Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 14 July 16 >

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 with some strong keep arguments - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism

Non-noticeable. Intangible 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic totalitarianism
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism_(2nd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism_(3rd_nomination)
Comment. It being discussed on DRV does not mean that this nomination here is "out of process." Intangible 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Intangible! Well we're discussing the deletion of the article here. The process wasn't follow, and there is no reason to have a debate on the necessity to have a debate on the deletion of the article: the debate is if we'll have it deleted or not. Tazmaniacs 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be having two discussions on two different deletion pages concerning the same article. Close out the DRV discussion and then nominate for deletion. --JJay 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term never gained currency in the literature - it does not appear in the Citation Index. You can't keep an article on a term obliquely mentioned (and not even defined!) once in a book Dr Zak 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, redirect to Economics of fascism. The term unfortunately is thrown around in the blogosphere by libertarians such as DiLorenzo, who compare government intervantion with the Fascist regimes of the 1930s. That article has a few paragraphs on Libertarian views; redirecting this will prevent the article from becoming an attraction for trolls and malcontents. Dr Zak 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that totalitarianism comprises both fascist and communist regimes, so it's not clear why this should redirect to only one variety. Redirecting to totalitarianism might make more sense, if there is actually something like a serious attempt at a definition that somehow bridges the gap between the two which we could then add to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Friedman. This neologism is not notable and was used once. It has no heuristic intent but only an ideological one, and recovers no historical or political reality. It ignores the importance of corporatism, autarky and militarism (notably the arms-race in the 1930's and agressive policies followed by fascist states) in totalitarianism, and is a deviation of the already problematic (but certainly notable and scholarly) concept of totalitarianism, which is, by definition, both "political" and "economic". Furthermore, although attention has been brought to the article by the preceding AfD nominations, the case was closed without justification (or rather, an erroneous "copyvio" change), and nobody has improved the article other than making it a quote of Friedman. The reason is simple: there is nothing to back this uninteresting concept. Tazmaniacs 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as noted before. 90 Google Books hits show a lot of room for expansion. This keep refers to the non-disambig version, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggestion :
  1. Dictionary definition, and/or overview of the different definitions used or implied
  2. First appearance/origins of the word + later uses, with or without quotes
  3. Overview of the various arguments why or why not the notion "economic totalitarianism" makes sense, the value of the word in economical and political theory
--LucVerhelst 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On 1. We don't have any definitions yet. Neither Friedman nor DiLorenzo provide definitions.
On 2. According to my research: "Even more important, the changing climate of American culture is increasingly the threat of some form of totalitarian control which make the existence of privately-controlled education extremely precarious. And the growth of this economic totalitariansim with its political concomitants makes the work of racial advancement both more difficult and more necessary." -- The Impact of the War Upon Privately-Controlled Colleges and Universities for Negroes, Buell G. Gallagher, The Journal of Negro Education > Vol. 11, No. 3, Negro Higher Education in the War and Post-War Reconstruction (Jul., 1942), pp. 346-358. Also no definition.
On 3. Absent sources, WP:OR Value of the term in pol econ = 0, as amply discussed. ~ trialsanderrors 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you claim that the value = 0 if you have no sources to verify that claim ?
- Please don't look at the article purely from a (political) economist's view.
--LucVerhelst 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look below you'll notice I've done rather extensive research on the term. For any term we consider encyclopedic, we should be able to establish the following: 1. provenance, 2. a trajectory of usage starting from the original, 3. a commonly understood formal or informal definition. See conspicuous consumption, creative destruction, or irrational exuberance (finance) for typical examples of popular terms that have an economic origin (and not to forget, the Dismal science). "Economic totalitarianism" has been used on a smattering of (disjointed) occasions by a number of people, but there is no evidence that any usage actually caught on to the point that if we say "economic totalitarianism" we mean it in the way Friedman or Gallagher have used it. I'm by no means opposed to putting popular economic terms into Wikipedia, but I'm opposed to putting paleoprotologisms here that have no definition, no agreed-upon meaning and no history of usage to speak of. ~ trialsanderrors 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid argument. On the other side, if I were to read Friedman and encounter the term, I might look it up on Wikipedia. It would be nice if I then would find your above argument, that although the term is being used, it has no real commonly accepted definition or meaning. This would help me in putting the hypothetical Friedman text in perspective. --LucVerhelst 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research, namely mine. ~ trialsanderrors 11:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is irrelevant. The 90 books might all have a different definition of "economic totalitarianism." Which one should Wikipedia editors pick? Intangible 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely relevant. If they have different definitions, it makes for even more expansion possibilities. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not relevant because the article uses the term as used by Milton Friedman (who nowhere defines it). Intangible 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's fix it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google is not a substitute for library research. See WP:RS. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the use of the term in dozens of books isn't good enough? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you're not able to give the term a conceptual content, i.e. a meaning. See Trial and errors' comment scrolling down. Tazmaniacs 18:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also zero hits in sciencedirect.com. