Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. I call upon those who said things like "keep and rewrite" or "keep, but fix POV" to actually do it, or I'm sure we'll see the article back here in a couple of months. Mango juice^talk 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA sponsored regime change

The CIA may not have supported ALL of these movements, and I heard the article itself is questionable anyway.

If anyone wishes to rewrite the article into an NPOV manner and/or choose a better title to save the article, feel free! :) WhisperToMe 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of whether or not the CIA actively sponsored these movements, the very premise of this article appears to be hopelessly POV; fails WP:SOAPBOX. "Regime change" is also inadequately defined besides the POV issues. (The World Bank/IMF or even the United Nations could be said to actively sponsor regime change for instance under the vague criteria in the article) Bwithh 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Proposal made in order to push a POV and suppress another one. As the proposer states, he would accept the article if it stated a different point-of-view. Being POV is not a criteria for deletion, but for improvement. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Keep this is not the venue to argue about content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Strong Keep - The nominator "heard" that the article is questionable? From whom, and if this mysterious source is so troubled by the article why did the source not nominate it? If the nominator believes the article is not NPOV, why does the nominator not re-write it instead of telling others to "feel free" to do it? Crap nomination, no valid reason offered for deletion. If not wanted as a separate article, then merge into CIA controversies but this material can certainly stand on its own as an index/synopsis of the various main articles on the topic. Otto4711 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Otto, it is inherently acceptable to AFD some article titles that lead to inherent POVness. WhisperToMe 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is inherently unacceptable to me to Afd an article with the reason "I heard it was questionable." Otto4711 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not a very good argument for deleting the article, but this is a discussion, not just a series of opinions on whether the nominator got it right. I don't think NPOV is a very good argument against this article; I think saying that it is redundant, badly named, and a POV fork are good arguments. If we are trying to rationalize the structure of the information here, I think logically this article should be a subsection of the CIA article; instead, it repeats - badly - material already in that article. We just don't need it. --Brianyoumans 07:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article referes to regime changes instigated by the CIA which have had multiple independent reliable and verifiable coverage in the mainstream press for decades. They are notable and encyclopedic. Sorry if truth seems POV. Edison 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Axe-grinding listcruft. Hard to imagine this ever being NPOV. —Chowbok ☠ 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending editing There may be an article topic here, but this one needs NPOV editing and a better definition of "regime change." My favorite entry - "failed coups against Chavez." How can a failed government overthrow constitute a "regime change?" GassyGuy 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This has POV issues, particularly in the lead. Furthermore, a better name is needed if this stays, "regime change" isn't well defined. I suspect this would be better collapsed into CIA controversies, but I can't suggest a merge in its current state. BryanG^(talk) 07:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per BryanG. Bjelleklang - talk 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix POV in lead.Vints 07:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the name is arguably POV, as "regime change" was a neologism/euphemism of the White House relating to the Iraq war (and prewar period). --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Petri and Otto, Needs work though. Where are Indonesia and Chile? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: To CIA. All these ops and more are covered in the CIA article. Redundant. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I heard the article itself is questionable anyway"? Thats not making a strong case for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversely, you have not made a strong case for keeping. AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Keep Factual, no POV issue. Could do with improved style and there are many other examples that could be included, but otherwise OK. Emeraude 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As it stands, a rather worthless POV magnet of an article. This is exactly the type of page that needs solid referencing, including inline citations - and it has none. Needs a wider range of sources too (also please note: Lew Rockwell's website is probably not the ideal place to go if you want to create factually accurate, NPOV pages). If that's not enough to delete then stubify, remove unreferenced and possibly POV content pending a rewrite. (Actually, that first paragraph has got to go right away as a violation of WP:SOAPBOX).

Delete Having read the other CIA articles, I agree with Brianyoumans below that this is an unnecessary duplication of material easily available elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CIA involvement in overthrowing various governments (Mossadegh, Lumumba, Arbenz, Trujillo, ...) is well documented. (See 'Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WWII' by William Blum.) A page like this is handy if only to point to a lot of more detailed articles. Being a POV magnet is not reason to delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with CIA#Historical_operations and Category:CIA_operations. Alternately, transcat to a subcategory of Category:CIA_operations. This article doesn't add anything that isn't currently in those sources - if the authors eventually develop CIA#Historical_operations to the point where it needs a spin-out, that's fine, but there will be better editorial participation if the drafting occurs in the main CIA article rather than in this fork. TheronJ 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All it needs is some work, andj per Reinoutr. — Arjun 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename The page conveys a point of view before one even opens it. The word "regime", while neutral in its dictionary sense, carries notions of repugnancy or totalitarianism. The central contention of the article - that the CIA were involved in the overthrow of a number of governments - is supported by numerous reliable sources and I do not believe NPOV is a content problem with this subject as long as editors adhere to Wikipedia policies/pillars. The current content is suspect but cleanup is not a reason in itself for deletion - whacking a big "cleanup" tag on it and inviting editors to improve it is the answer to that problem. I wish I could think of a better title. Orderinchaos78 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about CIA involvement in involuntary removal of foreign governments? Otto4711 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is "involuntary removal of governments" less POV than "regime change"? -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Involuntary removal of governments" is not POV at all. It means that the existing government is removed against the will of the government. Are you suggesting that when the CIA has taken action to remove a foreign government from power that there has been even a single such foreign government that has welcomed the CIA's efforts to remove it? Can you cite an example of such a case? A thank you note from a deposed head of state perhaps? I mean seriously, are you joking? You're the one claiming that the phrase is tainted with POV; instead of just repeating it, try supporting the assertion. Sheesh. Otto4711 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood me and I you. There is nothing POV in "Involuntary removal", it is just a clumsier way of saying "regime change". I do not think there is anything POV in "regime change" either, besides it has an article. Reading the article does bring up some questions though. The article assumes that external military force is needed for something to be called "regime change". It seems that this is a post Iraq War misunderstanding. I think the phrase was used long before G.W. Bush. -- Petri Krohn 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and expand. It's way too short to be a real article, especially on such a potentially controversial subject. The title needs to have a word like "suggested," or something. Danielfolsom 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are all covered or have links from the main CIA article. This is just a POV fork. --Brianyoumans 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: this is clearly a valid, notable and verifiable encyclopedic topic which is too complex to deal with in the main CIA article in anything other than summary form. Perhaps the title could be improved: in which case it should also be renamed. -- The Anome 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really saying this doesn't happen? Anyway wanting an article written in less POV manner is a job for POV tags, and wanting a name change is what we have a section for, neither of these are concerns for AfD. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying that these CIA actions did not occur. The only question is how many redundant badly-named articles we need pointing to the information. If someone is looking for information on a coup in Guatemala supported by the CIA, where would they look? The article Guatemala? The article CIA? Or would they search for "CIA sponsored regime change"? Both Guatemala and CIA have links to the main article on the CIA operation in Guatemala, Operation PBSUCCESS. Eliminating this article is not a coverup, it is getting rid of a piece of badly-named listcruft. --Brianyoumans 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree. I would search using 'CIA coups' or 'attempted CIA coups' anyway. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to have a neutral POV.--Eva ^bd 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your !vote is effectively for the article to be rewritten completely. In effect, you are arguing for deletion of this article in its current form. Zun aid ©^{Review me!}
Delete per user Brianyoumans. --SECurtisTX | talk 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundent with CIA controversies, CIA#Historical_operations, and Category:CIA_operations. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rename/Rewrite Brian1975 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your !vote is effectively for a completely new article to be created that does not use the POV stance from this article. In effect, your argument supports deletion of this article in its current form. Zun aid ©^{Review me!}
Strong Delete. In its current state, the article exists only to push a point of view. It is also made redundant by other (more neutral) articles on the CIA and the corresponding issues. Perhaps summarizing the content in one article is warranted, but only under a different title, and after a complete rewrite that contains more than zero sources. There is nothing here that merits a keep. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ultimus. Mamalujo 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all the information on this page is factual. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork of content already available in more WP:NPOV form elsewhere in the 'pedia, and per WP:SOAPBOX. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless npov issues are cleared up FirefoxMan 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia already has more than enough magnets for left-wing POV. Such articles are walking, long-term, blatant demolitions of the entire WP:NPOV philosophy. -- BryanFromPalatine 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lars T. 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please give an argument. This is a discussion, not a vote. --Folantin 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - the fact that some people see facts as inherently POV is no reason to follow them. Lars T. 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - My issue is with the way the data is presented. Something's not right about it, so, what we should do is change the page name and/or merge into other CIA articles. WhisperToMe 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be pretty much redundant and I agree completely with Bwithh when he pointed out that this article title is in itself heavily POV and violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The meagre contents are already in the CIA article; there's no need for another list article dedicated to these three operations. Sandstein 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto from above. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV title and duplication of material elsewhere. Appears to be hobby-horse topic.ALR 11:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (by default) -- there is significant support for either keep or merge, but not enough for either to clearly choose keep or merge. Those arguing against merging and those arguing for merging have good points and what will be done needs further discussion. Mango juice^talk 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masamune (video game weapon)

This article was probably unnecessarily split from Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture. It also manages to copy, almost verbatim, text from Masa and Mune, List of Final Fantasy weapons#Masamune and Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture while at the same time being completely WP:OR and unverifiable (except by primary sources and fan sites). Delete as WP:NOT#IINFO and possible WP:POVFORK. Axem Titanium 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this organization better than merging the video-game Masamune weapons back into the article on swordmaker Masamune; that clutters an article about history with useless gamecruft. I also like this organization better than splitting Masamune mentions across the pages for each video game; this illustrates the connection between them better. In my opinion, the split from Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture was appropriate. --Hyperbole 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't need gamecruft in a history article, and something known widely in the gaming community shouldn't be sprinkled across several pages. This is much better organization than several sprinkled bits over several pages. TRKtv t c e 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. --Dennisthe2 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article fails W:N. I suspect most other video game weapons will fail it as well.Librarylefty 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you mean WP:N since a letter can't be criteria. --Wafulz 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-notable. A weapon from a computer/video game might be notable within that game, but not outside. If any information could be merged with an article about the relevant games, fine, but a fictional weapon should not have it's own article. Bjelleklang - talk 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this isn't a weapon from a game, it's a weapon from several games. I'm neutral though, because I haven't decided if it's fancruft or not. It could also use more citing. -Ryanbomber 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge back. Deserves to be covered somewhere, no strong opinion on whether it needs its own article or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to original article. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an acceptable fork per Hyperbole and TrackerTV, if its a copy and the copy didn't have NPOV issues before, I don't see how it has it now. hateless 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This doesn't need more than a section in the Masamune article. The information should, of course, be heavily trimmed. Wickethewok 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a reoccuring element across many of Square's games (and also many other games by other companies), and therefore its popular usage must be noted in at least one gaming magazine. However, it should have a brief overview in the Masaume in Popular Culture article that links to it. But merging it back into the article is fine with me too. Blueaster 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere Between Merge back and Keep. Andrew Lenahan says it all for me. Just H 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wickethewok. I think I've done most of the necessary trimming. (NB: This meant dropping a lot of info from the article but didn't mean cutting anything significant from Wikipedia as a whole, since everything I cut could also be found in the respective game articles.) Neon Merlin 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT MERGE/Delete or Redirect As much as I agree with the non-notability of this subject I also agree with the organizational argument and I think the worst choice is to merge non-notable gamecruft back into an excellent history article. I would suggest converting this page to a disambiguation page or a category with links to all of the videos games that use the weapon which is not too far from wha it is now. With that said there is little reason not to outright delete as non-notable.--Nick Y. 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split and Merge The Masamune may or may not be a big deal outside of the gaming community, but inside the vast majority of the population it is a big name. I would recommend, rather than outright DELETNG the article, all the data for the FF section be moved to the appropriate page, and all the data for the Chrono Trigger section be moved to either the Frog page or the Masa & Mune page. Chimeraman2 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of stumped about what to do with this. I guess I'd go with split and merge for various pieces of the article, where appropriate: a very short blurb in the historical article, and mentions in the individual game articles. --Alan Au 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The pop-culture section in the Masamune article is as informative as the entire article - this is basically a list of video games that contain a weapon named Masamune. —Xenoveritas 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've complete Chrono Trigger (who hasn't?), and yet this is adequately covered in the Masa and Mune article. There's absolutely no need for a separate article chronicling where the name has popped up. There's absolutely no space for this subtrivial crap at the main Masamune article whatsoever, other than a one line mention and link to the two games. The votes of "merge back" are ridiculous, why the heck would anyone researching Masamune, give a shit that Sodom, stage 2 boss of Final Fight wield two swords labelled Masa and Mune?! - hahnch e n 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back unto where it came FirefoxMan 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Hyperbole and tracker. Alan Shatte 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't nearly noteworthy enough to merit it's own article; you might as well post up Japanese-gaming stereotypes up, as well. This should remain a small section inside of the swordsmith Masamune article. BishopTutu 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Alan and others. Paul D. Meehan 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per discussion above. Brad Guzman 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article explains what others do not and people may only be interested in this certain aspect of the idea.

