notable topic, especially if the attempt to clarify notability is in this discussion, and deleting it because it's not the perfect article. If an AfD established notability despite it not yet being established in the article, I find it hard to believe that the resolution would be to delete rather than to keep and subsequently establish notability within the article as well. - Liontamer 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One does not have to be familiar with a topic to nominate it for deletion. Such things need to be looked at thought clear eyes, not the rose colored glasses of fans of a website or forum. The article currently reads like a press release and the usual "forum drivel" that tends to be amassed in articles about websites. i.e. "The site's mission statement explains how its members seek to prove that such music "is not disposable or merely just background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form...." and "Site-related sub-forums include Reviews, where members can discuss ReMixes posted to the site, ReQuests, where members can request particular pieces to be arranged, Judges Decisions, where the Judges Panel posts their decisions on submitted arrangements, and Site Projects, where members organize community projects and collaborative efforts that benefit the site." The nature of an internet forum is certainly not encyclopedic.... "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" I researched the topic prior to mentioning that I should nominate it for AFD. I always do a through search of the Lexis Nexis newspaper and magazine databases for multiple countries and regions of the United States. I found one "trivial mention". I also went through the citation list that you provided, most of them are blogs and do not meet the criteria listed in WP:RS. Your google results are also bloated: "Results 361 - 361 of about 121,000 for "OverClocked ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.15 seconds)" and "Results 271 - 277 of about 113,000 for "OC ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.17 seconds)". This means that there are a few internet sites which mention the OC Remix multiple times. i.e. forums, blogs, and the like. If the article passes notability by citation, it's only by relaxing the interpretation of the reliable source guidelines to include blog entries. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear ya, but it's still important that notability is asserted and established in the article. Otherwise the next deletion-hungry random page patroller could start the process all over again. The WP:xx notability criteria apply to articles rather than AfD discussions. Deizio talk 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I would like to point out that OverClocked ReMix is the second result that appears in Google when one searches the word "remix," even before the wikipedia entry on that subject. That in itself should be proof enough that the website is, in fact, quite notable. But of course the comments provided by Liontamer above help too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.23.78 (talk • contribs)
The Google bombing effect does not indicate notability. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. OverClocked ReMix doesn't google bomb at all. Furthermore, the amount unique google hits can be used to indicate notability, but it can't be used to indicate un-notablity. Read up on denying the antecedent, please. --DavidHOzAu 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always AGF. I never accused anyone of was google bombing. I said the effect does not indicate notability. I also do not beleive that Google searches can be used to determine notability--that's done by the methods listed in WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, etc.. --Kunzite 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or failing that Merge into one article ("OverClocked ReMix album projects" or like), or back to OverClocked ReMix article, with some trimming. Some of these have gotten media mentions (Slashdot articles for Kong in Concert, Relics of the Chozo (I think) and The Dark Side of Phobos, at least), so we're not exactly talking of an insignificant phenomenon here; OCRemix is famous among game music fans, and their projects do attract attention within the community. Like I imply above, we should rather try to clean these up and add references where needed; we're clearly not talking of an utterly marginalised phenomenon here and I believe the information could survive somewhere. I agree that these are not "real" albums and as such it's debatable whether or not they need articles of their own - some of these just don't, like RoFL - but merging them could be right in any case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, add headers requesting improvement or Merge I agree with Wwwwolf and Liontamer. I think that OCRemix, and on that, a lot of the albums listed there are notable, and that they should be kept and fix them up, and if they fail that, merge into a less detailed 'OCReMix projects' page/pages. Yadaman 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One shouldn't assume that all the links on a page are from templates at the bottom. That's a joke. Could it be that those very links were removed from the main article because they simply reappeared in the navigation box at the bottom. Yes, because the Manual of Style stipulates that we shouldn't replicate links in a see also section if they appear else where. Don't kill the article for following good practice! Furthermore, have you actually downloaded the music for yourself? It is free after all, the community is not gaining anything for having it up here, which I believe the whole "not a directory" thing was about in the first place. Lastly, Hedgehog Heaven has been referenced by IGN in an article. What more reliable sources do you want? Articles served up on a silver platter? For the record, we used to have five or so fan-related articles under {{SonicFeatures}}. The only thing accomplished by deleting this and the other two fan-related articles that are left will be to alienate [[the community that is helping to improve this article. Please don't delete it, this is a joke of deletion policy, and smells a lot like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. —DavidHOzAu, feeling somewhat annoyed at 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. OCRemix is probably noteworthy, but we're not talking about OCRemix. Every single album on OCRemix is not noteworthy; fan albums are almost never noteworthy, and there's no commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:ILIKEIT still doesn't trump WP:V or WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wwwwolf, but delete those which cannot be reliably sourced. Yamaguchi先生 06:48, 1 November 2006
  • Merge unless professional reviews and sources can be found. A shame these weren't commercially released, or they'd have some kind of immunity. But notwithstanding, most aren't even good enough for commercial release, so meh. They also don't get too much attention at all; I had an external link on the Chrono one that barely saw a couple hits a day (I eventually took it down). But I'd caution OCR forumers reading this against voting DELETE, since you'll probably be banned for it. After all, they banned tens of people for criticizing the addition of a sidebar to the site's layout. --Zeality 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was this user's first edit. -- Rmrfstar 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. Since the websites are verified as existing, and the research and information regarding them appears to be accurate, they are worth keeping. It also raises awareness of works based on other works, such as videogames, as in these instances. These fan works are notable for their very nature. Warwolf 08:47, 3 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. —Cryptic 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Metal

Non-notable fan work. Little verifiable information in the article, and no reliable sources that I can find. Ergo, the article is mostly original research. A Google test shows few hits, and most, if not all, of the internal links to the article are from templates. --Slowking Man 09:30, 24 October 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. --Michael Snow 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Forge