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe User:Tazmaniacs is saying something different, but I could be wrong. Intangible 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, you are absolutely right. But in saying something different, he provided arguments that can be used pro keeping the article. That shouldn't be a problem, should it ? --LucVerhelst 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course it differs from "'plain' totalitarianism". The problem is that scholars already have a not-so-easy time to define properly totalitarianism (which circumstances of invention shouldn't be forgetted), and that "economic totalitarianism" is only a polemic, pejorative word which has no conceptual contents (i.e. it doesn't means anything). Tazmaniacs 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tazmaniacs and Intangible. Dionyseus 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough book references to expand this article greatly. If anyone really wants this article saved, they would only have to go to amazon.com and use the search inside method to obtain more citations for free. Get to work because this only lasts for 5 days. Zos 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This Google search comes up with 227 unique hits, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. Looking through those, it seems that the phrase is mostly used as some sort of slogan/bugbear/rallying cry in the blogosphere. I see no way to expand the article; if you do please let us know. Dr Zak 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just did! My vote for keeping it is for expansion. It appears to me that it is in fact notable and appears in many books. If the contributors to the article are lazy and do not wish to make it WP:V then this is of no concern to me. Zos 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. : "there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler". Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "Economic Fascism", The Freeman, 1994. [1]. ---- + google books hits + a bunch of hits at google scholar [2], i.e. ample material for an article. --JJay 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you're going to base an article concerning political sciences on quotes you find Googling, I really wonder why we pay teachers to teach political sciences and analysts to observe and conceptualize politics? I mean, why bother reading books when you can describe a concept which is apparently related to totalitarianism (in appearance only, IMO), on which thousands of pages have been written? If no one has any real knowledge of this concept, I don't think just Googling in quotes to "write an article" is a really serious solution. I do understand, however, that this provides some leisure time. But isn't leisure time best satisfied by simply reading and withstanding from contributing to a subject which only way of approach is "Googling it through"? Tazmaniacs 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Di Lorenzo's provided link seems to equate "economic totalitarianism" with "economic fascism" and thus validates Dr. Zak's proposal to redirect it to Economic policies of fascism. Tazmaniacs 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to Taz: Theres a difference between amazon's search inside and ghits. The former can be used just like anyone else uses a book to make statements within an article while the later is test in notability. Search inside is an electronic representation of pages concerning the search. With this method, you can easily source a whole article as long as its notable. You might have noticed that I specifically stated "Amazon.com" and not "google", or you might think they or one in the same. Either way, the article can be expanded once a serious contributor wishes to take the time to expand. Zos 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight per sheer dearth of currency inside or outside the academic community. Zero hits in ScienceDirect (including numerous economics handbooks) and a total 7 of JSTOR article hits over sixty years, all completely unrelated to each other, and none in economics journals, none citing Friedman, show this term never gained a foothold in the academic debate. 120 total (65 unique) Google book hits is far too small to give a term encyclopedic billing. Economic engine gets 2770 hits, economic prowess: 1010 hits, economic wisdom: 2160 hits, economic literacy: 1220 hits, economic necessity: 26,200 hits, economic decline: 34,800 hits. Even economic symbolism, a completely meaningless term, gets 71 hits. I could go on and on. Just string two words together, "economic" and "something", and you're bound to get a couple hits. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a lot of articles we could be making, in my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about creating a economic something then? Tazmaniacs 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about economic fish [3], economic tree [4] or economic cloud [5] ? ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel we'd be better served with individual articles, including this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder if it's worth keeping a separate article for the ill-defined term. The situation feels somehow similar to Brown's gas. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric hydrogen-oxygen mixture prepared through water electrolysis under certain conditions. Supposedly it gives more heat than expected, the extra energy usually being derived from the electrodes breaking up during preparation of the mixture. It's a favorite of the "free-energy crowd". Once can either track down the history of the idea in its incarnations, attempting to write an impartial account at Brown's gas on what is a fringe subject and trying to keep the article free of trolls, kooks, pseudoscientists and shady salesmen. The alternative would be to add a few paragraphs to the article on, say hydrogen or oxyhydrogen to keep a balanced view of the subject matter and keep the article policed by people who know what they are talking about. (After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen I was thinking of writing a balanced history of the idea but then decided against it, it's an ephemeral subject.). Economic totalitarianism is certainly ill-defined (neither Friedman nor DiLorenzo attempt a definition) and a favorite of blogging wingnuts. Putting DiLorenzo's ideas into context with genuine, bona-fide uppercase Fascist economic practice of the 1930s seems the more sensible solution. Dr Zak 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • DiLorenzo's "definition" is worthless. It's not even in a peer-reviewed article so that we could track citations. Discounting mirrors I get 12 unique hits for his definition, mostly blogs. The Von Mises Institute doesn't consider it worthy of indexing.[6] It's an idée fixe semi-popular among a couple of partisan bloggers, which is even more reason why we shouldn't include it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't arguing to keep this, rather this should be deleted. What I was trying to say is this: if the article turns out to be kept at the insistence of people a redirect is the lesser of two evils. Dr Zak 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The term is a neologism. Any random passage from a book by a famous author is not necessarily encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I tried something new. ~ trialsanderrors 10:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per 172. 72.139.119.165 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as apparent hoax - the first complaint about it being unreachable was on the same day the article was created. DS 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawmohammed

Not particularly notable and now seemingly dead site. The site was supposedly "hacked" sometime before 23:34, 27 June 2006 but as of today (18 days later) it is still in a "hacked" state? I'm beginning to be inclined to think "hoaxed" state would be a more accurate description. With the exception of one screenshot mention in an Urdu language BBC blog, the site appears to have never garnered much directly pertinent notoriety. (→Netscott) 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy close - wait until Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_12#Economic_totalitarianism is finished. No point in discussing this in more than one place. Dr Zak 13:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism

Non-noticeable. Intangible 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedily deleted ((CSD A7 (non-notable group))). Alphachimp talk 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glyda

Fails WP:MUSIC. (Contested prod). Their albums are not listed on Amazon [7]. The JPStalk to me 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


<extreme personal attack rant removed from here as well - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>--Repmart 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: two questions for Repmart:
    • Which record label are Glyda's album and EPs published by? Or are they self-published?
    • Are Glyda currently active? I couldn't tell from their website, most recent release seemed to be 2001? —Stormie 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What someone does on ebay has no relevance here. What you think of him/her has no relevance here. What would be relevant would be specific citations to demonstrate this band's notability. If they're not available on amazon (which sells just about everyone's albums, if they're released commercially) and not listed on allmusic, you've got an uphill battle. (BTW, dating Kate Moss doesn't make your band notable. Selling albums makes them notable.) Fan-1967 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<personal attack removed from here, too - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>.--Repmart 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Forget JPS. Let me repeat: JPS does not matter to the discussion. What matters is the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Read them and explain how Glyda meets those criteria. Because it sure doesn't look like it. Fan-1967 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following three postings were deleted in the recent vandalism. -- H·G (words/works) 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On a note to Repmart, having reviewed your contributions, it looks like most of your work here has been on Jeremy Clarkson, this article, and another for a musician in this article's subject band. If an editor finds a band page that he feels doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, it's not uncommon or uncalled-for for any pages on the band's individual musicians to be considered as well. Please don't take this personally, this is a common occurence. I also encourage you to review WP guidelines on civility and etiquette, as your comment and accusations have been of a highly personal nature. -- H·G (words/works) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed rant from blocked user. -- H·G (words/works) 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable band. Fabricationary 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Due to the repeated vandalism of this page by User:Repmart and his various sock puppets, I have sprotected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tramper Price

Fails WP:MUSIC. (Contested PROD). No results on Amazon so has not released an album under his own name on a major label. Google test poor. The claim to notability ("the son of...") is rather weak. The JPStalk to me 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


<extreme personal attack rant removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)>--Repmart 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup, spent some more time trying to find info on this subject on Google and elsewhere. Like his band, there is no presence on allmusic, and Google yielded exactly 48 unique hits for "tramper price." Classic non-notable artist. -- H·G (words/works) 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked user's rant removed -- H·G (words/works) 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Due to the repeated vandalism of this page by User:Repmart and his various sock puppets, I have sprotected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Huh

I tried a db-bio, but it was changed to a prod with a by Xaosflux without explanation. That was replaced by 24.205.26.151 without comment or further edits.

This article is apparently WP:VANITY and a not-notable WP:BIO. There are a few claims to notability, but none of them check out as true. (eg, people 50's most beautiful; she's not on the list).

I guess the bottom line, then, is that it is WP:HOAX. Mikeblas 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharath Sury

Non-notable vanity bio; only 65 Google hits; autobiography. Mark998 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan J. Stegeman

The article contains almost no content and no context in which to place that content. Additionally, the edit history does not give the impression that the article will be improved. A single user has added all of the content to the page, and appears to be an account set up for advertising purposes as the user name is identical to the name of the website the page links to. Dekkanar 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. Mostly Rainy 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Hindu Identity

The scope of the article totally duplicates the Hinduism in the United Kingdom article (part of the "Hinduism by country" series), and advances original research POV arguments about the use of the "British Asian" ethnic label which would fit much better inside the British Asian article. If that weren't enough, the article also makes sweeping one-sided POV arguments (backed up by cherry-picked blog comments and unrelated news stories). Anirvan 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a controversial and unpleasant subject. But that should not mean it should not be addressed in Wikipedia. I believe that it is a significant issue. I request you to read the references before making a decision.
One would think that Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis, who once shared a common history, and are from a region that was once just one country, would be very similar. However the Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis in UK have developed into very distinct communities, with different lifestyles and outlooks.
The data on employment and education is from UK government sources. These are very singificant measures. I am sorry, there is no gentler way to do the comparision. They do bring out the differences using concrete numbers.
Those of you who have followed the news from UK, and the riots involving the "Asian" youth may have noted that that the Hindu Indians were not among the rioting youth, but rather on the other side. In one case the "Asians" burned the cars of the Hindus. I request you to please do read the articles on the riots in UK, before judging the article to be "pov".