User:Iammeheremeroar 12:36, 8 January 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 Yomangani ^talk 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Computer System Manufacturers

Wikipedia is NOT a Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
— WP:NOT

Also, no assertion as to what qualifies as a computer manufacturer (component? systems? sales requirements?), or possible way to verify information contained herein. This isn't a structured list, nor does it assist in organizing articles. If anything, this should be a category. /Blaxthos 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also it;s a potential spam magnet. Artw 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, "Computer System" is too general of a term. - Tutmosis 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria for inclusion is too broad, potentially unmanageable. This is what categories are for. --Ezeu 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all said above. The criteria for the list is too broad and really, what's the point. TSO1D 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I disagreed with a previous attempt (on different criteria) for a Speedy Deletion. It really should be a categotry (if there isn't one already. Mmccalpin 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Computer companies by country and Category:Computer hardware companies seems adequate. --Ezeu 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of Computer hardware companies 100% compatible with the category Category:Computer hardware companies. Let users decide which navigation method they prefer. This list is sorted by country and state and I find it useful. All of Wikipedia is a spam magnet. The requirement for listing appears to be that they already have an article in Wikipedia since I don't see any red links. It has no appearance of a directory, which would contain NON-LINKED entries. It is no more unmanagebale than the categories. If you want to limit it, set a $100 M in sales requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being unmanageable as per Ezeu. Is better replaced by a category. Bjelleklang - talk 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge with other lists or a rewrite should be better than a simple delete, because computer system producers, IMO, do need an organized list. --Der yck C. 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Arjun 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a directory. To produce a complete worldwide list would create an unmanageable article that would become out-of-date readily (computer businesses go out of business all the time) Orderinchaos78 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above reasons ::mikm t 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Norton Jcuk 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move or Create Category I am undecided. Before all you deletionists go crazy on the issue, you should probably look at why the list was created. The original reason for the creation of this list was because there was discussion about the inclusion of "competitors" on the pages of all the computer system manufacturers listed here (see Talk:Acer (company). The discussion basically said that the inclusion of a 'competitors' section on each computer system manufacturer page was not neutral and came across as an advertisement. I don't mind changing or moving the page, but I vote for keeping. -- Bboyskidz 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Pilotguy as nonsense. --Wafulz 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabugram

No unique Google hits, obvious violation of WP:NFT. Quarma 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like something some kid drew while bored. TJ Spyke 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. - Tutmosis 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --Hyperbole 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, WP:NFT. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A hackneyed attempt to make the Dos Equis label into a counterculture emblem is not notable. Caknuck 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism, and it's also unverifiable too. There is nothing to indicate that it's notable in any way either. --SunStar Net^talk 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete obviously non-notable. Violates WP:NEO, WP:CITE, WP:NOTE, and WP:NFT. The author couldn't even be bothered to fire up Microsoft Paint for this? I'd be very tempted to go with speedy delete under CSD:G1 - wtfunkymonkey 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense, little context. One ghit for this nn neologism, the WP article. Tubezone 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete definitely, non-sense padded by no context. TSO1D 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. MER-C 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative synth

A musical genre that almost certainly does not exist. A google search for the words "alternative synth" throw up a few usages of the phrase "alternative synthpop", although not much, and alternative synths, referring to synthesisers, but no mention of this as a genre. Surely any genre could have 'alternative' placed on the front? 'synth' isn't really much of a genre, so much as a description, in the same way I could invent 'Loud Alternative Black Gothic Christian Synth Metal'. The only link to this page on the rest of Wikipedia is a list of music genres. Oh, and, it is unsourced, furthering my belief that the genre does not exist outside this user's media library. Delete from me. J Milburn 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - appears to be something made up in school one day. Note that the "founder" of Alternate synth, H-sie, is 14 years old. Incidentally, I suggest we delete that page as well. --Hyperbole 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy delete, fails google test as well as the listed bands. Assumed as "nonsense". - Tutmosis 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if it's non-sense but should be deleted as it fails WP:V. TSO1D 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus the music sounds boring anyway (ha!)--Tainter 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced (WP:V), despite requests. Odd vanity article on the 'inventor' calls the validity of the subject article into question. 'Loud Alternative Black Gothic Christian Synth Metal' sounds intriguing, though. Kuru ^talk 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears non-notable and unverifiable. —ShadowHalo 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, genre started by non-notable artist. Bjelleklang - talk 07:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Well first off verifiability is a problem here and per above. — Arjun 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable as this is essentially a neologism. I too am curious about LABGCSM :) Orderinchaos78 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not appear to be a real genre (hoax?) or, if not an outright hoax, would then badly fail notability. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, violates WP:V. Realkyhick 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. If you wish to achieve consensus on a single article, it is strongly suggested that it be nominated on an individual basis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Cuts

Also nominating

Delete. Every page on Rough Cuts appears to be a hoax except for the film. External links on each article lead to nothing having to do with the supposed topic. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The film festival might be legit, but nn. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but keep Rough Cuts (TV series), which seems to be highly regarded.[1] Its host was Michaelle Jean, who now holds an important post in Canadian government. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Rough Cuts (books) with Safari Books Online, which is a stub. See also the similar Short Cuts service[2]; they don't all need a page. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was bold and did the merge. I would move Rough Cuts to Rough Cuts (books) and redirect if considered necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. I won't comment on the TV series. MER-C 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate out articles. The CBC television series in particular appears to be for real, see e.g. [3], and is likely to be notable and a Keep. On the other hand, there's no evidence of notability for the business, just using a published business model doesn't make a business notable, so Delete Evidence for the film festival and radio program needs to be produced, otherwise Delete. --Shirahadasha 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the TV show. Clearly notable multi-season Canadian documentary television show on a major network which (if that wasn't enough) was once hosted by the current vice-head of state. Deletethe others unless notability is proved. This is why multiple AfDs aren't a great idea; the nom has lumped in a very notable subject with three that may not be notable at all. --Charlene 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV Show per above. Delete others... The radio show based on crystal ball, Delete the film festival and Rough Cutson WP:N --Nick Y. 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Radio show based on being officially announced--Nick Y. 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have withdrawn my nomination of the Television series because the apparent concensus is to keep that page. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom except for TV series. Realkyhick 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep radio show. I've no idea why it's lumped in with the others, but per the link at the bottom, it's not a hoax (NPR is a fairly reliable source). While the show won't be broadcast for a few months, it has been officially announced on another NPR show, and content is available now in podcast form. --Interiot 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep radio show. Per Interiot - this is no hoax. --rogerd 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Rebecca 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ezeu 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tay taking

Delete unverifiable nonsense Daniel J. Leivick 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1. Dude. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears bootlegs

No evidence is presented that these fan-made/pirate-made mix CDs are in any way notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, for failing WP:N and probably WP:NOR. - Tutmosis 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:OR. MER-C 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being britneycruft (if such a thing exists ;) ). These bootlegs are as far as I know not notable, and fails the requirements. Bjelleklang - talk 07:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable or else lets allow all bootlegs material on Elvis, Beatles etc Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In ye olde vinyl days, "bootleg" actually meant something, and many were even released on labels of sorts (see Kornyfone for an example). In these days of file-sharing, MP3, and CD-R, anybody could make a "bootleg" in minutes if we really wanted to. This article also has some quality/verifiability problems: the first bootleg listed is scheduled for release in 2008! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. — Arjun 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is nonsense.
Delete. Non-notable. -- The Anome 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't imagine pirate recordings can be notable. JIP | Talk 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ::mikm t 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem interesting, or notable. Navou ^talk 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary, unsourced, unverifiable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Realkyhick 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and nonsensical. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaning towards a speedy delete. This appears to be the quintessential non-notable Wikipedia article for a myriad of reasons. The Mob Rules 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 and G7 (no notability asserted, author-requested deletion) by User:Pilotguy. ColourBurst 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Lavi

^{[Check Google hits]} Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. No evidence any of these claims are notable or even true. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom --Mhking 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn Daniel J. Leivick 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete reads like CV, and doesn't even assert notability in my view. TSO1D 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a perfectly fine article. I believe that in the future it will just grow and improve. However, if you wish to delete that, just do so - Supernedved.
Speedy delete - slightly more elaborate high school student vanity. This doesn't deserve a five day discussion. MER-C 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete per above. Jyothisingh 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I must admit that it was a joke of me and my friends on the expense of this person we wrote about. Yet, we found it funny that it survived until now. I must offer my apologies to the Wikipedia staff. It seems like you do act fast. Hence, I am asking for the deletion of this page. I tried to make it blank, and by the policy I can, but for some reason it always came back. - superndeved

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

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

The result was early closure due to merge of AfD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering (sexual act)

"Fingering" is a slang term for Manual-genital stimulation and/or masturbation. As such, this article should be about the etymology and history of the term "fingering", a neologism. The article has been tagged since Sept. 2006 as not citing it sources, and has had dozens of edits since then, none of which have introduced sources. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", ""even though there may be many examples of the term in use". CyberAnth 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob. Please make all comments there. CyberAnth 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability beyond high school acting. NawlinWiki 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Powell

There is nothing in this article that asserts notability, and it looks more like a CV/advert than an encyclopedic article. Unless any sources can be found that assert notability, I can't see any reason to keep this for now. SunStar Net^talk 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO --Mhking 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article sould remain they have cites and they are reliable plus I'm impressed with this kid. I vote it remain.~Squashmania—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007.

I vote it remain even though i'm new i think it's fine in all honesty plus it's rude to delete someones stuff if they took the time to cite it.=MonsterJamz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007.

Yeah it should STAY.~Protester 101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007. — Protester101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete fails WP:BIO, does not comply to WP:CITE and WP:V. I'm also led to believe, due to certain user's conduct during this AfD that WP:COI comes in to play here. Article can probably be speedied by CSD:A7 since what little assertion of notability there is does not satisfy WP:NOTE requirements, so tagged. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of a Hero

A non-notable fan game. Scepia 01:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first line says it all: "not yet approved yet"; since Wikipeida is not a crystal ball, I say delete. TSO1D 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn advert. Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a non-notable fangame in production for... 2010? It reads like an advertisement, contains no indication of notability or verifiability. Honestly, it's like someone decided to merge Fable and Zelda in their minds. 74.117.39.48 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This particular crystal balling doesn't even look that likely to come true. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise the project you're working on in the hope Nintendo will adopt it. Heimstern Läufer 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame, the end. Danny Lilithborne 05:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertism and crystal balling. WP is not free web space for the world's pet projects or daydreams. QuagmireDog 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, folks, but Nintendo doesn't take requests. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Bjelleklang - talk 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising spam Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chances of this game being made are non-existent.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst trying not to laugh. Even completed fangames are always deleted, and this one won't even be done for "about three years or so" according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Arjun 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Fan game, crystal ball, creator has half a dozen überg33k nicknames, article uses first person voice... Get a blog, dude. JIP | Talk 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL ::mikm t 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a.k.a. this is crap a.k.a. nobody cares. --- RockMFR 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article hasn't had any contributions since December 13th, and has only ever edited this article. It therefore seems that he doesn't care about the article any more. Furthermore, after reading through this whole article, there is no mention that anything has been done about this game yet. It's exactly like my brother likes to say: "Hey! I've got this cool idea for a fan game! Code it for me, and I'll take all the credit!". Therefore, couldn't this be speedy deleted? JIP | Talk 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and good luck on getting that one published. I mean it. Really. Crystalballery, vanity, promotion, and with a side of non-notable! Seraphimblade 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Youth Reform Team

The aritcle itself lacks citations, sources and references. The article is written with a strong POV. Whilst there is some truth to the events, they have been 'spun'. Please see the discussion page from the original article for further issues which have arisen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusJersey (talk • contribs)

Delete non-notable DariusJersey 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC does mention the group, albeit trivially (no mention in the main article, just a link to their website), and it seems that the ECHR case was never heard (did the court accept the case? was a complaint even formally submitted to them? it's unclear from [4] who exactly Small was testifying before). Therefore weak delete, possibly mention the reform of Jersey's law on homosexuality in Politics of Jersey or States of Jersey. Demiurge 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a subsisting group. The article is unclear and needs modification however the group is recognised by the national society for the prevention of cruelty to children (NSPCC) which, it is submitted, gives this article sufficient credence to be retained and modified.