Non-notable web community; few Google hits. Nehwyn 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As far as AI is concerned, PF is by far the biggest web community, with 27438 members. A link to it is provided in the already existing article internet bot. PF has recently teamed up with Hanson Robotics to provide the artificial intelligence personality for an Albert-Einstein-like android at WIRED NEXTFEST 2006. If Hanson is a major player in robotics, as wiki's article about it suggests, PF is a key player in AI. stammer
Note - The above comment is from the article author.  --Nehwyn 10:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Can you provide any proof of notability as set in the WP:WEB criteria? (for the website, not one of the member of the community) --Nehwyn 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" 1. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -> ALICE's creator and PF's competitor Richard Wallace lists PF among a handful of "major online bot communities" + in his Salon article about the Loebner Prize John Sundman refers to Benj Adams and the Personality Forge as key players. "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" -> PF-based bots Brother Jerome by Peter Cole and Bildgesmythe by Patti Roberts have won silver and bronze respectively at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. NB: PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."-> The site content is proprietary and hence it cannot be independently distributed, but the joint venture with Hanson Robotics demonstrates its relevance to current applied AI endeavours. IMO Point 2. alone should settle the issue. -- Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite those recommending deletion to state their case in the light of my reply to Nehwyin's post.Stammer 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Alexa ranking of 646 580. Was not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (sorry, Stammer, but a brief mention in a single magazine article does not make it the subject of the article. Neither does occurrence in a list of links on a website.) As for the awards, that argument would be applicable if we were discussing deletion of Brother Jerome or Bildgesmythe, but we're not. Finally, this may be a vanity article, as Stammer's only Wikipedia contribution at the time of this AfD was the creation of this article, and he is currently the only one opposing its deletion. —Psychonaut 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to stress that I did not make a keep recommendation, since I realise that this would be inappropriate for the article's author. I regard it however as legitimate to argue in favour of the article. I may also repeat that PF-based bots relie on PF's AI engine. Roughly speaking, their intelligence is provided by PF. It would be pretty strange to have articles about certain bots without an article about the AI engine behind them. Stammer 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But since the PF bots in question seemingly aren't notable enough to have their own articles, what makes you think that the engine behind the PF bots is? —Psychonaut 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that Brother Jerome and Bildgesmythe aren't notable enough to have their own articles? They got silver and bronze at the ChatterBox challenge in 2006. Are you suggesting that I add articles devoted to them? I may well do it, but that would not make much sense without an article about the AI engine that they share and about the development model that spawned them. -- Stammer 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one said that. I was presuming their non-notability on the basis of their absence from Wikipedia. Of course, if you want some more rigorous evidence, go ahead and create the articles and see if they survive. At any rate, your using this argument in support of retaing the Personality Forge article is still flawed; it's entirely possible for an entity but not its ancestors to be notable. That's why, for example, there is an article on Stanislaw Lem but not on his father Samuel Lem. —Psychonaut 08:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point there. --Nehwyn 07:55, 28 October 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. --Coredesat 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chrono Trigger Mixtape, Vol. 1

Non-notable fan work. Unverifiable information, and no reliable sources that I can find, so the article is mostly original research. A Google test gives 912 hits, the first of which is the article. Very few internal links. --Slowking Man 09:39, 24 October 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

No potential to become encyclopedic. Total acterly know about this claimed perpetual motion machine is pretty much zero. At lot of the stuff in the artlice at the moment doesn't really make sense. A proper description of what it is isn't posible becase the people who have made it are being secretive. at best there are a few accounts of people seeing it under conditions controlled by the makersGeni 13:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Google returns 1,500 (mostly relevant) hits on Testatika; from reading some of them, it seems to be pretty notable in certain, ahem...fringe science circles. And the history of perpetual motion machines and their inevitable failure can be quite interesting... -- Ferkelparade π 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extermely notable as a fringe invention of "free energy". Important to 'history of perpetual motion machines article. Entertaining for electronics thought experiments. JDR 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many of the 1,500 hits I found were duplicates or derivative but enough remained to convince me that someone believes in this. Send to clean-up, though. Geni's observation about the controlled conditions might be a good addition to the article. Rossami 22:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Before I went look, I was thinking probably merge and redirect to history of perpetual motion machines, but this is far too elaborate to be proportionate there. I agree about clean-up, but somebody went to a lot of trouble, and it seems both notable and a fun read. Keep. Bishonen 22:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Testatika is, that it isn't only notable, it's rather infamous. The problem with the Testatika article is, that the inventors only tell quack about how it is supposed to work, so that's even hard to have some hard point to argue about. Instead of that, claims spring up, that capacitors have to be cylindrical, the rectifiers have to be valves and the resistors have to be natural. Oh wait, seems be the like the High-End audio business, hmm. Anyway I'll vote delete, unless someone of the fans can put together a coherent description. Pjacobi 16:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You can fix up the article while the VfD takes place, you know. It would be great to have some correction. Geogre 16:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm waiting since weeks that somebody puts in a coherent enough description to start serious editing. But I haven't seen a Testatika in real life, let alone being allowed to perform measurements. All descriptions on the web are pompous non-descriptions. Yep, I can erase most of the current content and replace it with the wording that nothing concrete is known about the working principle of the Testatika. But I very much prefer not to do that. -- Pjacobi 17:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I have added several comments to the article that may adress your specific concerns. JDR
          • yes I now includes the paragraph "Two horseshoe magnets with metalised-perspex laminated blocks alternated with copper and aluminium plates form electron cascade generators. The electron cascade (or avalanche effect) is a chain reaction forming 'free electrons' (via the surrounding environmental energy)." There are no such things as electron cascade generators. As such the second part of the paragraph makes no sense. To me this reads as "by using magnatism and a couple of metals the machine breaks the first law of ThermodynamicsGeni 09:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Added ", what various sources call," to the electron cascade generators reference (that is what they call it). I am sorry that you do not understand the second part of the paragraph, making no sense to you. The machine does not "break" the first law of Thermodynamics (if you consider the open system; not a closed system). JDR
              • If you view it likes that it breaks the secondGeni 19:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • It is quack and it becomes more and more quack, as descriptions are added. I don't accuse editors JDR of bad will, but this is no technical description of any mechanism. It doesn't even state, whether the surplus energy claimed is delivered as mechanical or electrical energy to the output. As said above, I have no idea what to do about this article. -- Pjacobi
  • You know, this looks as much like a hoax as anything on earth. The problem is that we have a highly partisan editor, so sending to clean up is likely to mean a quick reversion to open claims of perpetual motion. At present, this seems more like an ad than I'd like. A flat keep is out. The only question is whether clean up can clean it up. Send to clean up, with a note that it should come back if not NPOV, if not skeptical, reportage of the claims of the company rather than direct claims without a filter of analysis. Geogre 22:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wet t-shirt contest. --Ezeu 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wet boxer-short contest

Non notable cultural phenomenon; yes, they exist, but do we really need an article on them? Previous prod removed. Brianyoumans 09:59, 24 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Chronicles