Should Indians in UK continue calling themselves "Asian"? Many don't think so. They resent not having a distinct identity. They were not among the "Asian" rioter. They have nothing to do with the "Londonistan". The article addresses this issue. If you think this deserves to be discussed, please vote Keep'.--ISKapoor 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment The articles Hinduism in the United Kingdom is intended to be a quick overview, it is intended to be informative, as are Islam in the United Kingdom and British Asian. The article UK Hindu Identity is about a controversy, which needs full explanation.
Question: Ambuj, can you suggest how it could have been "neutral"?--ISKapoor 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UK Hindus are now a completely different community from UK Pakistanis/Bangaldeshis. UK Government statistics show that the separation is now very wide. The article should be expanded to explore how people from the same subcontinent can diverge so much. --Coffeesuds 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anirvan, I am sorry to say this. You are very eloquent. You are very good. But what you are trying to do is get significant facts eliminated from Wikipedia when they don't match your perspective.--ISKapoor 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the deletion proposal

Anirvan, in his proposal for deletion writes: "The article also makes sweeping one-sided POV arguments". He also stated at Talk:UK Hindu Identity "The article can be summarized in a line: "British Hindus are smart, wealthy, and good-looking, and hate being associated with evil Pakistani and Bangladeshi riot-causing terrorist-loving Muslims." It's racist, essentializing, full of unlabeled POV, and consists almost entirely of original research."
I take strong exception to this. I did not write anything about Hindus being good-looking. As for the race, the Muslims of the subcontinent belong to the same race as Indians; in most cases they have risen from the same castes and tribes as Hindus.
I don't think I need to defend what the UK government studies directly say about education and unemployment. However let me mention about two things that many apparently may find offending and POV.
Involvement in "Asian riots": Let me say this again, and you can check it yourself by looking at reports in British publications. Yes, it is absolutely true that in recent riots Oldham Riots, Bradford Riot and the like, the Asians involved in the violence were Pakistani/Bangladeshi, and not Indian. In the Bradfort Riot, the "Asian youths" burned cars belonging to Hindus and whites, and a Hindu's Chemist shop was looted by "Asian youths" [8].
About the militancy: It should be acknowledged that many among the Pakistanis/Bangladeshi communities in UK have tolerated Islamic militancy. It is no accident (and it is not a secret) that a number of notable participants and supporters of militancy, with activities spanning countries outside UK (including India and Pakistan), have come from the UK Pakistanis/Bangladeshi community. Even now, about 15% of them consider the underground bombers to be "martyers". I am sorry to bring this out, but it makes them and UK Indians very, very different. If it is not permissible to mention that on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is not what I, and many others think it is; and I, and many others, should not be wasting their time on Wikipedia.--ISKapoor 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with this article - mostly because of the fact that it is not NPOV. For example, it generalises by using statistics about British Indians and applying them to Hindus only. True, Indians do far better than other South Asians in the United Kingdom when it comes to money and education, but Indians are not a homogeneous group. Indians comprise of roughly 45% Hindus, 35% Sikhs and 15% Muslim. The statistics for Indians cannot be generalised to apply to Hindus alone.
However, the article touches on an important (and a very none-PC point) that is felt by Indians. Indians dislike the moniker "Asian" because the largely inconspicuous Hindu and Sikh groups do not wish to be tarred with the same brush that Muslims have been tarred with. It's a way for Hindus and Sikhs to get away from the "everyone that's Asian is a terrorist supporter" opinion held by some. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sukh, yes you are correct, the Sikhs form a large section of the Indians in UK. That needs to be taken into account. You are right about one of points being very non-PC. I think it is very important and needs to be addressed factually.--ISKapoor 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Asian, and let the POV issues be thrashed out there. I would like to refer editors wondering about the POV of the main contributor to this article to an extract of the above exchange that made me laugh out loud: Anirvan characterised ISKapoor's viewpoint as "British Hindus are smart, wealthy, and good-looking, and hate being associated with evil Pakistani and Bangladeshi riot-causing terrorist-loving Muslims." ISKapoor replies: I take strong exception to this. I did not write anything about Hindus being good-looking. Delightful. Absolutely delightful.Hornplease 06:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mostly Rainy 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bantown