The page has been edited after being proposed for deletion is it possible to revert while debate takes place DariusJersey 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless external sources can be found that proves notability. Trivial mentioning, or a case that wasn't accepted by ECHR shouldn't be grounds for inclusion. Bjelleklang - talk 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N None of the sources in the article even mention the group, and the BBC article brought up in this discussion does so very peripherally, There's currently no evidence that its the subject of any of its publications as required. Claims that the group, such as that it had a significant role in bringing about a change in the law, don't seem to be verified anywhere. View can change if additional sources provided. --Shirahadasha 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. Realkyhick 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Schwager

nn. Just H 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Delete nn vanity page, almost a speedy delete. Daniel J. Leivick 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like a vanity page. TJ Spyke 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto....--Tainter 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as noted on the Talk page for the article, if there are grounds for keeping this then they're due to his career as a comic book artist - WP:CMC, not WP:Music notability. Schwager's currently graded as 'low' importance to the WP:CMC project. --Mrph 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being nn. Bjelleklang - talk 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as noted elsewhere, the style of it is very much a vanity page. But Schwager is a professional (and arguably notable) comic illustrator, currently working for Marvel Comics on projects that WP:CMC agrees are notable. Not sure if that justifies his own page, but... --Mrph 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article doesn't have any sources meeting WP:RS at all, so as things stand vote would have to be Delete. If you have sources establishing Schwager's notability etc., perhaps you could add them and this could be reconsidered? --Shirahadasha 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, vanity. Realkyhick 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary ASA

A church association; not notable. Might have been created by someone with an agenda. Suggest it be deleted, or if something is salvageable merged into the church article. Akihabara 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del Does not read like an encyclopedic article to me. Navou ^talk 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this reads like a recruiting poster masquerading as an article. Citicat 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be a branch of an international association, the internatioal group may b notable, but this branch would not be. My guess is that this is their bylaws. SkierRMH 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable youth group at a single church with no evidence that it satisfies WP:ORG. Article includes complaints about members allegedly refusing to greet adults and use of the term "chairman" instead of "chair", as well as inexplicable listing of "pseudomembers". --Metropolitan90 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Citicat. Bjelleklang - talk 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources here are self-published, hence don't meet WP:RS. So there's no evidence at all the church or its altar server's society has any notability at all, let alone enough to meet WP:ORG --Shirahadasha 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and advertising or similar Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an organization at a single church is not national, thus fails WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Lane

Non-notable bio, fails WP:BIO. Only serious hint of notability is an award, which seems to be presented by a small organization of 13 student newspapers (which I don't believe constitutes a notable award in itself). Other references are a link to his own website and a wiki.

I am also listing the following related articles as they are related to his work:

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no reliable sources for any of these articles. Heimstern Läufer 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Bjelleklang - talk 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, not enough independent non-trivial sources ... but if they can be found and added it could make a notable article Alf photoman 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NuComm International

This article has been around for almost a year, and has been subject to regular tides of promotional edits and negative criticism, but in all this time I've yet to see a single reliable source added to supplement the sole link to the company's website. It's pretty much just been a battleground for current employees vs. disgruntled ex-employees.

At this point it's borderline speedy-able as an unsourced blatant advert, as there's nothing here that I wouldn't expect to find on a fluffy "about us" page on the company's own website. However, I'm listing it for a full AfD since it's been around for so long and to allow for the possibility that good RSs can be found and the article cleaned up. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not asserted. Akihabara 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a copyvio too, the entire history section was copied from [5]. MER-C 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being non-notable. Being a company is in it self not enough. Bjelleklang - talk 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, unsourced. --Shirahadasha 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not asserted and fails WP:CORP Orderinchaos78 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've cleaned up the article and provided references to my redone History section. Acid0057 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Acid0057: Thank you for your hard work. However, are there other sources that might better meet WP:RS standards? Of the 4 links currently present, 1 is the company's own website, 2 are to the company's press releases, and the last is a brief description (self-description, most likely) on a job site, which any company posting job listings can have... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment AbsolutDan: I'm trying but with a Newer company like this it is hard to find resources other than the companies own postings. The press releases are compiled from an indepentant resource. Doesn't that count? Acid0057 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ok I've added more independant news stories on NuComm. Is this better? Acid0057 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Looks better - can't vouch for the reliability of the new sources, but consider my opinion to be Neutral now. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now to see if Acid0057 can come up with more sources. Realkyhick 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the support. Acid0057 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I worked with Acid0057 to improve this article. With more sources and less resemblance to the company's site, the article is showing potential. Idjit 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks Idjit. I'm thinking that this article is upholding Wiki's standards now. Acid0057 13:43, 8 January 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 to speedily keep the article ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitive

Having an adverb within an infinitive verb is completely normal, so this article doesn't make any sense. There is really no point in this article existing.--Renowned linguist 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Umm...yeah. WP:SNOW? Gzkn 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Perfectly reasonable topic and article. Not sure what the rationale is or why this has been nominated. Akihabara 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. No valid reason for deletion given. There are a lot of things that are quite common that have articles; Hydrogen anyone? wtfunkymonkey 02:35, 3 January 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. There is a clear consensus to get rid of the article. There is not a clear consensus on whether it should be merged, or deleted, so I have gone with the majority. If someone wishes a userfied copy of this article in order to merge it into the List of Chinese musicians article, please let me know. Proto::► 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that given the short length of this list, and many of the names are on the other list already, there would be little if anything to merge. Proto::► 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese singers

Meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not; not a directory - WP:NOT#DIR. The role of this page as one editor has pointed out is redundant with categories that have already been created. The purpose of this page would be better served through the use of existing categories. Luke! 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. see Category: Chinese Musicians. --Tainter 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Chinese musicians and redirect I am an avowed opponent of our keeping lists the members of which ought properly to be comprised by categories—I am, that is, on the category side of the category-list divide—and so I'd generally be inclined to support deletion here, but I think merging to be in order in view of the ostensible lack of consensus for the deletion of lists of musicians by nationality (this is, IMHO, a list rather than a directory), toward which absence, see, e.g., the existence of the many constituents of Category:Lists of musicians by nationality; if a consensus amongst editors is to develop for such deletion (which deletion I'd likely support), it ought probably to happen in a less insular discussion. Joe 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this article, so people can expand it later on. musician and singer are not the same. if this site is not a directory, how come we have so many list of this, list of that then? i didn't want to use the name "list of chinese singers," because i want people to add more contents rather just simple names. --FabulousRain 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets WP:NOT#DIR Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists are useful in cases where they can be a complete set of the subject matter, e.g. Lists_of_office-holders, but that clearly doesn't apply here. There is not even a clear criterion for inclusion; judging by the one line of text on the page, it's not nationality, so is it ethnicity or language? Somebody might want to find Chinese-language singers including those who are not from China, Taiwan or HK, but this would be better done by making a new category that would incorporate the existing categories for those countries. Fayenatic london 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be a category rather than an article, due to the inclusiveness aspect. Orderinchaos78 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Chinese musicians per Joe. hateless 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be a category rather than an article. List of Chinese musicians should also be a category.--Nick Y. 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Off topic, but can you explain why? There are several things that a proper list can have -- such as vital statistics, native-language names, redlinks, and a full page history -- which a category cannot. -- Visviva 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Chinese musicians as a subsection. This may not be strictly correct, but in practice Wikipedia treats singers as a subset of musicians; in fact there are several singers on that list already. -- Visviva 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Chinese musicians, give it a subsection and if the list becomes too long in the future it can be spun back off as a separate article. TheMindsEye 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This list doesnt take advantage of the benefits of using a list as opposed to a category. John Vandenberg 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Past

Jam band from Philly. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review since the article contains an (unsourced) assertion of notability. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep according to their website they were at Bonaroo which I suppose means they're somewhat notable. page needs a lot of improvement.--Tainter 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A personal web-site isn't generally a reliable source for notability, needs independent sources for WP:MUSIC. --Shirahadasha 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major jam band, besides Bonnaroo, has played at SXSW and many other festivals and venues. Here are some references which I also listed on the deletion review: Bio on Jambase.com, a major jamband website, Profile of their appearance at the South by Southwest festival, A listing about their Bonnaroo performace, Album review from Glide Magazine. Milchama 11:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started a temporary page in one of my sandboxes and I have just moved it over. Though it is slim as of right now, I will try and add more tonight (there are other sources I haven't added in yet). As for notability, I now have the first paragaph as the following: "Brothers Past is a progressive rock band from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who has been called "one of the most talked about independent acts in the nation." They have been featured in Relix and their self-released albums have been reviewed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and the Village Voice." The statements also have sources to these claims. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although not a big band on a big label they seem to meet WP:Music as they have several albums according to [www.gracenote.com] and their most recent is on amazon.com at rank 117,780 with effusive reviews (could be the band members, but I don't think so). They are on a small but reasonably notable record label started by a major force in a small but notable musical movement. I have seen string cheese incident (the creator of their label) in concert before and they definately have a major following all over the internet. This band is more on the edge but definately not your run of the mill myspace wannabes using wikipedia for promotion.--Nick Y. 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Cristo

fails WP:MUSIC Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom vanity page. Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and promotional autobiography of a non-notable person. Borderline speedy. MER-C 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the big shiny crystal ball! Bjelleklang - talk 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails numerous guidelines. Realkyhick 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Vinegar (3rd nomination)

Jam band side project. Was deleted in 2005, then renominated and speedy deleted as identical recreation. This second deletion was overturned at deletion review since the band has now released an album. So the discussion begins anew. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedents. Article does not warrant recreation with the inclusion of one album, WP:BAND specifically states "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels...", MonkeyFuzz Records does not meet notability requirements and garners a whopping 195 [[6]] ghits, thus they still fail WP:BAND -- wtfunkymonkey 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Hay guyz, my band gots wun albumz! i get an wikipde artikel, amirite?" The answer is no. You still fail WP:MUSIC. And a lot of other things too, like WP:V. Maybe deletion review was a little too lenient on this one. Axem Titanium 05:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable third party sources to back up the info in the article. All indications are that the band is too obscure for these sources to exist. Pascal.Tesson 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I don't believe WP:NEO applies to a phrase with a specific meaning that reliable sources establish to have been in use for decades, and to still be being used for the same meaning. Given the sourcing (please use it to improve the article, or even just to add citations to the article), the WP:NOR concern also fails to be persuasive. GRBerry 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies who lunch

del. I am afraid it is a piece of original research about a phrase from play, song, and TV show. I failed to find any refefence that explains this phrase. In any case, the text in the body of the article is highly dubious. At best, this page may stay as a disambiguation for the song & TV show. Mukadderat 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn TV neologism. MER-C 08:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR --Shirahadasha 10:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase "Ladies who lunch" goes back at least 60 years and was commonly used by everyone from Bennett Cerf to Letitia Baldridge. It predates the television show it's currently used on, and may very well predate network television in the US. The only problem is that someone would have to find back pages of the New York Times and other newspapers of the late 40s and 50s to find reliable sources from society columns and some such, and I don't know if anybody's going to bother. --Charlene 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charlene. There is more than enough reference to this term right now in books and periodicals to be satisfactory for inclusion, like: Rotunda's GM leaving ladies who lunch for Bergdorf's in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ladies Who Lunch in the Port Folio Weekly, and especially Brewer's Famous Quotations By Nigel Rees, which clearly states the term is for "(mostly middle-aged married) women who have nothing else in their lives but to organize and take part in lunches for charity." --Howrealisreal 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, I disagree that the phrase is original research. Just because we may not hear the phrase these days, doesn't mean someone is making it up. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a common enough phrase (I used it last week). Probably should be merged somewhere, but there are still ladies who lunch (gnews search for ladies-who-lunch). References to the phenomenon don't quite run from A to Z, but C (for Cole Porter's Miss Otis regrets) to V (for Vita Sackville-West's All Passion Spent about a lady who doesn't want to lunch) is better than Katharine Hepburn's emotional range. Would need hard work, and care to avoid WP:OR, but there is an article in this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this article can ever grow past being a stub -- its been here a year and is still only a paragraph, TheMindsEye 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Rosinton