Non-notable video Non-notable Violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V Violates WP:BLP and more. NBGPWS 09:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at history of AfD nominations for similar Conspiratorial books at the Conspiracy Noticeboard for reasoning, precedent and stare decisis. Conspiracy Noticeboard NBGPWS 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I do think it should be mentioned in the article on (and merged into) The Arkansas Project NBGPWS 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please remember to AGF. Even yesterday's actions were in accordance with WP on user project pages, although I inadvertently violated 3RR, and POINT. (which was a judgement call anyway) Thanks. NBGPWS 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, I was also going to include that I suspected this was a bad-faith nomination when I made my earlier entry. Had it all typed out, in fact, but I backed off on it. I think that was a good decision on my part as I now think it's better that you brought it up, since it's you he's focusing on and your page(s) that he's vandalizing. Jinxmchue 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the noticeboard's history: "I suspect that these articles have been created to legitimize and promote this movement and I feel strongly that this undermines wikipedia's credibility and legitimacy and violates some of our most important principles." AGF. Thanks NBGPWS 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what your point is. "Fight this scourge" sounds to me like someone about to charge a horde of monsters or wage a battle, that is not appropriate for wikipedia. We are here to colaborate, not fight some epic battle. Your tone is confrontational. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's you interpetation which I dismiss. The noticeboard now says: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Vand which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." This article 'fits the bill' and is why I posted the AfD to the group, and here. NBGPWS 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanky ou for clarifying, however after your past antics, I cannot assume you added it there in good faith. The spirit of AGF is not to be blind, but to assume at first the person is making a good effort, after your last stunt that presumption is gone. That is why I stated what I did, I believe Gabriel makes a good point and I do not wish to see an article get deleted simply because you are bitter, as per your past comments on the group you now are claiming you are attempting to contribute to. I think the proof above has already been laid out so I will not be responding to you anymore, no point in making this AfD a mess. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about debating this one on the _merits_? I see absolutely no productive purpose whining about who made a nomination. People could easily make similar charges against every nom you make Zer0, and I'd tell them it's irrelevant too. Derex 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not interested in your arguements either, considering you were also noted as reverting back to that WP:POINT violation. I have stated my case and unless you have something compeling, you may as well stop responding. --NuclearZer0 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not interested in arguing on the merits???? btw, I have made exactly one edit to that page ever, and the admin who gently noted it then apologized for failing AGF. If only everyone here had the class of that admin and the belief in AGF. Derex 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we blow that more out of proportion? I am not interested in discussing merits with someone who reverts without even checking what they are reverting, I am not sure you understand Wikipedia policy well enough to have such a debate with, if you just go around reverting pages during edit wars without checking the content, or so you claimed. There are lots of people who may want to entertain a debate with you over this topic, choose one of them. Considering my decision is based on the nominators actions being in violation of a policy/guideline, I really do not see how you are even debating me as you are going about this as if its a normal AfD. --NuclearZer0 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NuclearDude, Calm down! You're gonna get in trouble if you keep on attacking other editors like this! You keep removing my NPA warnings from your user page too. Is that even allowed? NBGPWS 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giggle, I almost got sucked into that one. Yes it is allowed feel free to ask at AN/I, they will explain to you that constantly putting back the templates is actually harrassment/vandalism. But thats an entirely different issue, you should address it there not here. --NuclearZer0 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note I found this page through the noticeboard as I originally removed the addition NBGPWS added because I knew it was yet another WP:POINT violation. However I am voting to make sure this violation doesnt cause an article to get deleted. --NuclearZer0 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, albiet I know that many of these editors, based on their edit histories, if there was an attack video againt Bush Jr. for example, they would actively support its deletion. Travb (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd heard of this well before I ever came here. It's a notable element among the fringe of Clinton-haters. (I dislike Clinton, but I was never extreme enough to buy into this video)--T. Anthony 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see below) ... unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify WP:V and WP:RS without violating WP:OR? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. Derex 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep After a fair bit of digging, I found two mainstream sources that mention it. Washington Post, and NYTimes. The latter is Times Select, so I can't read anything more than excerpts (someone here must have a membership). Neither seems to make much of it, but at least it's a mention. Derex 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the NY Times article you mentioned. They say the "Clinton Chronicles" is " a hodgepodge of sometimes-crazed charges that are thrown off with an air of knowingness but little documentation." Bill Duncan, who is shown in it , says "It was used by people for purely political purposes." The article refers to the people who made the film as "the Clinton crazies." Nothing in the article lends credence to the absurd and libelous claims made in the film. The Washington Post article calls it a "bizarre and unsubstantiated documentary." Both articles , therefore, argue for the deletion of the article as a gross violation of WP:BLP.Edison 05:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think those quotes would be a fine addition to the article. Well-cited reporting of libel, slander, and smear by others is not a BLP violation as I understand it (haven't re-read it lately). If it were, we'd pretty much have to AFD Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, & Rush Limbaugh. Derex 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable though appalling bit of lies which has received sufficent media attention to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this article before reading this discussion. I notice several things: 1) The article seems to be almost wholely WP:OR. 2) Almost nobody here has actually addressed the article when offering an opinion. This isn't really the proper place to discuss a user disputes, and even trollish nominations occasionally accidentally hit something. This isn't the first time I've seen that happen, and it likely won't be the last. Therefore, pending reliable sources to document the notability of this, I have to say delete. I would feel much more comfortable with this if mainstream coverage were demonstrated. GassyGuy 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And protect against creating it again. "Largely discredited account of circumstantial evidence and coincidence," per Tbeatty, 18:07, 25 March 2006, who created the article. It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP. Please apply the same standards here as when deleting Lori Klausutis or Andy Stephenson. Edison 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure what you mean. LK and AS are non-notable and deletable as such. I believe I accurately described the video as a "largely discredited account." What you seem to be comparing is the "truth" of these articles rather than their notability. If we simply look at truth, LK was not killed, no votes are stolen by electronic voting machines and Bill Clinton didn't kill anyone. But if we talk about simple notablility, the publci spat between Joe Scarborough and Michael Moore is notable (LK is not). The Black Box Voting org and movement is notable, Andy Stephenson is not. Clinton Chronicles is notable, the producers/directors/accusers are not. If we treat CC like the 9/11 conspiracy articles, we could spawn off 10s or hundreds of articles on anyone who has commented or contributed to this video. --Tbeatty 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Edison wrote "It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP." The video accuses living people of murder, but the article does not. We can (and currently do) have a good article about this obnoxious video without endorsing the claims it makes. To expand on my vote below, if we keep this article we have to make very sure any edits that endorse those claims get reverted PDQ. CWC(talk) 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - When in doubt, don't delete. Let people gather facts for themselves, no matter what standards (or lack thereof), or even utter ridiculous ideas may come from it. — 66.16.19.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep well-known piece of 1990s history. --Groggy Dice 06:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as an article about a video propounding some nutty conspiracy theories which sold(?) 300,000 copies. (Wikipedia should document that fact that the anti-Clinton CTs were just as nutty as the anti-Bush CTs are today.) Weak because we need to ensure that the article is not edited to endorse those conspiracy theories.
Please note that I've added the WaPo and NYT links that Derex found to the article. (Thanks, Derex.) CWC(talk) 07:56, 26 October 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. --Coredesat 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambar

Query notability, seems like a game guide rather than an encyclopedia article MidgleyDJ 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Weak delete unless reliable third party sources are provided to assert the notability of the game.--Húsönd 16:42, 24 October 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. --Ezeu 00:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNR Metal

Owner-operated website that fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Useful for metal fans but not sure it belongs on WP. Deizio talk 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to judge the article, I was trying to understand what the guidelines & policies say about web pages that makes Encyclopaedia Metallum notable and not BNR. It wasn't a rhetoric question and I wasn't implying that if Encyclopaedia Metallum is notable, then BNR is, nor that if BNR isn't then E.M. isn't either. IronChris | (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, EM have been covered in a published magazine, have 80,000 members and 40,000 bands. Their Alexa traffic rank is also pretty good, 4,373. Prolog 10:12, 29 October 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. --Ezeu 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airboat World Magazine

Too specialised to be encyclopaedic; reads like an advert. Firien § 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G1, hoax, used fake picture, totally unsourced. NawlinWiki 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donna D'Allison

This person may not meet WP:BIO standards, and even WP:V, but if people can verify this, then it won't be deleted. Hence the nomination. Gloyne 10:53, 24 October 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 CANCELLED. Massive sockpuppetry here [31] making the debate basically meaningless. A re-run in a sock-free environment is needed. -Splash - tk 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jithesh