An utterly non-notable group of nerds - sorry, hackers - whose article fails all criteria of WP:BIO, in particular no multiple independent reliable coverage (the sole source is Slashdot, which doesn't meet WP:RS). Damned if I know why, but I tried searching on Factiva, and came up with nothing. I'm sure they get a lot of Google hits, but who cares? Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
  2. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet WP:RS. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. Keep Via strass 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsworthy? Then where are the news articles? Because I searched a database of hundreds of newspapers with tens of thousands of articles, and came up with zilch. As for slashdot, it does not have the fact-checking process required of a secondary source. I think Kotepho summarised it better than I could in the current WP:DRV debate about Eon8. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sam, if I may call you that. Please note if I have added a reference to this article. It's from the online edition of an American newspaper called the Washington Post. Perhaps you could let me know if this would be considered reliable. I didn't add it before because as far as I am concerned Slashdot is a more important news source than what is presumably a local newspaper. HTH. Via strass 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that article is that it says "An established hacker group known as "Bantown" claimed responsibility". Even if it had said that they had carried out a single attack on LiveJournal, that would be very shaky grounds for notability, being only a single event - claiming to carry one out is almost non-existant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam. I would love to know your real reasons for wanting to delete this article. I don't understand your objection to the 'claim of reponsibility'. Perhaps your unaware that hacking Livejournal was an illegal act, and that so far no successful convictions have been brought against the perpetrators. Perhaps you can explain the distinction between claims of reponsibility and actual responsibility implicit in the words "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". The facts remain
  • This article contains multiple references to news reporting of incidents involving Bantown
  • They are not all from one source
  • They do not all refer to a single incident
  • They include well-known and respected sources such as slashdot.org and the Washington Post
Consequently any nomination based on non-notability is abusive. The fact that this AfD nomination is being ballot-stuffed by IP-based users who have no other edits on record is further evidence of this abuse. Via strass 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sam, I have taken the liberty of quoting form Kotepho's comment referenced by you:
  • Can an AFD be closed based on the weight of arguments instead of numbers? The answer is obviously yes, in some cases. I don't think anyone really cares that 'votes' from (sock|meat)puppets and new users are regularly ignored. If 20 people vote keep, but one person points out it is a copyright violation, can it be deleted? If 20 people vote delete because of lack of sources, and one person finds mentions in the NYTimes and Washington Post, can it be kept? I say yes. While this closure is not as clear-cut as these other cases, I do not see it as being egregiously out of line. If they cannot, we should get rid of "NOT a democracy" and move AFD back to VFD. Thus, I do not think arguing this on procedural grounds has much merit. [emphasis mine]

Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --66.92.130.57 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Livejournal attack really so noteworthy. At best, a mention in the Livejournal article, but not a separate article for the supposed culpritsBwithh 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps evidence of police investigation based on formal complaint by Livejournal Bwithh 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol. no successful prosecutions have yet been brought. i have addressed the issue of Bantown's 'claimed' responsibility by adding further information to this article. hth. Via strass 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is notable, and quality of an article is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to improve or re-write. Tobyk777 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The facts remain
    • This article contains multiple references to news reporting of incidents involving Bantown
    • They are not all from one source
    • They do not all refer to a single incident
    • They include well-known and respected sources such as slashdot.org and the Washington Post