Following precedents of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 540m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation, some have not even been categorised. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for rationale and fuller list of precedents ) Ohconfucius 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and delete since we've done, oh a dozen or so or these batches recently, all with total consensus and usually little debate, would it be possible just to prod these? or speedy them or something? Or issue a standing deletion order for admins? I mean, I respect the amount of effort that some editors have put into weeding out this non-notable towercruft, but it's getting kinda silly to have to go through and AfD every batch. Wintermut3 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fungible vertical steel structures lacking evidence of notability. Edison 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Can I get a Wikipedia article on the water main on my street? --Shirahadasha 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OUT!!! --Brianyoumans 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the few true examples of "cruft" that still exists on WP (and I hate the term cruft, by the way). Basically just a holdover from WP's early "anything goes" days which have now worn out their welcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'cruft' is usually an unessisary slur, but in this case, it seems to be as close as you come to the dictonary definition... Wintermut3 19:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too indiscriminate.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by precedent. Realkyhick 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toufeeq Hussain

Delete per WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Jayden54 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a respectable Open Source developer working for Linux kernel, however not notable enough. -- Root exploit 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hundreds of W3 conference speakers and thousands of Free Software developers; these facts alone aren't sufficient to establish notability. —Psychonaut 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Seifert

Another article in series on OSVDB "manglers": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sullo. No notable Google results. Delete per WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References [7] and [8] are notable IMHO. -- Root exploit 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[9] says that he is one of the two winners of an scholarship program. [10] is an article written by him, and says that he is a member of the New Zealand Honeynet Alliance. How does this make him notable for Wikipedia

Delete Graduate student who won a scholarship. Fan-1967 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:BIO is met. MER-C 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Press releases and web sites are not a reliable independent sources. Article's effusive language ("well-known", "elire") doesn't help either. --Shirahadasha 10:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional reliable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Root exploit fails to grasp what reliable sources are. Christian Seifert is, it appears, a talented and dynamic graduate student. However, Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say, does not care. Pascal.Tesson 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable genes

Of the ~25,000 human genes (not specified in the title) this list provides no good criteria for inclusion and is pretty meaningless, it could conceivably have potential as a category for genes associated with human disease (about 60% of the genes listed), but as is delete --Peta 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Definitely could be expanded. I find it akin to List of major opera composers, which eventually attained a featured list status. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep List of notable human genes. This project has real possibilities, can be sourced, and can be verified. Obviously it needs some expansion, and some trimming, and some consistency, but I see no reason to delete this list. wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The list, as it currently exists, is completely worthless. Why are these genes notable, and why would I care? It is basically biologycruft right now, but there is potential, which is the only thing that stops me from voting delete. Resolute 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I Googled several of these genes and found over 40,000 Google hits for individual ones. The list is supposed to be of genes so notable they have Wikipedia articles. It is thus an overview of an importaant part of 21st century science and medicine. There is no proposal to list every gene whether or not its function has been detyermined. My training is far from this field, but even I have heard of the BRCA genes which predispose to breast cancer, and the gene for lactose intolerance, but I would not eaasily find most of them because of their cryuptic names. This is a crucially important field, and a Wikipedia level treatment of the various genes will be useful to people with a diagnosis of genetic disorder, or who want to follow up on something in the news. The future development of the article may require breakup into sections for developmental genes, genes related to cancer, etc. For now the present list should be kept and improves. If we have articles for 493 Pokemon video game characters, which get featured status, since Wikipedia is not paper, we should keep a list of human genes to help find articles on individual ones with non-rememberable names. Edison 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, started improvent myself, see below.~~Neutral~~, if kept it needs a lot, a lot of work. For starters, it should mention why these genes are considered notable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This falls under the Wikipedia Is Not Paper group for articles. As said above it needs a lot of work but there is real potential here. Some genes are more notable than others, especially from a medical point of view. MartinDK 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the criteria in italics works for me. hateless 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename Although there is some potential here for disputes etc. This is a very valuable effort to do a good editing job of interpreting a very complex subject matter and pointing the reader to information they may otherwise miss. The human genome is very notable and the most notable genes within it notable as well. I don't think that this would do well as a category alone. To be truely useful it need more information attached to each entry but let's call this a stub and move on.--Nick Y. 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is certainly workable, with a limited scope and annotations for each gene.-- danntm ^T _C 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. --- RockMFR 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, at this time I have started a rigourous cleanup of the article, starting at the top of the list [11]. As you look at the article now, the top of the list is already adjusted, the bottom is still the old list. Many internal links were fixed, external links were directed to genecards instead. Most entries were corrected with regard to names, notability of genes was explained where not provided and a few will be removed from the list as I continue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as said. This will be a great resource with proper cleanup and expansion. --Howrealisreal 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, cleanup is finished now, links repaired, each gene now shows either a disease or a description why it is considered notable. The article is ready for expansion, since the list is still highly arbitrary. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard it said that the list of genes discovered will one day be as important as the Periodic table, so I suppose a listing has to start somewhere. Static Universe 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Emblem Archetypes

Unreferenced fancruft and original research. Salad Days 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I'm 8000% certain a similar article as AfD'd before. Axem Titanium 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's unreferenced, almost certainly original research, and a indisciminate collecxtion of information. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subtle original research: "They are named after the first character to possess such qualities (usually Fire Emblem 1 characters).", which pretty much indicates that those "archetypes" are something that the editor made up himself. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. If it wasn't OR, it would still be deletable as game guide material.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is exactly why we need a Wikiversity game research group, or something along those lines. =) However, I'm afraid this is by definition weakly sourced. Just because it's a fact that's apparent to players of the game series is not really enough of a verification... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have heard these archtypes stated in more than a couple FAQ's and online walkthroughs referring to the Fire Emblem series in general, and while the article doesnt cite sources, it shouldent be that hard to go online and find multiple websites with lists of the same archtypes. For many people who are very familiar with the series, they use these words to describe characters in online forums- a new person to the FE series might find it very confusing. I vote to keep it Ageofe 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt that FAQs written by Joe Blow count as reliable sources. Salad Days 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has come up before. Furthermore the majority of entries aren't even actual archetypes per se (for all that archetype is really the wrong term... a better one was proposed some time ago but it never caught on and I've forgotten what it was). For the unenlightened, an FE 'Archetype' is a character type which has been repeated in several games, a la Char_Aznable#Char_Clones. The best example is Kain and Abel, which are a pair of cavaliers in the first game that are red and green respectively and are friends from a long time back. In the majority of the following games, there are also pairs of green and red cavaliers the same as this, following on the tradition. This is a 'true' archetype. But somewhat recently some people have started creating 'archetypes' based on just about every FE1 character and then trying to fit characters from later games into them. Example from the article: Gato, who is basically 'a powerful character you get late in the game'. People like Athos aren't powerful characters you get late in the game because Gato was, they're powerful characters you get late in the game because characters you get that late that AREN'T powerful would be somewhat worthless. Yet this is becoming increasingly prevalent... 'Davros' (who isn't even called that) is one that I've never even heard considered before. Deleting this article won't stop it, but it will make it less 'authentic', if only a little. --Dark Twilkitri 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-collaboration

Yet another nn neologism, 213 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no references, and none to be found from quick searches. Could find precious little on the startup mentioned in the article or its creators. Appears to simply be a promotional article for a non-notable concept. Would need sources and removal of the adcopy. Kuru ^talk 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kuru. - Aagtbdfoua 04:26, 3 January 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, but I haven't salted as, so far, there is no evidence that it will be recreated unless there is genuine eveidence of the projects existence. Yomangani ^talk 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Handheld

Nomination for deletion Wikipedia is not a crystalball as per WP:NOT. Whether a Xbox handheld will be launched in the future is a speculative question at the moment. The linked to image is a unofficial mockup of what a Xbox handheld might look like, not even an authenticated prototype image[12]. Bwithh 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are ~~suspected~~ confirmed sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no evidence that the Xbox handheld is anything other than a crazy rumor. If anything, this should be mentioned in a paragraph long section on the page Xbox, but is not deserving of it's own article. --Wikischmedia 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No Change in Vote (Merge with Xbox article if possible) This could be merged into the Xbox article as a footnote. --Wikischmedia 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A similar article about the same thing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 180) was deleted recently. There is no handheld Xbox announced, only speculation. TJ Spyke 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total speculation and/or Photoshopping. This doesn't even deserve a mention on Xbox, as there isn't a single reliable source mentioned. (It's possible that the rumors turned out to refer to the Zune, but that's neither here nor there.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No change in vote, even given the modifications to the article. Although there's some verifiable information now, it's very limited in scope. This article can (and should) wait until Microsoft makes an official announcement of some sort. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced crustal balling. MER-C 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. Just H 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rumors of MS coming out with a portable device designed to "target the huge potential audience that embraces the iPod" are true. Rumors of a MS video game handheld have been around since the first Xbox was released, and I'm pretty sure that picture has been as well. This is a hoax/crystal balling, whichever. Koweja 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If such a device were to be announced at a later date, it would go under a proper product name anyway. --Alan Au 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Better with sources, but still just a rumor until such time as Microsoft makes an official announcement. Article can easily be recreated at that time. Until then, the article may as well be called "Xbox handheld speculation", which obviously isn't encyclopedic. --Alan Au 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. Self-explanatory: handheld does not exist, and Wikipedia is not for making guesses to it. --Scottie theNerd 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still maintaining my stance after rewrite. One quote is not enough for an article; currently it fails Notability. Wait until more information is revealed (which may take years) before creating an article rather than a one-line stub. --Scottie theNerd 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber Strong Delete Pure rumor, doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere.Meow07 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the page move and rewrite, there's nothing to prove that the device is still in development.Meow07 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Microsoft is indeed working on a handheld, as is mentioned in Dean's book [Xbox 360 Uncloaked]. Next-Generation includes the text: "Following the launch of the Xbox 360, the hardware team was divided up and put on two different tasks. The first will work on cost reducing the Xbox. The second will design a new portable system to compete with PSP and DS. The book indicates the strategy is to launch it in the middle of the Xbox 360 cycle so that the business has a hedge against the crushing generational transition costs (only one system would be going through transition at any given time)." [13].