Non notable political cartoonist. No google hits at all. All the external links in the article are from blogs. The articles earlier AFD can be found here. The magazine Chiricheepu was also deleted and its Afd. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the library has a book on every author. Does this make him noteworthy--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Not every author of a book in the Library of Congress' collection is notable. However, since list of books in the article didn't include ISBN, I wanted to verify that the books exist. I was able to find one of the books listed in the article. The Library of Congress listing establishes verifiability rather than notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep-I'm a journalist in Malayalam. I'm very familiar with his name.He is highly notable in the field of cartooning. His cartoons and anatomical sketches reveals his mastery over the art. Please see the external links [33]. Those who have firsthand knowledge in fine arts can easily judge his skills. He used to draw and write for all major Malayalam Publications. -- Nileena joseph 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment great to have local input, but I'm afraid that the issue here is not what we make of his skills (and he looks good to me!), but how notable he is. Can you offer any evidence on his notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Google contains more than 30 results on him. I have found his name as a journalist in an official website of Kerala State Government. Please check it out.[34].[35] Most of his writings and cartoons are in Malayalam Language. I couldn't know whether English translations are available or not...? S. Jithesh is also famous as the editor of noted Malayalam Cartoon Monthly Chiricheppu. Readers and artlovers of Kerala know him very well.Nileena joseph 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please check out your first link. It shows that s jithesh works as a special correspondent for Mangalam in New delhi. But this S jithesh as written in the article works in Kerala. The two are different jitesh's.--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-I got an article to prove his notability from our press club library Kottayam. Jeevitham Enne Enthu Padippichu?(What the life has taught me?)is a popular philosophical column in Samakalika Malayalam(Famous weekly published by The Indian Express Daily). This column publishes the philosophical views and visions of noted personalities in different walks of life. I have found philosophical views and biography of S. Jithesh in that column.(2004 october 1st issue) I'm uploading a scanned copy of that page.Those who know Malayalam language can read this.[[36]]Nileena joseph 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well known cartoonist in Kerala. When there was a controversy over Chiricheppu last time, I asked few guys who were on a training in AIMS and they told that he is fairly well known in Kerala  Doctor Bruno  22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable cartoonist.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-Excellent wellknown cartoonist of Kerala. Ihave seen so many cartoons drawn by Jithesh.Nooranadu mohan 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; a majority of the keep recommendations indicate this is a notable cartoonist, but without any sort of references or reliable sources to back up that assertion per WP:BIO. Similarly, as an author, I don't see any references or reliable sources indicating that his book meets WP:BK. Geocities links do not satisfy WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have checked the links.Highly reliable. Chintha is a noted Malayalam online Magazine.Please see:[37] [[38]].Malayalam is an important vernacular Indian language.But News reports from Malayalam newspapers or periodicals are not available in Google search. Jithesh is a writer cum cartoonist in Malayalam Language. I have read his latest poem in Onappathippu 2006 of Veekshanam daily . Joshygeorge 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep- This user is a Kerala Cartoonist. So I can affirm easily that Jithesh is a noted Kerala Cartoonist. His cartoons are used to appear in almost all Malayalam periodicals. In addition to that I have watched his interviews in Malayalam Telivision Channels like Doordarsan, Asianet etc. I have seen 8 or 9 external links provided in the article. All are reliable.His anatomical drawings are of superb quality. It reminds the quality of great masters in art.But only a diamond merchant recognises the supreme quality of diamond. Joshygeorge 08:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Article contains objective and worthy informations about the works of a notable Indian Artist/Cartoonist.Dr.khan 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Strong KeepS.Jithesh is a noted cartoonist and is a noted figure in Malyalam Cartoon field. i have seen his interviews and programmes in all leading Malayalam tv channels.His cartoons and interviews appear in all leading malayalam newspapers (like Mathrubhumi,Malayal manorama,etc.) regularlyAdv. P. R. Bijuchandran 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy Keep As per all Kerala wikipedians said this article is about a famous kerala cartoonist. Recently he was a chief guest in DoorDarshan's (thiruvananthapuram)Nisagandhi live programme. I had watched it. I read his cartoons in Mathrubhumi newspaper's Narmabhumi. I have verified the external links and references added to the article back up that assertion per WP:BIO.I'm sure this artist is highly notable .All are reliable links and sources.As per TruthbringerToronto said enlisting in Library of Congress already prooved verifiability part. Devapriya 17:03, 29 October 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.
  • Keep He a noted cartoonist in Malayalam cartoon field. No google hits does'nt imply that he is not notable or famouse. That is waht we Wikipedians are for:)!! Kjrajesh
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While it certainly appears to (verifiably) exist, simply not enough claims to notability were submitted. The entry needs more reliable sources. The arguments brought by those who favour keeping the entry appear to range from sloppy, grossly unrefined google hits analysis (i.e. you do need the quotes to narrow the search), including the echoing these distorted/inflated findings — to anecdotal, presonal experiences and similar reiterations. This falls bellow our notability standards. El_C 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanote Halloween Train