Consequently any nomination based on non-notability is abusive. The fact that this AfD nomination is being ballot-stuffed by IP-based users who have no other edits on record is further evidence of this abuse. Via strass 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • There are two reliable sources, and they both refer to a single incident - where Bantown claimed to have hacked LiveJournal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thousands of blogs were defaced and had their emails changed to bantown(wildcard) at mailinator or spam.la. There are still some of the defacements up as well as comment crapfloods from hacked accounts on the relevant news posts. The Slashdot story even has someone comment about how their journal was hijacked. Your argument reeks of logical fallacy and illogical denial of legitimate reporting. Nevertheless, I still think this article should be deleted. --Weevlos 13:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis seems like a perfectly valid and well written article with clear references. Disagreeing with the aims of the hackers or their credibility is no reason to delete the entry, as the events described in the article seem prefectly noteworthy. Green penguin 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain that being known for one hack attack on a blogging site is not that noteworthy. the other IRC freenode attack appears to be totally unconfirmed as to responsibility. Even so, the two attacks would not be particularly noteworthy Bwithh 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a link to a log of Freenode's official comment on the attacks, which includes a Freenode operator making the statement = 20:35:59<@HedgeMage> We are not releasing our suspect list, but we have some reasons to expect that bantown or GNAA may have been involved. Via strass 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is some notability, and two decent sources for the livejournal thing. Sources aren't easy to come by, so it will probably be a permastub. Passes User:Radman1/CUNT in my mind. Kotepho 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such a thing as a "permanent stub". The definition of a stub is that it is a basis for expansion. An article that can never be longer than a few paragraphs without breaking WP:V is just a stillbirth. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has the stubs cabal tried to make up some cannonical definition of a stub? Hell, even if they did I don't care. On topic though, such articles may still be useful or they can be merged somewhere. Since I don't see a particular target, I might as well say keep as there is not a problem that requires deletion currently presented. Kotepho 14:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair,just wanted to note that there seems to be some influx of pro-deletion new users (probably from a rival hacker group or something) which would account for some of the more extreme comments above. On the other hand, it could be cunning reverse psychology by bantown partisans *shrug* Bwithh 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom 67.191.90.151 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am not a bantown member, I am in fact a member of a "rival hacker group or something" called the GNAA. But this is a notable article. Attacking LJ and getting however many accounts IS notable. I'm pretty sure they weren't the ones to crack freenode, though. --Staos 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this a discussion of the ethics or lack of thereof of Bantown and its members, or is it a discussion of whether an encyclopedia should have an article about the group that is beeing refered to in day to day conversations and are certainly noteworthy for their efford in the LJ case and the later Freenode hijack.
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 17:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. There are articles about branches of "alleged" terrorist groups in the middle east. There are four articles sourcing Bantown:
    • McMillan, Robert (January 20, 2006). "LiveJournal makes changes to counteract security threat". InfoWorld.
    • Krebs, Brian (January 20, 2006). "Account Hijackings Force LiveJournal Changes". Security Fix at The Washington Post.
    • "Details of the LiveJournal Account Hacks". Slashdot. Jan 20, 2006.
    • "Freenode Network Hijacked, Passwords Compromised?". Slashdot. Jun 25, 2006.
    • I suspect this deletion is simply because of a morality matter which should have no impact on this. Unless there is a secret Wikipedia morality policy? Wikipedia's role is not to be moral. It's role is to be an encyclopedia. This strongly smells like people who simply don't agree/like the subject of the article wanting to scrub them from the system based on that. Also, I should add, playing a role (based on four published web sources) in forcing a service with 10 million plus accounts to change their systems permanently is noteworthy. There are stubs that no one makes a fuss over for even stupider/weaker things. Deleting this article is inappropriate based on bias by WP editors. NOTE: I have nothing to do with bantown. rootology 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should add, if we're going to start playing games of ethics over what should/shouldn't be in WP, we might as well nominate Al-Qaeda and Pedophilia for deletion. I think even more people find both of those abhorrent than do Bantown. Crusading/POV warrioring etc. by select groups of admins to delete things they don't like must be stopped. rootology 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You illustrate my point quite well. The nomination is not on grounds of abhorrency, it is on grounds of non-notability. Hamas, Al-Qaeda et al have acres of news coverage from reliable sources dedicated to them - paedophilia ditto, plus numerous academic studies into its causes, its effect on children and why Americans can't spell or pronounce it correctly. Hence, we can write a comprehensive article on them while sticking to that which is verifiable. Bantown has, so far, two reliable sources with no more forthcoming, none of which provide a claim to notability (well, they claim that they hacked LiveJournal and FreeNode... so basically, they claim that they have a claim... rock on). Plus the usual post office gossip from the global village. I dunno, I just think there's not much of a comparison between prosecuting a global jihad by launching hundreds of rockets against Isreal, and t07a11y f1gh71ng t3h p0w3r d00d by annoying a bunch of emos reading each others' diaries. Oh well. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Does this count as a valid source? http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/13778/31/ My concern for better or worse is that trolling in and of itself (see the GNAA article for a great example with it's endless deletion attempts) is smeared as 'not noteworthy' too easily on here. If it's content of notable nature--for better or worse--it deserver inclusion. Also, how many sources are needed for noteworthiness? Trolling related or other controversial topics I feel are held to a higher and more rigorous standard than most articles. I suspect MANY of the objections are due to "not wanting to let them have a legitimate record" or the ever popular and ludicrous "no trophy platform" statement I see here and there. rootology 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Typo editing, saved before proofreading and excluded sentence. Whoops. rootology 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ContiE. Moral objections have no place here, unless the article is an attack page on the subject, in which case it's speediable. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"

http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/13778/31/ - check
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijacki.html - check
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/20/74662_HNlivejournalsecuritythreat_1.html - check

"Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=bantown - check, 30000+ hits on my screen

This quest for deletion here (and at the GNAA article) is against Wikipedia's own policies based on what I suspect is admins having a negative view of the participating group that is covered. I could care less personally whether this article stays or go based on the content. However, based on WP's own rules removing this one in this manner would be a flagrant disregard of our own policies, in my opionion, for "not liking them". Any such deletion should be fought tooth and nail on that criteria.