Comment I have re-written the article, citing sources which indicate that an Xbox handheld is forthcoming. I also tagged it with the "work in progress game, speculative information" tag, which seems to be more applicable than simply deleting the article. Alan Shatte 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the article says now is that Microsoft is working on designing a Xbox handheld, as claimed by one writer. That's not enough for an article, and its still crystalballism - Microsoft must have dozens of major R&D projects going on, many of which probably won't see actual public release. Bwithh 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub The information is verifiable via Next Generation. Passes WP:RS Infomanager 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those who voted before the re-write should be contacted so that they can vote again. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted everyone who participated. Alan Shatte 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have striked out Jessica's first vote due to her second vote, it seems she has changed her mind about the article. Dionyseus 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it has been confirmed that they're working on a handheld Xbox, there's no telling that it's going to be called Xbox Handheld, no telling when it's going to be released, indeed no telling if it's going to be released, as company plans can, and do, change. So, it's still in a crystal ball. Secateur 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the release date will probably be 2008 since that is in the middle of the 5-year business cycle of the Xbox 360. Wasn't the tag created because plans for a game [console] in development can and do change? Alan Shatte 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still has to be almost certain to happen. I believe the tag was created for games certain to happen, like Half-Life 2 I suppose, but not before the company itself had announced it and started the marketing campaign. This is too early. Secateur 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still crystal balling. Microsoft confirmed they are already working on the successor to the Xbox 360, but that doesn't mean we should have an article about it. The article should be deleted unless some actual info is announced (and Microsoft themselves say something). TJ Spyke 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I moved the article to Microsoft handheld game console. Koweja 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep now per stubification and sources. Koweja 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Did you read my comment? Sony has confirmed they are working on the PS4 and and MS confirmed they are working on the next Xbox, both of which is more than this article can claim. TJ Spyke 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Page Protect, even with the new sourcing. It's still total speculation and might not even be in the alpha stages of development. I doubt it'll simply be called the Xbox Handheld and it could be that Microsoft cancels it because right now the only information we've got is from someone who's already left Microsoft over a year ago. I'd support mention of it in the Xbox 360 article until more information is released, however. Lankybugger 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am hesitant to approve deletion of the article because I have a feeling that it will be recreated continously, especially as more website and people become aware of the book. Infomanager 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's what protection against recreation is for. No doubt Microsoft isn't going to announce a single thing about any potential handheld until they've come up with a brand name for it. When that happens, the article can be created under that brand name. Lankybugger 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect but include the line of text in the Xbox 360 article. Paul D. Meehan 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page move stub to Xbox 360 page. Jessica Anne Stevens 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems to be Jessica's secont vote in this discussion. Dionyseus 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redict - Perhaps redirect to Xbox 360 and include the line there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brad Guzman (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC). ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to merge into Xbox 360 - The line should be added to the Xbox 360's sales section. Alan Shatte 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think that the article should be kept as a stub, but I have added the information (and sources) to the 360 page. If and when Microsoft officially announces the portable, we can split it off. Infomanager 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has nothing to do with the 360, don't place it into that article. Meow07 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub - Information is succinct, and verifiable. Joel Jimenez ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article, besides having unencyclopedic content (are we going to have articles on every single R&D project by a major corporation, most of which will never see public release?) is not verified. A single journalist's claims based in "insider sources" is not sufficient - not multiple, not solidly reliable, not verifiable. Furthermore, the article is misleading to say that Microsoft has "confirmed" this story. Microsoft has called the claims "highly speculative"[14]. Bwithh 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in its reduced form the article is reporting that one source has speculated that Microsoft is working on this product. Until we have confirmation (not speculation) that it is being worked on it cannot warrant an article. Gwernol 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely speculative, also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dionyseus 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just is WP:NOT a crystal ball, but there's barely even any speculation. A couple of articles and an unofficial mock-up do not equate to a Microsoft handheld. -- Kicking222 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If wikipedia published everything which might have been thought of at any point, it would be a terrible reference source. WP:NOT, per all other deletionists. Mart inp23 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: WP:SNOW --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanker

RATIONALE FOR DELETION:

Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion
- Votes appear primarily based on whether people were amused by the article or not. This violates WP:N#Notability is not subjective.
- The admin decided "Keep" but did not follow WP:N: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."
  - NOTE: Wanker has only one non-trivial published work cited about "Wanker". (No blame to the admin - no one even mentioned this omission in the prior Afd discussion).

Is about a neologism (WP:NEO), a slang term, and fails notability (WP:N)
- WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia.
- Per WP:NEO, this is so "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", such as listed in the article's sections Wanker#Usage and social acceptability and Wanker#Wanker in popular culture.
- Per the section "Reliable sources for neologism", To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains only one reference about the term. It also contains a trivia reference from the 1990 U.S. Census stating, "'Wanker' is the 53,492nd most common surname in the United States".
Mergability
- Any pertinent cited information in the article is best merged into Masturbation where Wanker may be described as one of many colloquialisms for a person who engages in the act.

CyberAnth 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WINAD, WP:OR, and WP:V
- The article violates WP:WINAD because the references support only a dictionary definition.
- The remaining of the article violates WP:OR and WP:V.
  - See User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability_of_claims for proof of violation of WP:WINAD, WP:OR, and WP:V.

Non-improvability
- Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006.
  - Nothing regarding its above violations have changed, even after surviving its prior Afd.
    - Reliable sources are not currently in existence to justify Wanker's claims beyond a Wiktionary entry. WP's standard is verifiability, not truth.

CyberAnth 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.86.77 (talk • contribs) 194.176.86.77
Keep incorrect rationale use of WP:NEO.--Jersey Devil 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word has been in use since at least 1950 (source: OED) so it's hardly a neologism. The current article has problems but a verifiable article can certainly be written so this is by no means a rationale for deletion. --Cherry blossom tree 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep footnotes would be desirable, but there is a reference section, and the term is well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Soft redirect to Wikitionary Certainly not a neologism, but fails WP:DICDEF. (WP:DICDEF was the main argument for deletion in the first afd). The article content is in very bad shape and is not encyclopedic in its current form. Recommend soft redirect to Wikitionary. At minimum, please let's remove the "popular references"/trivia sections altogether which as is so often the case, are out of control and a net negative - and well, a crap magnet in themselves in this such a case. I absolutely agree that the consensus reached in the previous afd was inadequate - in terms of taking the discussion seriously in policy terms. Bwithh 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note this rational for WP:NEO has shown up in a few recent sexual-topic AfD debates, so be wary. Terms widely used in publication, or defined in third-party works are not neologisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC). Wintermut3 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Masturbation It's just the British term for someone who masturbates, no reason for it to have it's own article. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely isn't just the British term for someone who masturbates - the word is almost never used in that context. To merge with masturbation would be irrational and misleading. --Cherry blossom tree 11:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as another ...let's be charitable and say misunderstanding of WP:NEO. Otto4711 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEO does not apply, it is notable, and being a slang term is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't care if it goes to masturbation or if it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary's wanker page. It's a valid search term, but not really a valid article topic as it can easily be discussed within masturbation. Heck, "Wanker" was also the b-side of The Darkness's "One Way Ticket" single, so turn it into a disambig page if you like. <shrug> Any of these options would be suitable, but an article really isn't appropriate at this time. GassyGuy 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recommend nominator read WP:POINT. Catchpole 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the nominator appears to be on a quest of some sort to eliminate earthy Anglo-Saxon terms relating to sex from Wikipedia, always using the justification WP:NEO ("recently coined" words that do not "appear in dictionaries") although these are established slang terms or colloquialisms. This nom is at least better formulated, but see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act), and yet others. I am unsurprised that other editors are bringing up WP:POINT. --Dhartung
Keep, this is one of the most used insults in the UK. The article is more than a dicdef. I recommend the nominator read WP:NEO. I also recommend this AfD be ended now because of WP:SNOW. Malla nox 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Make personal attacks against me as you will. However, the deepest problem with the article is its lack of established notability: "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention Wanker as a colloquialism only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Wanker "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Right now it has only one which does not equal "mulitple". Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. Notability_is_not_subjective. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's "merely mentioned" in the dictionary. This nomination is pushing the envelope of WP:POINT. Mallanox 08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POV Pushing by whom, the authors or the AfD nominator? Wanker as an offensive colloquial term for "masturbator" indeed needs to be mentioned as such in masturbation, nothing more, unless and only unless notability for wanker as a term worthy of an article as such is verified as "the subject of [not merely mentioned in] multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" (bracketed verbiage added for clarity). CyberAnth 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, wanker is slang, it is not colloquial. Secondly it means more than simply "one who masturbates". If I called someone a wanker it means I consider them to be irritating not because I think they go home and masturbate. Again, wanker is in the dictionary, it is the subject of a definition of its meaning. Mallanox 09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So if you can establish that Wanker is notable because as a term "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" with "subject of" not equating with merely mentioned in articles - then fine. Otherwise, Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If we are to merge wanker with masturbation, we may as well merge fuck with sexual intercourse and cunt with sex organ. Where will it stop? Gretnagod 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, far from a neologism, so all arguments based on WP:NEO are futile. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a neologism - check the dictionary. Article needs to improve its refs, but they are certainly out there. I don't understand why this one keeps popping up. Chovain 09:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely whether an article meets notability standards is based on the inherent qualities of the subject, rather than the quality of the article, as long as the article makes these clear. Do you mean verifiability? --Cherry blossom tree 11:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wiktionary. The article is a long dicdef. Mention it in the Masturbation article as a synonym. Edison 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article masturbation, as per the insult Jerkoff ~ IICATSII punch the keys 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a neologism, the premise being false the rest doesn't follow. Akihabara 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is about the term wanker, not about "wanking," so redirect to masturbation is not appropriate (much as a redirect of fuck to sexual intercourse is not called for). The word is not a neologism, but has been in common currency for quite a long time. Multiple published references support both the word's sociolinguistic notability and much of the content of the article. The article does need to be trimmed to remove original research and/or uncited claims concerning usage within specific circles. Nick Graves 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination for deletion is ridiculous. Neoligism claim is plainly wrong. I'm confused by the notability claim. Surely many Wikipedia pages would fail if this standard were held up as compulsory for inclusion. The size of Wales for example. Jooler 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to masturbation. -- The Anome 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The wanker article is not about masturbation - Bollocks is not about testicles and fuck is not about sexual intercourse. All such redirects are inappropriate. We have articles about the words Bloody, Nerd, Naff, Smeg etc. Jooler 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and far from being a neologism. A few more references and some cleanup would be nice, but there are several tags for requesting that. Prolog 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, too much information to consider Transwikiing, and appears well-researched; notability should be obvious to just about anyone (and I believe the current article documents this sufficiently), and it isn't a neologism unless you think words that originate in 1945 (according to Random House Unabridged) are still "new." Tarinth 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNot a neologism - dated to the 1940s and at least 1972. See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Not a neologism, it's a well established slang term. Commonly used in popular culture although primarily in British English. --Nick Y. 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this term is a dominant insult in most, if not all, of Australia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not appopriate for a redirect. The term may have come from a slang term for masturbation but it's used in much wider contexts now. The article is not a mere 'dictionary definition', although I think it has a lot of scope for improvement. That's what should be done: improve the article, don't delete it. Meanwhile, editors from countries where the term isn't in use should look upon it as a chance to be more informed about the world. I know our articles about non-UK topics help inform me. Sam Blacketer 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep well established slang term. DXRAW 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word has nuances of meaning that go beyond a dicdef. It also shows up in numerous works of fiction, one of which was on my niece's Grade 12 syllabus last year (thank you Martin Amis). I don't even think it's slang any more. I'm trying not to assume bad faith in regard to non-US language or censorship issues, but this is clearly notable. And by God: if you're going to redirect "wanker" to "masturbate", let's just go ahead and redirect asshole to rectum and creep to Richard M. Nixon. --Charlene 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the people suggesting this should RDR to masturbation actually read it? The content has nothing to do with it. What is the problem with only having one source? One is more than none, and its hardly surprising, for a slang regional word. pfctdayelise (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised to find this even listed for deletion. The only reason seems to be to remove profanity. But WP:NOT#CENSOR and if this is removed, we may as well say goodbye to the likes of fuck and cunt. I would ask people to look at other articles the user who nominated this for deletion wants removed. Gretnagod 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a well known slang term.-- danntm ^T _C 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known British slang. Realkyhick 07:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a commonly used term in Australia, as well as Britain and New Zealand. Given this, frankly, only an American would consider the term a neologism. Given this, to delete the article would be to pander to an American cultural Point of View. I would also like to add that an article needing improvement (e.g. more sources, etc.) in spite of very common usage and clear potential for improvement should not be deleted. I would further add that it is often not used in its literal sense (i.e. often someone is called a 'wanker' even if they do not regularly engage in masturbation), and thus anyone who thinks that merging the article with masturbation is... for lack of a better term... a wanker. - AmishThrasher 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Where to start? 1) Inadequacy of previous AfD - the result of the AfD was overwhelmingly for keep, and appears to have been so for non-trivial reasons - virtually none of those who voted keep appear to have done so "based on whether people were amused by the article or not", as anyone actually reading that AfD should be able to clearly see. 2) Neologism, including the bit about "non-trivial sources about rather than using the word" - I'd regard the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang as such a source. It cites the term Wanker as having been used since at least 1950 in its listing of the word. 3) Mergability - the popular usage of this word per se, as opposed to its usage as a term meaning masturbation, is enough for it to survive as a separate article. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Can we please end CyberAnth's campaign to Bowdlerize Wikipedia.
Strong keep a very notable term. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 08:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My "campaign" is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies. It is possible it could be made such, but it is not now.

Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough.

I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.

CyberAnth 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was my comment attacking you? --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your choice of articles to nominate for deletion, the claim claim that the nomination " is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies" is clearly disingenuous and I urge you to consider WP:POINT before making any similar requests for deletion. This is advice and not a personal attack. This nomination should probably be put on WP:LAME Jooler 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough. CyberAnth 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you've said that a dozen times. I think the policy needs review. But thepoint is that in reality that fact was NOT your motivation. Jooler 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.

Keep. I've just added a reference to a reputable article dedicated to the word and its etymology. I could probably dig up some more if necessary. The term is clearly notable and is certainly not a neologism. —Psychonaut 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - do you really consider the Maven's Word of the Day reference you added to be anything more than trivial? I suppose now we can go through the entire archive of Maven's Word of the Day and start creating articles about them all. CyberAnth 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to speedy keep per WP:SNOW - 'nuff said? Tarinth 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N#Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely not a neologism by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is chock full of Original Research, as I noted in my initial nomination. But I just noticed another very glaring example of it: The photo and its caption. The one non-trivial source in the article does not describe the gesture. Neither do any of the trivial sources. CyberAnth 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CyberAnth - I and probably every single person over the age of 5 in Britain, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and a host of other country can firmly attest that the image is a fair representation of the wanker sign. Are you seriously suggesting that despite 200 million odd people knowing and recognising this gesture that the image should be deleted because it is not verifiable from a reference book? That is sheer madness and red-tape bureaucracy against common sense. Jooler 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then almost every article in Wikipedia is chock full of original research. --Cherry blossom tree 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. For two examples, consider our articles about Frederick Douglass and Cardinals. We add photos of these subjects because reliable sources have already published photos of them. In contrast, no source in Wanker either describes or depicts the gesture. Including the gesture and a photo of it is thus Original Research. CyberAnth 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the image, rather the assertion that since not every fact in the article is currently cited it should be deleted. --Cherry blossom tree 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...not every fact"?? You're kidding, right? But sure, let's talk facts: The sole non-trivial source, would support ~~an article the length of stub~~ a dictionary definition. But one such source is not enough, since Wanker must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources to be included in Wikipedia. The entire sections "Usage and social acceptability" and "Wanker in popular culture" in the article, about 85% of the article, are completely unreferenced. Perhaps an example of what a well-sourced article free of OR looks like will be helpful, and here is one. CyberAnth 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the majority of articles on Wikipedia are in the same state. I just hit special:random five times and found four articles without a source between them and one with a few external links. This is not a situation to be encouraged but the correct solution is not to delete these articles unless none of the information is verifiable. (Verifiable is different to currently cited.) You have failed to persuade people that this is the case and have even acknowledged that it isn't yourself.--Cherry blossom tree 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because Johnny down the road is bad Timmy gets to be bad too?

Verifiability does not come via cited references?? You must be just kidding me again.

Do I need to conduct OR to verify an article's OR? Is that how articles are "verifiable" in your book?

Everything in Wanker beyond a dictionary definition in its sources is Original Research.

For example, I am going to need to call User:Reinoutr on his/her apparent reference-padding regarding his/her insertion on January 3, 2006, of Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658. Following is the entire use of wanker in the book:

A number of the formulae ["you wanker" and "fuck off, wanker" (from page 205)] use as a form of address the word wanker. Literally, the word wanker in New Zealand English denotes a male who masturbates. But it is also used as a general term of abuse among New Zealand males. Masturbation is popularly regarded as a sign of sexual inadequacy. Therefore a wanker is one is sexually inadequate (page 206).

Source here.

A mere dictionary definition contained in a book, used as padding in an article to make it appear as a cover for OR. Nice.

WINAD, and that is what Wiktionary is for.[15]

CyberAnth 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Johnny and Timmy analogy is a straw man. I specifically stated that the situation was not to be encouraged and explained how the it should be remedied. --Cherry blossom tree 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. Nothing substantive regarding references has changed in this article, even after it survived its prior Afd. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet policy standards? CyberAnth 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it takes. I don't see the fact that an article is not fully referenced now as a reason to delete it if I think it could be referenced after some work has been put in. See m:eventualism. --Cherry blossom tree 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in little danger of missing the publishing deadline. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of 50's song72.184.201.3 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooo.. wait a second. I resent the accusation above by CyberAnth. The refs I supplied are certainly not refs for all the information in the article, but I NEVER claimed they were. They back up some of the things and prove that there are descriptions of the word in books dealing with English language and swearing. That's all they prove and that's all they are for. No need to "call" me on my "reference-padding", thank you very much. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the reference adds nothing except a dictionary definition and two quotes showing usage, as a dictionary would contain. CyberAnth

keep Silly Americans. Artw 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about WP:WINAD - I created a version of Wanker supported only by the references on the page and removed all of the OR that the page represents. As you can see, what is left is a dictionary entry. CyberAnth 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about real encyclopedias - they are full of "stub" entries. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you picked up one of those old fashioned things? ;-) Silensor 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a stub but an article of OR whose references support only a dictionary definition. CyberAnth 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, one of the few instances where I believe that WP:SNOW actually applies. Silensor 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not subjective nor is it determined by majority votes but policies. This should not even have failed the WP:WINAD nomination in the past (as you can see, what is left after all OR is removed is a dictionary entry), where apparently people misunderstood this. Apparently also, some people have thought that if you just pad enough OR into an article, it saves it from an AfD (see Talk:Wanker#Wiktionary move). CyberAnth 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. From WP:NEO:

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

1940s, "masturbator," British slang, from wank "to masturbate," of unknown origin. General sense of "contemptible person" is attested from 1972. Cf. sense evolution of jerk (n.).

It's obvious that this isn't a neologism by any stretch of the imagination. As for redirecting to Masturbation, that's blatantly misleading. In modern usage, "You are a wanker" does not strictly mean "You are a regular masturbator". That's exactly why this article needs more than a dictionary definition, to make it clear what the expression actually means nowadays, and show examples of how it's used nowadays. Quack 688 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More reference-padding

Above I demonstrated by evidence that the reference in the article, Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658, verified nothing in the article except a dictionary definition.

I again have uncovered what appears to be more reference-padding.

The following is included as a reference in this article:

Anthony McEnery and Tony McEnery, 2005, Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415258375.

Just as with the book, I searched its entire digitized contents for the term Wanker.

The word appears once in the book, on page 36, within a table that categorizes British "swear" words from "Very mild" to "Very strong". There under the "Moderate" section we find the word Wanker in its sole entry in the book.

The mention was so minor that Wanker does not appear in the book's Index on page 275, where it would appear otherwise between "VALA" and "warrants". In contrast, the word fuck is discussed in some depth in the book, and appears in its Index as such, on 40 of the book's pages.

Page 36 of the book, other pages, as well as the book's entire index can be viewed at here.

The reference verifies nothing in the article beyond what a dictionary does.

CyberAnth 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still more reference padding

In Wanker, the sole pertinent reference cited in specifically the reference section is:

Cameron, Deborah "Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis among American College Students", in American Speech Vol. 67, No. 4 p372.

In the entire journal article, the word wanker appears only once, indicating nothing more than the fact that college students in the researcher's study group used the word wanker as slang for masturbation. Here is the exact sentence:

Apart from the two fellatio-related terms above, there are two references to anal sex, rectum wrecker and anal intruder; and one to masturbation, wanker.

This is the full extent of the coverage of wanker in the reference. No further discussion or mention is made.

Wanker claims,

Wanker...is also a slang term for penis used by American college students. This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation.[1]

Obviously, based on the cited source, the claim that wanker is a term for penis is not verifiable, patently false. This speaks nothing of the ludicrous Synthesis/OR claim that follows, "This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation."

The specfic page entry for page 272 of the journal article is at here. The entire journal article is here. You need JSTOR access.

In conclusion, the journal article referenced in the article provides nothing but a dictionary definition for wanker while saying college students sometimes use it.

CyberAnth 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stated fact is absolutely verifiable from the source. Wanker is discussed in the context fo slang terms for penis. The article also connects the 'sexuality' category to an earlier discussion of 'tool' related terms, which is where the comment comes from. --Cherry blossom tree 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims CyberAnth 09:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If other non-American editors feel this is a common slang term in their respective environs, who am I to disagree? --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite very impressive research and justification by nominator. Certainly not a neologism, and in my opinion the nominator's definition of "notability" and "reliable sources" is a little rigid (oo-er!). I have experienced a similar situation with "Bogan", a very widely used term in Australia and very difficult to reference from "academic" sources... although there's an interesting story about the loss of impact of the term from the Australian National University here relating to a court case. Sorry CyberAnth, you've done an amazing amount of work but I think this article is salvageable without too much difficulty. --Canley 09:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to mention here that the nominator did NOT nominate this article after extensive research. It was listed for AfD based on "Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion", "WP:NEO" and "mergability" [16]. Only when after two days almost everybody disagreed with these arguments, the nominator did research on the article and switched to the arguments of "WP:WINAD", "WP:V" and "WP:OR". [17]. On the brink of not assuming good faith, that makes it appear the actual deletion of this article is more important to the nominator than the actual reasons why it should be deleted (see also this statement by the nominator, regarding a previous AfD: [18]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please good nomination but really this term is so notable erasing this would be a bad idea Yuckfoo 10:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just added a reference attesting to it's more modern broader usage. Malla nox 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, are you seriously suggesting that "wanker" is a neologism? You wanker. Lankiveil 10:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Nice example. Can we use it in the article? :-p Quack 688 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we're going to delete Wanker on the grounds of WP:NEO ... then Nigger should go next. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would also point out that over 150 pages link here. Ok, a good chunk of them are talk pages but a good chunk of them aren't. Deleting will leave a lot of redlinks. Malla nox 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - popular, notable term. Needs better referencing, but that is not an AfD worhy issue. Johntex\^talk 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term in widespread and common use. Notability goes well beyond merely being a synonim for a masturbator. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely well known in New Zealand. The illustration is correct - just one eg. it was recently featured in advertising a chocolate milk shake drink. There are tone issues and excessive pop culture references, but these don't justify a delete. Seems to be making WP:Point Mostlyharmless 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think users of British Sign Language might be able to find one or two references for the gesture. Jooler 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valuable part of the English language. Atlantis Hawk 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. Qwghlm 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable, referenced, commonly used term (not a neologism). No reason for deletion. Atom 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding referencing, I've added one ref, I'm sure a Google Books search would yield many more. Oldelpaso 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added another reference, an entire article about the word being banned from football shirts, "Footie team 'W*nker' strip ban", from the UK's best-selling newspaper [19] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As all of Great Britain says: this AfD needs to wanker off. ju66l3r 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly a notable term, well sourced, etc. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is excellent especially for non-native English speakers. The wiktionary entry only doesn't help these people much. So keeping this article is more important than to care for the feelings of a fundamentalist Christian that tries to AfD articles with sexual content by using false pretends.

St blac 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yet another tiresome an pointless nom by a serial offender. Albatross2147 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides being a bad-faith nomination by a person who seems to be in process of trying to delete all article with any trace of sexual content, it just happens that today, I got the latest emailing from the World Wide Words site, which contains a discussion of wanker as "Most Useful Import from British English to American English: - http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/01/words-of-year-2006.html User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable term which is not a neologism despite nominator's own persistance to the contrary. Meets all standards for verifiability and thus should be kept. bbx 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD?