Article appears to be based on personal experience and rumour (see article talk page). Unverifiable. Exploding Boy 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, to my surprise. I thought that this was going to be a clear delete, but a Google search throws up a surprising number of hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a lot once you add a leading quote. [39] Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a noteworthy event. Needs more sources, though. Shimeru 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blogs, forums, and Flickr pages ain't reliable sources, especially for something as non-notable and small as this. Could probably be deleted as db-spam, to boot. And speaking as a gaijin living in Tokyo, I've never heard of this, but it'll remind me not to ride the Yamanote that night. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speaking as a gaijin living in Tokyo five years now, I heard about it when I first arrived and I even rode on it last year. I've talked to a number of gaijin who have either heard about it, known someone who has ridden it, or have ridden it themselves. It's quite an established bit of Tokyo lore. Though the article says it started in the early 90s, the event may very well come back some years before that so it's a fairly well established event. The Ohmynews article in the link is not a blog, by the way, and I would think the pictures and video show that the event does indeed exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by on 87.75.6.127 (talk • contribs) 23:28, October 25, 2006. User's only edit, and for which oddly enough for someone living in Tokyo, the IP traces back to the UK. From the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies people, "Also, 87.75.6.127 is a pretty odd case; I'm not quite sure how someone managed to edit Wikipedia from what appears to be DVR appliance. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2006"
*-Oddly enough people living in Tokyo tend to travel to other places such as the UK (duh!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.102.91.65 (talk • contribs) , at 03:44, October 27, 2006. This one, at least, is from Japan. But again, user's only edit.
Right, and while in the UK, spend their time looking for articles in Wikipedia to defend. Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From OhmyNews: OhmyNews (hangul:오마이뉴스) is a South Korean online newspaper with the motto "Every Citizen is a Reporter"...It is the first of its kind in the world to accept, edit and publish articles from its readers, in an open source style of news reporting. About 20% of the site's content is written by the 55-person staff while the majority of articles are written by other freelance contributors who are mostly ordinary citizens. OhmyNews' citizen reporters now number 41,000...
  • And this is distinguishable from a blog or wiki HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the article in question a blog exactly? You have yet to clarify that. You mention that blogs, etc... were not realiable sources - realiable for what exactly? - That the event exists? Are you aware that Ohmynews and Wikipedia are quite similar in nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.102.91.65 (talk • contribs) , at 03:44, October 27, 2006. This one, at least, is from Japan. But again, user's only edit.
  • I think the very fact that even those who claim to have heard about it can't really say whether it's real or not is really a good indication of the reliability of this article and it's sources. The pictures in the blog (or whatever) linked are interesting, but prove nothing except that a few people in costumes were once on a platform at Shinjuku Station. I've never heard of it, and neither has anyone else I know who lives in Japan. This is a trivia section gone wild, and needs to be culled. Exploding Boy 06:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article is true. It is happening. If you say it isn't happening, you obviously aren't much in touch with the culture here in Tokyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.187.93.210 (talk • contribs) on 17:24, October 27, 2006. Now blocked as an open proxy.
  • Keep Why exactly is this article in debate for deletion? It is an event and a phenomenom that has been held almost every year for well over a decade. As the reporter for the original article (not Blog, mind you) linked from OhMyNews - not the wiki article - I can assure you that said event exists as I have witnessed and participated in it and later reported on it for OhMynews. Like the above UK poster who lives in Japan (why the identity of the ISP address became a minor issue is beyond me to fathom unless certain people don't beleive in travel anymore than they do in Yamanote halloween trains), I have lived in Tokyo for almost 5 years. While I didn't hear about it the moment I arrived (I arrived in mid-December), I did hear about it my first Halloween here and every year after until 2005 when I witnessed it myself. Before and after that event I spoke to a number of people to gather info on the background of the event and learned that the event had been held semi-annually for well over 10 years. I recently got an email on my Ohmynews account from someone who said they rode the Halloween Train in 1992. They had heard from participants that the tradition had started sometime ago before that - so the event could almost be close to 20 years old for all we know. For those living in Tokyo who haven't heard of this event, I suggest you get out more. Most people I know have heard of the event, participated in it, or know friends who have. In short - the Yamanote Halloween Train DOES exist and debates to contrary are ridiculous seeming to reveal more a biased prudishness to the antics of foreigners (and Japanese) on the Yamanote rather than a legit concern about the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossfire (talk • contribs) at 13:45, October 27, 2006. First edit since April. Man, all these different editors, none of whom (coincidentally no doubt) have figured out how to leave a signature!
  • And I repeat, oh brand-new person, OhMynews is distinguishable from a blog or wiki HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, brand new person? What are you babbling about Calton? Keep your remarks confined to the article in question and let go of your smarmy remarks that do little to further this (and I use the term lightly) debate. As to your question, how is OhMyNews not a blog, it is a citzen journalist newspaper. People report on events and the like then submit to OhMyNews who decide to publish their article or not. There is an editorial process. It's not a print up anything under the sun. Now my question - what have you got against this wiki article exactly? The event exists and has existed for over a decade and will continue to exist. As for the Ohmynews article, I reported it by speaking to a number of people before and after witnessing and participated in it myself. What I gave was an eyewitness account accompanied with photos and videos. You have yet to present a case for deletion other than your blind refusal to accept the reality of a proven event. Crossfire
Why? Do you plan on adding links to your website to that, too? --Calton | Talk 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting a bit abusive there, Calton. There was no call for that remark as does nothing to further this debate. Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.129.153.83 (talk • contribs) at 09:26, October 28, 2006. This IP's only edit. And this one, at least, is from Japan.
  • If you read some of the blog entries/forum posts that come up on a google search, there are several references to the Tokyo police officially discouraging the practice, or to police involvement in breaking up/monitoring the event. It would seem that all is necessary for more references to and validity for the event is to find the official announcement by the police, or to look up old police blotter records (do Japanese have those?) for references to the party. I would do this, but I am Japanese illiterate. ~C, gaijin in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.248.76.241 (talk • contribs) on 06:11, October 28, 2006. Yet ANOTHER anon who hasn't figued out the signature thing. Also, what is someone living in Japan doing logging in from Bangkok?
  • Again, you'd be surprised that a number of gaijin living in Tokyo actually (gasp!) travel outside of Japan from time to time. Why this is so shocking to some people here is beyond me. Put two brain cells together and think why someone from Bangkok (just a short flight from Tokyo BTW)would know or care about this matter unless they were someone who is currently living in Japan or has lived there in the past and witness or heard about this event. Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.129.153.83 (talk • contribs) at 09:26, October 28, 2006. This IP's only edit. And this one, at least, is from Japan.
  • Right, a vacationing gaijin in Bangkok -- this being high season for it -- cruising Wikipedia at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, just so he can leap in a defend this poor article from a fate worse than death. Putting two brain cells together gets me the word "ludicrous". --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smarmy remarks aside and ISP detective work that proves nothing except that gaijin travel outside of Japn, what exactly is the issue here? Is it the existence of this event that is in question or is it the disapproval of the event that ultimately bothers certain people? Crossfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossfire (talk • contribs) at 09:42, October 28, 2006
  • You know, much more handwaving from you and we can put up windmills, harvest the excess power. So this AfD is attracting an unduly large percentage of gaijin who just happen to be on vacation at the time. QUITE a coincidence, there, And as for motivations, don't make up nonsense about them, because no one ever buys it. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RichardInSF here: I saw this event in real life one year when it was closed down by the police. It is now back and tolerated because no damage is done by the revellers. This is definitely a real event and part of the gaijin culture of Tokyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.236.66 (talk • contribs) at 12:17, October 28, 2006, who, despite his name, seems to be logging in from the offices of a hotel in London.
  • Comment: So a group of anonymous IPs and one fairly dormant named editor (you), with few if any edits, with the same verbose style and claims of personally witnessing this, from widely separated areas despite claims of living in Japan, and ALL with the identical unwillingness/inability to leave signatures (see, you do THIS: --~~~~)? I'm NOT willing to swallow that as a coincidence. So here's a word I'd like to introduce to you: "sockpuppet".
One other note: when examining the discussion, admins who close these debates give VERY little credence to IPs, and none at all, really, to those who suddenly appear without any history on Wikipedia. Vote-stacking -- especially by anons -- doesn't work, so any more appearances by eyewitness gaijin who happen to logging in from anonymous IPs around the world are just going to drive the final nails in the coffin holding your credibility, is all. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a non-notable event (though real in a trivially small way) that does not rise to the encyclopedic level — WP:HOLE is intended for biographies, but the principle applies here ➥the Epopt 14:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Epopt. This may be real, but it clearly is not important enough to have received mainstream media coverage. Lots of people have Halloween parties every year, and lots of them are even broken up and/or tolerated by the police. The fact that this one allegedly takes place on a train does not automatically make it an important subject that requires an article in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an extended interpretation of WP:NOT. Per The Epopt and Haeleth, too - I won't bother refactoring their points, as I totally agree with them. Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is an actual, real event. I rode it last night, accompanied, might I add, by several members of the local Police Force. It seems that the Tokyo Police know that this is real. The fellow gaijin (and Japanese) on the train (which would have numbered well into the hundreds at the peak of the ride) also obviously knew of its existence. I can't see how two self-appointed expert gaijin can shoot down this article based on their inability to discover any "verifiable" evidence online. If they were in fact in Tokyo (it seems like location has been the central part of this debate) they could have come and seen for themselves. Lushman 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You rode the Yamanote line last night, as in October 28? Not Halloween? And there were hundreds of people aboard? How exactly is that different from any other night on the Yamanote? Exploding Boy 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt. Real isn't the issue. Notable is the issue. Would life be noticably different without this particular party? I dont't think so. It's just a party. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, 'Exploding Guy' it was held last night and the difference from any other night would be all the people in Halloween costume and the general party atmosphere. If your only objection to this entry is that it is unverfiable, I can tell it does exist and I was there (along with a LOT of other gaijin). Perhaps you should have popped along and seen it for yourself. I apologise if I haven't followed the correct procedure for logging this but I have never before felt the need to comment on an entry and don't have a login and also thought this way my IP shows and you can at least verify that I am in Japan. To those of you who were there, we are the Moet Sisters 124.39.69.253 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I fail to see any reason for deleting this, anyway if the article is deleted but the event continues to take place every year then wont someone eventually just re-create this article? Look around, there are a lot of 'cultural' articles of WiKi that would never make it into a normal encyclopedia. I for one see these articles as a good thing, wikipedia is now a one-stop-shop for information and part of that success is because of it's huge store of 'limited interest group' articles like this one. Anyway thats my two cents... or yen.