Would anyone care to try and demonstrate why any of the conditions I list above are not met? Everything of this nature needs to be kept in check. Based on what I listed, I can't see any reason to force a deletion except based on the personal POV of certain admins/editors. rootology 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added further information to this article in response to comments and criticisms made on this page. Not including Slashdot stories, there are now 3 references and a primary source linking the subject to newsworthy events. A reference and a primary source give direct evidence that Bantown are prime suspects for the two attacks, although their responsibility has not been 'proved'. These references include well-known news outlets - none of them are forums or user-sourced comment. While I understand Slashdot does not fact check, the two front page stories at least show the general level of interest in the topic. The references on this page are much better than most other short articles on wikipedia.
There are now 11 'Keep' comments on this page and 17 'Delete' comments, at least three of which seem to be sockpuppets (Qurve, ZomgPete and 67.191.90.151), some other of which do not justify themselves sensibly (eg Cheburashka, 71.112.141.236). It really doesn't seem to me that we will acheive any consensus to remove this article. Is it possible that we can agree to end this farcical process? Then I can get back to my work and those people whose main motivation on wikipedia is deleting other people's work can perhaps focus on Lesbian until graduation or similar.
If you are someone who has repeatedly called for deletion on this page, it would be courteous if you could leave a comment saying whether or not you are going to continue calling for the removal of this article. If you are going to carry on I think you should give a responsive answer to all of rootology and my points above. As I already pointed out I have other things to do than trying to stop people deleting things I wrote in good faith. Thanks a lot. Via strass 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from my concerns above, which a chat log does not nullify, I cannnot support retaining an article where the claim to notability rests on supposed crimes for which no-one has been convicted, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (in which I am a great believer, in contrast to the "it's the Internet, you can say anything" attitude that seems to prevail around articles like these). It may seem like an irrelevant concern given that the group involved has themselves claimed to be responsible, but I can assure you that it will look very different to everyone involved when they're 10 or even 5 years older. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a 'chat log'. It is the official response by the operators of the irc network Freenode to the attacks. They are an irc network so the official comment was made on irc. The page this log appears on gives context.
  • Perhaps you should direct your attention to the page Osama bin Laden. AFAIK he has claimed reponsibility for numerous acts of terrorism, but has not yet been convicted of any of them. This objection is laughable.
  • Bantown is not a living person and this article does not refer to any living person who may or may not be involved with Bantown. The links between the two attacks and a person or persons acting under the name Bantown has been proven, I needn't reiterate this again. If you feel the article should be reworded to avoid incriminating anyone you are free to do so. This has nothing to do with notability.
  • I'm not asking that you support retaining this article, just that you stop trying to get it deleted.
Hope this helps :) Via strass 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. the only thing going for notability here are the unverified claims of Bantown. The fact that other articles about vandals and criminals exist does not impinge on the notability of this article. If claims were all that were needed to establish notability, I might claim responsibility for the LJ attack as well... oops. Well, excuse me, I'm off to slashdot. Tychocat 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tychocat. Thanks for your input. If you would take the time to look thru this page and the article you would see that the issue of 'claimed responsibility' has now been addressed about 5 times. Apart from the question of whether this is a genuine caveat to notability the article now includes the following sources:
      • An internet security expert from the Washington Post discussing in detail Bantown's livejournal attack after having interviewed them at length.
      • The official public statement and Q&A session given by a Freenode staffer in which they cite Bantown as suspects for the network takeover
      • The livejournal news page about the attacks showing the involvement of Bantown
    • Hope this helps Via strass 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The group is not noteable. Davidpdx
  • Weak Keep – Should at least be merged with Funkytown ~ IICATSII 10:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I reviewed the sources - one mentions bantown only in an irc transcript, not in the article propper, one does not mention bantown, Slashdot is a rehash of the WaPo blog, and the WaPo blog is single-sourced to bantown - there is no independent fact checking done to demonstrate that their claims are accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol a succession of users come along and raise exactly the same points as User:Samuel Blanning, which were already addressed, seemingly unable to review this page.
      • The irc transcript is the official comment by Freenode on the attacks. It is a primary source.
      • lol what? the Washington post is single-sourced to Bantown? this is a curious objection. it does not seem to me that it is our place to fact-check on behalf of the washinton post. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. if the washington post were happy to publish these allegations it is not remiss of wikipedia to cite them.
    • Via strass 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nosmik 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Primary sources are generally unnaceptable.
        • The Washington post says that bantown says they hacked livejournal. They do not say that bantown hacked livejournal. This is why I describe the article as single sourced - they, in fact, go out of their way to not state that bantown did it as a fact, rather to just quote their self-aggrandizing statements. Wait, are you accusing me of not trusting them? You got it! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was armpit. DS 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places that have been called an armpit

Unreferenced, unbelievably crufty indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - and Aaronproot, you don't need to stay if you don't like it here. DS 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hendler

Nn actress. Her IMDb page lists consists of only two guest appearances on television shows. Only 175 Google hits. FreeKresge 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of principle and process. Start ignoring these for a thousand little things, and the whole concept starts falling apart. Bwithh 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Moore Albums