It appears to me that a consensus has been reached... Mostlyharmless 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I recommend taking this discussion to the Talk page of the article as it seems to be moving in a productive direction. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination)

Here is the first nomination. This article consists pretty much of subjective comparisons of movies. There are exactly zero citations, and two shakey (at best) links at the bottom- a "discussion" and a "blog discussion." Obviously some movies will bear a striking resemblance to each other via ripoffs and such, but how do we draw the line? Are they similar because of genres? Actors? Plots? How do we define "similar release dates"? What critics and sources would we consider notable or numerous enough for movies to be "similar". This list is just too vague abd subjective. I think this fails original research and What Wikipedia is not. Wafulz 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I've read about this in Entertainment Weekly, but don't have that article anymore, and from what I see here (and looking at random revisions in the edit history), this is completely unsourced, and both links are blogs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep good cleanup, illustrates a film phenomenon. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like we're having a hard time coming up with an apt title for this article, and yes it is open to subjectivity, but I find the article very interesting and valuable for anybody interested in the film studio system. It's not as if it's a list of movies that make you feel good or something subjective by nature; it's a list of movies that seem to be made just to compete with another. Additions need to be moderated or the text should be changed so people better understand the purpose, though (having Master & Commander and Pirates of the Caribbean listed together is just silly) -Asriel 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that it's really not possible to create an objective list here. How many critics (or other important people) must mention that one movie is similar to another? How do we define "similar" release dates? I feel that the last question in particular would just end up being completely arbitrary. --Wafulz 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful not to use WP:ILIKEIT arguments in AfD discussions since they really don't stand up to Wikipedia policy giants like WP:OR. Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. To compare to movies on Wikipedia without an independent source discussing it first is the very definition of original research: An editor went out and saw (ie researched) both movies and made his/her own decision about their relatedness and then decided, "I want to feel smart and tell the world about my discovery on Wikipedia!" Unfortunately, that's not the way this place works. I'm surprised that it survived the first nomination with people basically saying "Keep, it's an interesting subject". Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of these similarities have been noted in major media. I grabbed three bullet points from the 1990s and easily found New York Times and Toronto Star articles noting the similarities. I've added the references to the article: [20]. Let's prune out the silly Original Research from this article and keep the good stuff. Cas510 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subjective nature of the list, and the almost total lack of external sources, makes this a clear cut case of original research. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It already passed an AFD. Perhaps the nominator should have done his/her resaerch and noted that we want to keep this article. Calicore 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Consensus can change. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first word in the nomination is a link to the previous nomination! --Wafulz 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list, highly subjective - ie: Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats? Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different. Possibly WP:OR. Concerns about WP:V. Criteria is way to subjective to be valuable. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article would fail an ANOVA if you could run one. Miserably. Looks to me like within-group variance is at least as large as between group variance! In other words, it would be just as easy to match two films from different categories as they stand now as it is to agree with the match of the films IN the categories as they stand now. So I agree strongly with original research comments. Great point above on "Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats? Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different." There are tons of examples throughout the page of this. "Event Horizon (1997) and Sphere (1998), both involve an abandoned U.S. spaceship that contains a giant orb and members of the search or rescue crew who hallucinate their worst nightmares." You could just as easily argue that Nightmare on Elm Street should be on that list with the hallucinatory nightmares. While we're at it, I don't know about you, but those Aliens were pretty awful, and they were birthed as eggs (spheres) and Ripley does have nightmares... (*tongue in cheek*). If something like this is going to stay, I'd argue strongly that it should be stripped down to things that can be supported with citations(similar to the pruning comment earlier)...which, since there are currently no references, sounds like a fresh start might be a good idea. The list is also haphazard, so I don't think it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Maybe these things would make more sense in the "Trivia" that appears at the bottom of some film entries.

Katsesama 07:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this information absolutely. It's simply original research, and we shouldn't be expected to keep this garbage around on the basis that maybe some kind fellow will come along and clean it up. I'm more than happy to overturn the last AfD due to the ridiculous amount of non-arguments such as "I like it!", "It's useful!", and "It's interesting!" ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO are non-negotiable. MER-C 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, this is packed full of original research, and I agree that the relatedness may well be illusionary. A lot of the similarities seem to be related to the presence of stock characters common in a genre. Having said that, an encyclopedic treatment of this 'phenomenon' may be possible (but very difficult to do). This article is nowhere near, however.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw this delete comment as sources have been added. Neutral for now.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is original research. TSO1D 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Some of the current article is reaching a bit (V for Vendetta and Children of Men for example) but I do think there's an article to be written about direct-to-video films with a clear connection to popular theatrical films (e.g. When a Killer Calls, Snakes on a Train, and those dollar-store "generic" versions of Disney cartoons). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it got merits since this phenomenon its indeed often seen and reported. It deperately needs sourcing though (a source for each item in the list that is). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and an unmanageable list. YechielMan 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable original research. JIP | Talk 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the case for this article, but it is currently unsourced. The only way we could have a list like this is if a good secondary source discussed the correllations. Tarinth 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the idea has merit. Could be better organized and or written perhaps. Tuttt 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just looked over this article again, and I think some contributers were confused as to its intention. Many films are/were listed just because they happened to have similar surface content (ie probably a coincidence), but the article should only be listing films that were made seemingly to compete with eachother (Deep Impact, Armageddon) or capitalize on a trend (Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, eXistense). Perhaps it should be retitled/repurposed (again), maybe to "List of films made to compete with eachother", which would be notable and would be much less subjective (and printed reviews could probably be used as sources). --Asriel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Used the wrong signature code first time)[reply]
Delete An unmanagable, subjective list of non-notable information stemming entirely from original research.--Nick Y. 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia at its worst. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pushing personal theories about relationship of two movies: original research. --maclean 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea has merit and I keep running into articles in the mainstream press that mention this phenomenon. Some of them contain suspiciously similar examples to this very list. I think it would be more productive to come up with more specific objective characteristics for what this list should and shouldn't contain, rather than deleting the whole thing. Ravy 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Criteria are relatively clear, and it's a phenomenon that's reported on in the mainstream media. Could be a little better sourced, but these are not just a bunch of coincidences. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still maintain this list is arbitrary and unmaintainable. We have a vague definition of "similar release dates" which would, at best, be arbitrarily decided by the community as some form of consensus-driven original research- even then, we're still left with the whole principle of drawing a line somewhere- are movies considered similar release dates if they're in the same year? Two years? Five? How about ten? If we were to eliminate the date criteria, we'd simply be left with "lists of films with similar themes/plots/whatever", which could be indefinite and unmaintainable seeing as any critic could compare any two movies and declare them similar. This leaves out that there's a question of how similar two movies must be, whether through plot, actors, score, theme, etc. This whole article seems to hinge on an undefined concept of "similarity". I completely agree that it's a phenomenon noted in the press through common ripoffs and movies riding trends, but I don't think it can be made into an article because it's essentially a collection of "Hey, these two things are sort of alike according to so-and-so" --Wafulz 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still maintain that this is a phenomenon that is widely reported on in the media. Have a look at this: [21]. I think it would be easy to find consensus that a year would be an appropriate cutoff for this phenomenon, and that we should make it clear in the comments of this article that people should not add their own original research, but should only add verified, notable similar films with similar themes and similar release dates. Cas510 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be easy to assert that? Would we be allowed to create articles for two years or more? This opens the door to all sorts of slippery slope arguments and bad precedents. --Wafulz 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying it would likely be easy to find consensus, if we tried. All of the copycat movie articles I've read, and all the typical examples (Bug'sLife/Antz, Capote/Infamous, TrumanShow/EdTV) are very close in release dates, usually under a year. Movies take about a year or less to make; for two movies that are very similar to come to fruition within a year is notable. I'm going to keep trying to improve this article during this AfD, adding references, removing OR, and trying to find consensus on the talk page about what the list definitively is for. I thank you for bringing this article to mine (and others) attention. Cas510 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Like people have said above, the idea has merit, unsourced things should be put on probation for a fortnight and then removed though I believe. If you can't find sources for the facts given then delete the fact, not the article. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding sources, I just added about 10 source links to the article in as many minutes. All I did was Google the two movie titles together and always found articles discussing or at least mentioning the similarities. Shouldn't be too hard to source every movie listed in the article, and any movie where a source can't be found can be removed. --Asriel 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well researched and good to read. Thank you bringing it to my attention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Now that somebody has gone through and diligently sourced this, there's no grounds for calling it original research any more. As for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory this article does not fit. It is a common phenomenon, as demonstrated by the size of the now-sourced list. The improvement has negated the original grounds for deletion.--JayHenry 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being well sourced does not make it not original research. This is a common misunderstanding. It simply makes it good original research. All good OR is well sourced but reaches novel conclusions. The conclusions reached here are either novel or so specific and a nearly verbatim recounting or someone else's work as to be inappropriate for wikipedia.--Nick Y. 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not following the above argument at all, its an oxymoronic argument. Its saying the article is either OR or stealing someone else's words, which is it? It can't be both.

Delete for reasons listed above. Classifications, to be valid, ought to have bright lines around them, not 'this-is-funny' lines. This list is mildly amusing, but it belongs somewhere else, not Wikipedia. Bigturtle 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To take the first entry, no unsourced claims in "Hoodwinked (2006) and Happily N'Ever After (2007) are both computer-animated films that send up fairy tales. Both also happen to feature Patrick Warburton and Andy Dick.". (The claims are sourced in the articles on each film.) The addendum, "The Shrek series also bears a notable resemblence to Happily N'Ever After." is vague (and weasel wordy), but that's easily fixable, and not a reason for deletion. Looking at the rest of the list, I similarly see very few unsourced claims. — Kwi | Talk 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the information is verifiable is not the only criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. This article is a thesis that uses multiple sources to reach novel conclusion never before reached. OR just well written and supported and compelling OR such that it could be a chapter for a PH.D. in comparative filmology. It would never pass the thesis committee without good sources, but that is not how we judge articles here. At wikipedia they must be verifiable and not novel, otherwise it belong elsewhere like a novel or a thesis.--Nick Y. 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never before reached? But those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. Have a look at the Washington Post article in the references at the bottom of the article. Cas510 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the question of why we should be mirroring a critic's sentiment just because it fits very arbitrarily selected criteria (ie released within one year). --Wafulz 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. They have never been compiled before. We should change the name of the article to List of films noted by film critics as having similar themes and release dates.--Nick Y. 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "reported on in the mainstream media." as noted earlier.--Connection 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR — Ultor_Solis • T 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGnrlotto 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inconsistent and sometimes very POV comparisons Jooaakim 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the point of continually resubmitting fter a keep decision? The is not OR Encyclopedia articles are made by compiling other sources. DGG 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One resubmition is hardly "repeatedly". The reason I submitted this is because it is a magnet for OR and I believe it is arbitrary and not entirely encyclopedic. You have every right to disagree, but there's no reason to use hyperbole. --Wafulz 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research with no way to ever rise above that flaw. Yes, its an interesting idea, but that does not make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. Let the author publish this essay somewhere else, Wikipedia is not the proper forum. TheMindsEye 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely encyclopedic, shows trends in film. - Troy 18:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But comparisons still unsourced should (soon) get removed... highlunder 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to Wafulz for directing me here. I think the compromise is better than deletion. I'll let y'all work out the details. YechielMan 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromise

This discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus. Since I (and many others) really dislike the article in its current state, I say we compromise:

Rename and restructure to List of trends in cinema, or something similar. This eliminates the criteria of "similar" themes and release dates. These trends will cover things like the current trend with penguins in movies, Bond ripoffs, etc. Of course, trends need to be cited (which is pretty easy to do in most cases). These trends are far more significant than "movie x looks like movie y" and they are noted for historical importance by many critics and film historians.
Provide some examples. Trends obviously exist, so what we could do is have a small selection of, say, two or three films (cited, of course) which are the best examples of such trends. I think something like "This movie started the trend, this movie capitalize, and so did this one" or something like that.