Regards Oliver

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

The result was delete both. --Coredesat 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Strikers series and Wrecking Crew (video game) series

(Breaking out the old-school deletion reasons) this is an idiosyncratic non-topic. This isn't a series; it's two games, one of which isn't even released yet. There's no content here; just some release dates, a brief lead, and a GameFAQs-esque list of characters appearing in these games.

Additionally, if this article is deleted, the associated {{Mario Soccer series}} should also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wrecking Crew (video game) series for the same reasoning; it's just one obscure game and its equally-obscure remake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rowe

nn actor Eusebeus 11:40, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tae Su Jutsu

Unsourced article on on-notable new hybrid martial art, with about 20 unique non-wikipedia ghits, and most of those appear to be on discussion forums. See also separate nomination for the sport's "creator" Deborah R Williams. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah R Williams

Unsourced article on non-notable practitioner/instructor of new hybrid martial art (see separate AFD for Tae Su Jutsu). Only 4 unique ghits on what seems to me to be an appropriate search. Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 24 October 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, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Alsop Cole

I'm in two minds about this. Cole was related to or friendly with some very important people, stayed at the White House, etc, but doesn't seem to have anything noteworthy herself despite these connections. She was mother to some people who don't seem notable. All in all, I can see no reason for her to have her own article. Emeraude 11:51, 24 October 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. Assertion of notability? Not here. Deizio talk 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wakefield

This article has asserted notability so cannot be got with CSD A7, however I do not think it is important enough to be on Wikipedia. Casmith 789 12:03, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BATRacer

I believe that this website is not notable according to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (web). Gasheadsteve 12:42, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chibot Ultra Battle

Non-notable chatroom game, fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by Zeno McDohl with edit summary "rv, notability is not a policy of Wikipedia". Percy Snoodle 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but {{Verify}} and {{OR}} exist for a reason. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does WP:V#Burden of evidence. If you've got the necessary details to fulfil the articles shortcomings, add them to the article and ask the nominator if it's now at a quality that would warrant withdrawing the AfD. The Kinslayer 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could gather some details, which would take me some time. But I'm pretty busy now with college work and the like, no time to do much until semester ends. I don't exactly agree with Burden of evidence or NN in certain situations, either. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can argue over policies and guidelines all you like, but your managing to completely avoid the fact that this article fails nearly any guideline or policy you care to name. It since your the only person to vote to keep it (which is raises questions in my head) it WILL be deleted. And as for not afreeing with NN and BOE, all I can say is tough. They are there for a reason. I think the article should be deleted, you don't. Therefore the responsibility is yours to provide evidence for why this article should be allowed to remain. And I haven't seen anything so far. All you've done is acted pedantic over whether things are policies or guidelines, then said you don't really agree with the policies. You've not once stated anything about the article itself or Chibot to convince us to change our vote. The Kinslayer 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I already stated, I do not have the time to add refs and the like. Thus I am expecting the article to be deleted. I do not see how I acted pedantic either, I had already said I would add refs if I had the time. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:45, 27 October 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 Toronto's name. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy York

An article for a nickname? I don't think so. There is already an article for York, Upper Canada that mentions this moniker. Either delete or redirect because there is no reason to have what is essentially a duplicate article. Suttungr 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been open for a bit more than 24 hours; although an admin can close early if a clear consensus has already emerged, the standard is to leave AFD discussions open for a week. And as an admin, I certainly wouldn't deem five-to-three as the kind of consensus required to close it this early in the process. Bearcat 19:13, 25 October 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. --Coredesat 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girly

This has been tagged for a month now, and no external sources attesting to its notability (per WP:WEB or otherwise) have been forthcoming; having some 600 registered fans, IIRC, isn't a valid criterion of notability under any guideline I'm aware of. Since it only cites the strip itself and some Livejournal pages, it's also mostly WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS. Sandstein 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (If you're having trouble with discerning notability, please see Uncle G's essay User:Uncle G/On notability.) Comic artists in general? I disagree; with effort, creativity and luck, you can be recognized by mainstream book press; Gene Luen Yang (who doesn't have an article yet)'s American Born Chinese was nominated for the National Book Award, one of the highest literary honours in the US. Kazu Kibuishi et al's Flight is published by Ballatine Books, a mainstream publisher, and Jeff Smith's Bone is published by Scholastic. Does it take skill, talent and luck? Sure. But writers have to go through the same process, and it's just as hard. I don't see how web publishing makes a comic more notable than other self-published efforts, so they should go through the same process (and I realize that you may see this as harsh. I didn't intend this.) We currently have some leniency for online sources (to address your concern that that mainstream press doesn't report on webcomics, even though it does; Megatokyo, When I Am King, Derek Kirk Kim's Same Difference have all been reported on), but they should be recognized as reliable (Gamespot can be a source for games; some comics news sites are used for comics). ColourBurst 02:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough, but I've been doing comics long enough to know about the mainstream comics and critical darlings. I hear the names you said repeated often enough and it's always the same names, and I stand by my opinion that the media's focus is extremely narrow. I know it's easy to dismiss this, saying I just feel this way because my own comic doesn't get the attention I feel it deserves, and I completely understand this. I stand by this conviction anyway. I don't see other decidedly notable comics like Scary Go Round and Sam & Fuzzy get talked about much either. Incidentally, this AfD really should get linked to WikiProject:Webcomics, or is that project totally dead now? (it does seem that way) --SuperHappy 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you're saying and even agree up to a point, but surely you understand that what the media chooses to cover or not cover is not our fault nor is it within our control. As an encylopedia, all we can do is present verifiable facts culled from reliable sources. It's not an encyclopedia's job to "stand up for the little guy" or give a platform for those who want to get the word out about their cartoons. The alternative is far worse: imagine if our policy read as follows: "Articles on topics within the arts and sciences must be fully referenced using reliable sources, except for webcomics where it's enough to find five people who think your strip kicks ass." Simply put, if an article about a congressional scandal needs reliable sources, then so does an article on a webcomic. We can't make exceptions. However, don't forget, the reliable-sources policy isn't there primarily to make it tough for cartoonists, it also protects cartoonists (and everyone else) from innacurate and unsourced claims. To remove it would be a libel suit (or two, or thousands) waiting to happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do commend you for having the restraint to not edit the article heavily due to conflict of interest. I, however, disagree with "mainstream" - Gene Yang, Derek Kirk Kim, and Kazu Kibuishi are hardly "mainstream", and they're not even in the "main webcomic culture" (to me that seems to be comprised of Keenspot and its ilk, and Megatokyo + Penny Arcade). This is a bit of an account of when Derek won his triple crown of comics awards and what that meant for the webcomics community (at least in the opinion of the commentators). ColourBurst 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yang, Kim, Kibushi aren't mainstream, but they're certainly critical darlings, and yes, critics do talk about these same artists over and over. Girly's not exactly a "little guy", as I repeat, it has over 15000 readers. I don't know exactly how many other webcomics can claim this, but it's certainly a small percentage of the tens of thousands of webcomics out there. --SuperHappy 20:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wonderful detail in the article; I wish that editors could put that kind of loving attention into notable articles. The comic was just published in June. It hasn't had time for notability. Why are people in such a hurry to rush things into the Wikipedia? Maybe there should be a 24 month rule on current events. Anyway this is not notable, however nice it is. R. Crumb was not mainstream, but he was notable. Comeback in five years and we can see if Girly has acquired any notability by then. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for new works. Bejnar 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You guys need to research the page a little harder. Girly is over three years old. The print collection is what came out last year. So we'll try again in two years, I guess. --SuperHappy 20:39, 28 October 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; oh yes, he just went there. Proto::type 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi's 40 Go There-ist Moments on The-N

This is a fancruft article about a promotion for a television show, consisting of nothing but a list of "shocking" moments from Degrassi. All this info should be covered in the Degrassi: The Next Generation article L0b0t 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote due to new information. L0b0t 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's more of a clip-show than a miniseries. L0b0t 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything except the fact that this miniseries exists. Even if it doesn't warrant its own article, it warrants having its existence acknowledged. Also nb the Soundtrack section of the main article. sethmad 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again I must stress, this article is NOT about a miniseries, it is about a promotional clip-show made up of plot elements from the actual show, edited together as a lead in to a new season of Degrassi. We should have articles for promos and commercials now?L0b0t 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You cannot "merge and then delete" per the GFDL; if information is to be retained in the other article, it has to be merge and redirect, to maintain author history. If nothing is salvageable, then you can delete it outright. Whatever happens, I do not support Keeping this as a separate article, but this should probably be relisted for clarification. -- nae'blis 17:26, 1 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. --Ezeu 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PopFusion Radio

Fails WP:NN (station less than three weeks old), essentially WP:SPAM, if not deleted, could be merged into Fusion Radio Chicago or MakRadio, contested speedy SkerHawx 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a new station and member of a new network they are building, I feel as though it is deserving of its own entry and not added on to the entrys for Fusion & MakRadio. The founding members of this station do meet the WP:NN guidelines and I still contest that those interested in internet radio would have an interest in knowing about this collaboration on an informational level. Additionally, there is no promotion of the station in this article. It states mere facts. Internetfignewton 15:03, 24 October 2006
It is because its a new station and new network that it doesn't yet deserve its own entry! The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote (or even document) promising new things; it is to document already famous and well-known existing things. Xtifr tälk 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Fusion & MakRadio are famous and the collaboration between these two entities is noteworthy. If Google would merge with AOL to form a new company, that new company would be *notable* enough for Wikipedia. Fusion and MakRadio are no Google or AOL I understand, however, to the internet radio community and those interested in internet radio they are, thus making it a worth while entry. Internetfignewton 17:17, 30 October 2006
  • A collaboration may be noteworthy or newsworthy, but that does not necessarily warrant an article in an encyclopedia. It may be important in the Internet Radio community, but "PopFusion Radio" only garners 6 google hits -- one is the site's homepage, two are at Wikipedia, two are at fusionchicago.com (the parent), and that leaves only one unaffiliated hit [41] at a database where you can "add your radio station to our database". It has zero Google News Hits. It has zero newsgroup hits. That's simply not enough notability, or even Verifiability for an article. As Xtifr noted above, the subject of the article already has to be famous or notable on its own. Then it warrants an article here. Peace. SkerHawx 00:20, 31 October 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. This is a Secret account 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarian

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

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete as part of this, I've moved Santori Son's sandbox as a disamib page. Yanksox 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page boy

Information already contained at Page (weddings). Only difference is an external link to a fetish site. SigPig 14:54, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong

Article about a Hong Kong charity, but the article seems to be a university class project (see its talk page). Very unencyclopedic with phone numbers, donation appeals, etc. Should we even be allowing class projects like this? NawlinWiki 15:07, 24 October 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.

Carolyn Hughes

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD G10 and WP:BLP, because it contained a defamatory allegation against a living person, supported by only a single reference which noted that the allegation had been denied. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is nn and does not meet the criteria for WP:BLP.MSJapan 15:17, 24 October 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. Proto::type 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Denton

No assertion of verifiability other than to do original research by checking amazon (as suggested by the talk page). Notability only extends to being a textbook author, but no assertion of awards or multiple independent reviews of any of his work making him no more special than any other professor/academic; thus failing WP:BIO. ju66l3r 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not remove non-nonsense text from the discussed articles while the vote is going. May be useful for research. If an article is not overly hyped or patent nonsense, one has to assume a good faith of a newcomer contributor. `'mikkanarxi 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. The autor of a dozen books with 22 reprints by notable publishing houses, meaning that the books do sell, unlike various e-printing and self-publishing, and therefore are used by people, hence notability. The article is surprizingly small to call it a "vanity page". I'd say it is a "modesty page". Also, just a little research would have shown some third party recognition, too for his shareware. `'mikkanarxi 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved an unsourced comment that has no chance at verifiability given its source to the discussion page for discussion. That is not vandalism. Please do not misclassify other users' good faith edits at keeping the article clean under the tenets of wikipedia as vandalism. Please don't add personal attacks to the discussion infering or insinuating other editor's mindsets. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. You (all of you) completely deleted a significant piece information about the person, namely his software projects, as well as a 3-rd party link to confirm the info. I can explain this only by the dedsire to bend your POV that the person is nonnotable. `'mikkanarxi 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link is not 3rd-party. It is Denton's own website. There is already discussion of how it fails WP:RS on the article's talk page. Therefore the reliability and verifiability of the awards listed on the site are suspect without independent sourcing, like the award sites' own statements of recognition for the software. I am trying to discuss this issue on the article's talk page (as I created a section there to discuss the removed text when I removed it..not just deleting it), but nobody seems interested in discussing it there. There is a true explanation, which is my desire to see WP:V withheld, not bending anything to my PoV. ju66l3r 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly suggest all you to read the reliability rules when a person's website is a valid source information about this person. `'mikkanarxi 19:50, 24 October 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 List of characters in Totally Spies!. --Coredesat 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy (Totally Spies)