I'm sure other details can be hased out on the talk page. I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this. --Wafulz 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good topic for an article, perhaps "Trends in Cinema" with an appended list. I'd suggest you do it regardless of the outcome here. Not the same as the list here tho, as this deals with specific pairs. Re-examining the list, I think its present state is quite respectable, with good annotations on all items. Meets the guidelines in WP:LIST, and the standards seem to be applied fairly rigorously. Very few red links. It may attract spam, but spam can be removed. DGG 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (and a few others) disagree about it meeting WP:LIST because of somewhat vague criteria- I believe that the list of movies following trends would be much better suited and much less arbitrary. --Wafulz 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia always had the policy that when in doubt about an article, don't delete it. If the criteria are vague and there is no consensus if this article meets those criteria, there is doubt, so no deletion. The sourcing of the article has improved dramatically since it was nominated (from 0 to 36), and the few I checked indeed supported a link between the movies they were supposed to deal with. A better introduction to the article would be wanted though. Concerns about POV and "really disliking the article" are no reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that wikipedia is not a democracy and there have been plenty of well reasoned valid points made for deletion, so don't count on your no consensus wash.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax please, I was asked on my talk page to comment on this proposal. I do not count on anything, nor do I have affection for this particular article. My only concern with is was sourcing (as I already stated on the 3rd of January) and this has been largely solved. If an administrator decides to delete, then that is his call. The one "counting" on no consensus was Wafulz, who writes above "this discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus", and apparently disliking that potential outcome he states "I (and many others) really dislike the article" as an argument to plea for essentially removing this article and replacing it with List of trends in cinema, an article he has all the right in the world to write anyway (regardless of the outcome here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, "don't like" means "don't believe it meets Wikipedia policies", as many have stated above. I'm just clarifying that I'm not using WP:ILIKEIT. I would prefer to have a compromise where we can decide to keep an article rather than to have no consensus with what many believe is not an appropriate article. --Wafulz 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has some potential and credibility if implemented properly as a history article and not particularly as a list. I think the similar theme and date issue could be covered within such an article without the issue of being an exhaustive subjective list. Examples noted by critics could be cited without the issue of original research that we have here. With that said I still object and vote delete regarding this article as an unmanageable subjective list containing original research. I applaud your sensible suggestion and encourage others to see the value of converting this into an encyclopedic article.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, in fact if there isn't an article about cinematic trends over the years there definitely should be. However, the thing I like about this article as-is is how it insinuates a level of subtrifuge on behalf of the movie studios. That many movies are made with the blatent intention of taking the audience from--, hoping to be confused with--, or attempting to be compared to-- another movie. This seems to be a separate (more conscious) movement from a trend.

I suppose the problem with that is that there's no clear way to source whether a movie was in fact just conforming to a trend or trying to mimic another movie. In fact, if you asked anybody point-blank if their movie (say, AntZ) was meant to copycat or compete with another movie (say, A Bug's Life) they would probably say no, even if they had. I guess that makes it impossible to make the distinction between trendiness and a knockoff, so a list of cinema trends would be a fine compromise.

The only question would then be, do we format it the same as the current article by date and list "2000s': Penguin Movie trend: Happy Feet and Surf Penguin Or Whatever It's Called" etc, or do we sort it by trend. "Penguin Movie Trend: Happy Feet and The Other One (CGI Penguin movies) seemed to follow the popularity of the award winning March of The Penguins."

--Asriel

Support the superb suggestion made by Wafulz above. Bigturtle 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal but still delete the article, I rather like Wafulz's proposal here. My main concern (after the OR and verifiability bit) was the notability of these comparisions, especially in light of the plethora of sources. Sure, someone decided to compare two movies in some reliable source, but is the comparison notable? I can't imagine every single one listed could be notable enough to include on Wikipedia. With Wafulz's proposal, some criterion for inclusion seems inherent in that the movie must have started a trend, rather than simply an isolated and possibly coincidental similarity. In this way, the article becomes much less indiscriminate than the current article as well. Axem Titanium 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal, but let's work on this some more. Wafulz's suggestion is a good start, but let's keep talking before we put anything to a vote. These are not "trends in cinema", which is pretty vague (CGI is a trend. Jump cuts are a trend. Science fiction was a trend in the late 1970s, and adventure in the early 1980s. Film noir was a trend, if not a movement). What we're talking about is the fact that studios often go head-to-head (or close to it) with two, or occasionally more, similar films. I agree that the reason for why this is so is often unclear, from great-minds-thinking-alike to copycatting to coincidence; and I also agree there's no reason for us to decide why this was, either. But "trend" is just too unclear for me. I still think a variation on the present title would be a little more apt, i.e., List of films with similar topics released within a short time of each other. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. One argument for deletion mentioned by many above is the vaguely defined scope of the current list. A list of trends in films, while perhaps not a bad topic for an article per se, would be even more vague, and would almost certainly have to exclude items on the current list. The fact that "Turner & Hooch (1989) and K-9 (1989) are both movies where a police officer gets a dog for a partner" is not notable as a trend on its own, but is probably notable as an example of the specific trend of films with similar themes and release dates. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include this information (yes, I realize that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). On the other hand, a list of trends in films would be able to focus on the larger picture, which is obviously also important. For instance, inclusion of Flushed Away and Ratatouille on the current list may not be justified, just because they are computer animated films from 2006/07 with rat protagonists. However, a list of trends could accomodate the fact that DreamWorks and Disney have their own "trend" of releasing films with similarities (Antz/A Bug's Life, Shark Tale/Finding Nemo, Madagascar/The Wild, Flushed Away/Ratatouille). — Kwi | Talk 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: as Kwi said, movies that bear an uncanny resemblance are often put out at the same time, and that is phenomenon notable. All the arguments about POV and OR will mean nothing when this is properly sourced, and the lack of sources is not a reason to delete an article. --Daniel Olsen 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Daniel Olsen; he said it so well, and I won't bother to repeat it.
You're more than welcome to enact your proposal, but let's get rid of this indiscriminate listcruft first. MER-C 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With respect to film, this is as important an article as any. To be honest, I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed before now. I agree with ProhibitOnions (and others) that what you're proposing is not about trends in cinema per se. However, I disagree with his/her suggested name change. A better title would be "competitive implementations of thematic devices in cinema," or something to that effect. Also, when you limit it to similar films that were released a short time apart from one another (i.e., The Time Machine / The Butterfly Effect), you are effectively ignoring longstanding patterns of competitive pseudo-plagiarism. An angle worth exploring would be studios' years-long infatuation with releasing cookie-cutter blockbusters: alien movies, disaster flicks, superhero films, mobster films, spy films, neo-noir, the whole gamut. This phenomenon has as much relevance to the matter at hand as any two similar films released in practical simultaneity, and in fact would serve to establish a broader framework for a more thorough investigation. Best of luck to you. TrevorPearce 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the keep votes such as you don't understnad that the delete votes don't think that the subject of competition in the movie industry by closely mirroring the themes of other studios is not real or notable or worthy of an article. It is simply that this article as it currently stands is not appropriate for wikipedia. It is an exhuastive subjective list. If an article was written to explain and demonstrate this phenomenon without caliming to list every example tehn this would probably be all keep votes.--Nick Y. 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Nick Y., that's precisely the reason many of us are arguing to keep the article. If even you believe that it's a worthy topic for an article, how about helping improve it, suggest guidelines that you find suitable (or at least give people some time to get it up to shape) before chucking the whole thing out the window. The solution for a topic worthy of an article with problems is improvement, not deletion.--JayHenry 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe what Nick is trying to say is that this article is inappropriate, but a different incarnation of it with better, more encyclopedic criteria would be good. --Wafulz 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this list works fine, but within the context of a more complete article. I suggest it be kept and improved. It needs a larger introductory statement, with referecnes relating to the practice of "borrowing" ideas over the history of cinema. Begin with genres of film that obviously mimic or were inspired by another. Spaghetti westerns and samurai films, for instance, or Brian DePalma's Hitchcock infatuation early in his career, both of which are well-documented. One doesn't need to be a film historian to see that this kind of thing has gone on for a very long time. A lot of these references are solid, and it'd be a shame to let the research go to waste. The appropriate call is to enhance the article with more history, and to pinpoint objective relationships between sets of films. If the release dates of two films were very close together, one could easily reason that a studio got word of another's idea, but it is important to be able to substantiate the claim with either hard evidence, the opinions of several journalists, film critics, or industry insiders, or an overwhelming public belief in the existence of such a connection. Look up pre-production dates and cite IMDB and other sources for things like scheduled release dates versus actual ones. If you could show that film X was rushed through production to compete with film Y, it wouldn't hurt. TrevorPearce 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychedelic trance artists

Unmanageable list of psychedelic/trance music artists. Probably better served by a category.Dennisthe2 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's an indiscriminate list, way too long and unsourced to be manageable. I'm seeing non-psytrance artists on the list, too, which makes me wonder about the list's accuracy. -/- Warren 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources justifying the entries, the list is useless. The inclusion criteria are not well-defined. Most of the entries aren't even notable enough to warrant their own articles. Nick Graves 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Wolfram and Hart. Robdurbar 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The White Room (Buffyverse)

*Delete fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of rooms in a tv show KnightLago 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolfram and Hart instead ~~per FrozenPurpleCube~~ per Otto4711. KnightLago 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whataya mean, "per FrozenPurpleCube"? It was my idea! Otto4711 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cruft. - Aagtbdfoua 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as a notable location in multiple episodes of Angel. Otto4711 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Merge to Wolfram and Hart per Otto4711 below. Otto4711 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Angel (TV series) unless multiple non-trivial third party sources can be found - Wikipedia Guidlines, WP:CITE WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY are very clear on what is required for an article. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present state, I see nothing that can explain its notability. MaxSem 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fancruft. WP:WTH applies. MER-C 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Angel (TV series)#Setting. Google books shows some sources that an enterprising editor may wish to use, and the editors may want to think about creating a page for the settings of Angel. However, at this point, there isn't enough material to justify a separate page. See WP:Article series: "Don't split a medium length article into a series of stubs unless more information can be added, and the sub articles become a reasonable length." TheronJ 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think merging to Wolfram and Hart or Senior Partners would also be fine, but in any case, merge. TheronJ 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if it's merged anywhere it should probably be to Wolfram and Hart. The setting section is not about specific locales within the series. The White Room is accessed through the Wolfram and Hart office building so that's the more logical place. Otto4711 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Delete~~ Merge to Main Buffy Article Non-notable fancruft. and ~~delete~~ merge Wolfram and Hart while we are at it.--Nick Y. 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone would suggest deleting an article on the major antagonist of a notable series leads me to discount that person's opinion completely. Otto4711 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why either of these need their own article. It should be covered in the main article. I understand some sub articles such as for a list of episodes or I might even give you a list of characters; however I am of the (sane and thoughtful) opinion that not every fictional entity and room in a notable show is necessarily notable independently of the show. There are many characters or entities that are, such as Darth Vader, Mario, Willy Wonka, Guy Montag or Mordor because they have entered into main stream popular culture. These article deal with subjects that are exclusively for fans and are not in common use outside of the fan base. Please give me an example of use of "The white room" or "Wolfram and Hart" in a context not having directly to do with the show and I will change my mind. Fictional characters and organizations can be culturally and historically significant these two are not. The show is, although not in a major way.--Nick Y. 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Used in a context not having directly to do with the show" is not the standard for includion in Wikipedia. Also, it's pretty clear that you have little understanding of the topic (since you're suggesting merging W&H to the Buffy article when W&H never figured in that series) so with all due respect your opinion isn't one that I hope anyone takes for guidance in this matter. Otto4711 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles must assert and support notability. The first line of WP:N is "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other."--Nick Y. 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that you've read WP:N. That means you won't ever throw out lines like "find me a use not having to do directly with the show" again since that's not at all the standard. Otto4711 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that I do not believe that "The White Room" or "Wolfram and Hart" have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. They do not appear as subjects of articles and certainly not independently of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the marketing engine behind the show. While buffy the vampire slayer is notable, these are not as independent subjects. Darth Vader is notable on it's own despite being a character within a movie. There are thousand or jokes, stories, allusions to etc. regarding Darth Vader that meets this criteria. I recognize that you may disagree but my position is not ridiculous or ill informed.--Nick Y. 07:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolfram and Hart. And if anybody wants it deleted, please explain why a major feature through out 5 seasons of a television series including being the focus of the last season should be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolfram and Hart. This location does not need its own article since it had much less screen-time than the other Buffyverse locations with their own articles. - Buffyverse 04:44, 6 January 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. NawlinWiki 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Days

Minor webcomic. I couldn't find any reliable sources. No Alexa rank. and no reliable sources found by Google links or a fine-tuned Google search to exclude the term "walking dead days". The article is not verifiable and does nto meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be shown through verifiable sources. Heimstern Läufer 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Axem Titanium 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Pascal.Tesson 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cat

Probable non notable underground comic. Couldn't turn up much on Google, but there's nothing really clear cut on comix. Dennisthe2 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it can be hard to guage notability for this sort of thing, but it does appear to have been carried in a number of newspapers/magazines. Here is an article about an exhibit by the artist where the comic is referred to as "infamous". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I've seen this comic in a number of newspapers. Should easily pass WP:N. —Psychonaut 12:23, 4 January 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.