I have copied everything that is needed into the TS character article. As it stands right now, not even Sam, Clover, and Alex have their own articles GrandMasterGalvatron 15:36, 24 October 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. Please tag articles like this with {{db-bio}}. Check out WP:CSD for more. Deizio talk 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnulfo gembe

Article about 13 yr old kid. Not encyclopedic Jvhertum 15:55, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Webs

A kid's article about SpongeBob Squarepants Jvhertum 16:01, 24 October 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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer & Kevin McCoy

Contested PROD. {{prod}} removed by SPA without comment, though he did add a few lines to the article; however, the lines don't meet WP:V. Basically, these are two nn artists; article lists a lot of artwork they've made, but provides no evidence that they've achieved any particular notability outside of "interactive media" social circles. Aaron 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: From the article: Articles about their work have appeared in Art in America, Artnews, Artforum, The Wire, dArt International, Spin Magazine, Feed, and The Independent. They won a Wired Magazine Rave Award, in the Art Category for 2005. Their work is held in collections including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, MoMA, and MUDAM. A quick search of the Met site reveals this. That seems a little big larger than '"interactive media" social circles'. Put a tag in the article to get solid, reliable, references in there. Putting it up for deletion is wrong step at this point. *Sparkhead 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all. I included the claims and sourced one of them (the Met), stating the remainder could probably be sourced and the time should be given to the article to expand sources (once a references tag is placed within it). *Sparkhead 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I forgot to log in before I did it but I've added references to the purchases by MoMA and MUDAM, and I think it's fairly safe to say that any 'interactive artists' who have sold work to the Met, MUDAM and MoMA should be considered quite notable indeed. Also I'm not an SPA, I've written one other entry as well. That makes me at least DPA. Also, actor Bill Paxton wants this article to stay too. Thousandsofcolors 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I created the page because these guys are awesome artists. Now that smart, hard-working folks have gone through and actually backed this up with research, it's unassailable. - JustinHall 23:53, 26 October 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. —Cryptic 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy bankrupt

Suspicious article and a web search for "Piggy Bankrupt" turned up zero hits. Appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable subject. Delete unless good verification available to establish notability. Dugwiki 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not a self promoting article. Piggy bankrupt when typed into Google brings up the blog as the first result. In the UK Mark Davis is well known and has spoken about his personal bankruptcy a number of times in the press. I feel that having a wiki page can provide background information on him that may not be available on the blog or on other web pages. (posted by 2006 Bill4793611 (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 24 October )
    • Assuming for the moment you're correct about his fame in the UK, it still needs to be established in the article using independent, verifiable sources. Anybody can create their own blog and claim to be famous. The hard part is actually being famous enough that you are talked about in a major, reliable, independent publication. If the article can be expanded to provide such references, it will go a long way toward verifying notability preventing a possible deletion. Dugwiki 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Esperanza and Dugwiki. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable blog about a non-notable person. Montco 22:41, 24 October 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 on good faith that editors claiming that this is one of the most famous mods will actually add some of these sources they possess to the article. Wickethewok 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (computer game)

Almost all of the article is a game guide. There may have been some articles written about it at some point, but a short review or two is hardly enough for this full-blown piece of original research that keeps expanding and expanding without any sourcing. Borderline notability at best. Delete as an original research game guide. Wickethewok 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if independent sources added The article might need to be trimmed or cleaned up, but that's not a reason to delete. Also, a quick search for "Natural Selection" produced many hits, so it's quite possible this is a notable product with a decent size fan base. I suggest an editor with some knowledge of Half-Life mods take a closer look to verify whether or not this is a notable mod expansion, and also check for independent articles or reviews of it from reliable gaming sources. There were a lot of hits, so I wouldn't immediately rule out there being such a source. If no sources are found, though, then delete and only recreate when the information can be independently established. Dugwiki 16:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of notability, as Sensenmann says. Needs a little work, and I understand the possible original research concerns, but the information is accurate and notable. Endersdouble 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think http://steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html this was what he meant. I can't check it yet, but I know it's good for information (and Natural Selection is possibly the most famous mod after DOD and CS for Half Life.) The Kinslayer 12:50, 25 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTF Apollo

Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every ship in Freespace. That would be excessively indiscriminant information. Wikipedia is also not a game guide and still an encyclopedia. Fails WP:V as no independent reliable sources have written on the subject. Also listing...

Delete as unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a computer game, in a notable series, from a notable publisher. If somebody wants to source the information, the official game guide exists, as well as the game itself (which is a suitable source for simply factual matters from a game, book, or other such work, IMHO) so it's not a real problem for this article, or for any of the other computer game articles. Now that said, I agree that it seems like there are far too many articles on Freespace ships, and perhaps too much detail, but that's a cleanup problem, not an immediate deletion issue. Like I said, I prefer to merge as much as possible, though to where is an open question. Maybe it could even all be transwikied to the Freespace wiki at [42] FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of ships in the FreeSpace universe should be deleted as well. See examples of other similar AFDs for reason below. —Mitaphane talk 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a merge to the main Freespace article ala the Wing Commander series? FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? To bloat it with unsourced unencyclopedic content? No. Sandstein 05:00, 25 October 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. —Cryptic 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Weisfelner

Asserts notability in television, but very meager IMDB bio. NawlinWiki 16:44, 24 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tennis players who appeared on the David Letterman Show in 1995

Delete this non-notable list, only claim to notablity is due to an article on Meta, which is a self reference. Prod removed, so moving to AfD. Transfinite 17:01, 24 October 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. —Cryptic 19:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Sobel

Delete. No indication of passing WP:BIO. Fails criteria for actors listed there. Also fails the general test "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" following a Lexis-Nexis search with zero results. 87 unique ghits, by the way. {{prod}} removed by anon. Pan Dan 17:14, 24 October 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/Easter's

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aikakone

People keep proposing this for speedy deletion or deletion. This has been done enough tiems already to warrant a proper deletion discussion. The band has had 5 releases over 11 years, which is sufficient evidence of notability not only to me, but to other users as well. Even though I am not personally a fan of this band, I have heard of it in many places in Finnish media. The original Finnish article has much more information. Keep. JIP | Talk 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as stub article with no assertion or evidence of notability. It sounds as if a decent article could be written by someone translating from the Finnish, but this is not it. 5 releases, but on what labels, and what sort of sales? This article has been on wikipedia for a year, and still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep and expand. Monni 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as above. The band has sold triple platinum (debut album), double platinum (2nd), platinum (3rd) and gold (4th) in Finland, and was possibly the most popular pop band in Finland in the mid-1990's. I've added the record sales to the article also. Prolog 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user's point was not the billboard specifically, but any Finish equivalent. At the moment, no source exists to prove this. --Robdurbar 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the current link provided mentions nothing about charted hits or the claimed sales levels. Robdurbar 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added reference that shows the exact record sales for the first three albums. [43] Prolog 14:44, 27 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_24&oldid=83458273"