Soul Cloud and Alone Together are two albums by the artist Joseph Patrick Moore, whose page is also going to be deleted, that I originally listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Canoe Records along with Decade 1996-2005 (which is listed with the Blue Canoe Records deletion) after (suspected) sockpuppetry by the record exec for the non-notable digital record label to create these articles to push her artist towards notability. Both of these articles should be deleted because they are non-notable albums by a non-notable artist. Be wary of votes by Bobj7 and Sallyroberts28, as they are suspected to be sockpuppets of the Blue Canoe Records executive producer, and the original authors of these albums' articles, respectively, as well as IPs in the 69.164.*.* range, as they are IPs related to this sockpuppeteer. Ryulong 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote - For such things in the future, I recommend waiting for the artist's AFD to be completed first. That centralizes the relevant conversations and makes this AFD a lot simpler if the subject has already been deleted/kept. Wickethewok 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had not made the original artist's AfD, I only made a second AfD, which I then listed these under just today, and the consensus (so far) at the first AfDs have been delete, including a rescinding by the author, wishing for the articles to be deleted, even resorting to page blanking. Ryulong 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim kingsland

Delete. Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Prod tag was removed by anonymous user. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Ironically enough, the subject might just pass WP:BIO due to press coverage of a discrimination lawsuit filed by the subject against Bloomberg LP. This isn't really elaborated on in the article, so this is easy to miss. -- H·G (words/works) 03:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Grandmasterka 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Star Wars

The article is just a radom list of star wars technology with no useful infromation and it also needs to renamend. It would just be easier(and beter) to delete this article and start over form scratch. Scott3 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions are a start towards making this article more like what I want to see. Hence, I'm changing my opinion to keep. BryanG(talk) 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article entitled Physics and science fiction as suggested elsewhere in this discussion, move content into it. Until this is done, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. Lurker 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over time, it will surely get re-written on lines of Physics and Star Trek. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Move some/most of the current content to Technology in Star Wars, Stubify the Physics article and Slap a big Rewrite Needed notice on both articles. There are certainly enough "star wars technical physics info" (the Ewok genocide and whatnot) and star wars fans out there to bring this up to the level of the Physics and Star Trek article i.e. actually about physics and star wars rather than the current technology listcruft which has little or nothing to do with discussion of physics Bwithh 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Rewrite, Rename Rewrite in methods per above, make the article more of an article than a list. It should also be renamed in some way unless it can actually discuss the relationship between the two, and not Physics in Star Wars. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its nothing to do with physics. It's just another random Star Wars list. -- GWO
Comment: True, it is fiction, but the average movie viewer probably doesn't have a whole lot of physics knowledge and may not know what's fiction and what's fact. Perhaps Chaser's suggestion of a Physics in science fiction article would be a better way to go, but that can be discussed outside of AfD. BryanG(talk) 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with added phenomena. These are both extraordinarily popular sci-fi dynasties, but if there are any more of these articles, it might be worth creating a Physics in science fiction article or the like and merging all of them. Some things (like sound in space), are common problems.--Chaser T 11:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Artw 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. Valid topic. --JJay 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs an expansion or improved standards tag 24.9.10.235 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra strong delete. This is an article interesting only to a niche audience. Most of the 300,000,000 inhabitants of the United States, for example, where the film was produced, would not choose to read any of this without a financial incentive. Since Wikipedia was designed in part for low-income children who are probably more worried about having enough money for lunch rather than enough money to buy Star Wars toys, I think this should go. It violates the spirit of the project. I can't imagine a kid in a missionary school in Kenya caring about this or even beginning to understand why it would be important to anyone. Wikipedia is not paper, but the flagship Wikimedia project should have an image to uphold and the thought of someone finding this on Special:Random pages is an embarassment to me. I'd also support transwiki to an appropriate Wikia project, such as Wikia or a Wikibook on film production. Erik the Rude 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should be deleted because Wikipedia, rather than being for anyone who wants to learn, is actually for people who are too poor to avoid Star Wars merchandise and therefore should be protected from reading any article which mentions something which has a product attached to it? I have never heard of this or anything like this as a criterion for deletion. In fact it seems to me that this editor is displaying a bias towards a certain vision for wikipedia not shared by all who contribute.

Also, if we deleted every article which was interesting to a niche audience, we'd delete half of wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a Star Wars fan (see this article for reasons why [10] ) so I know the repeated insinuation made in this discussion that not only fanboys are interested in keeping this article. Lurker 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails twice, firstly WP:V (unverifiable, read those refs and weep; no, Virginia, Wikipedia is not a reliable source) and secondly WP:NOR (and this is original research as the absence of references shows). Whether it's starwarscruft and thus fails WP:NOT is more a matter of opinion, but from where I'm sitting it most assuredly is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fair criticism that one of websites don't meet the letter of WP:V, but I think it is reliable nonetheless. The Star Wars Technical Commentaries, source for two of the three phenomena I added, are written by an astrophysics postdoc who has (co-)written ten books on Star Wars that were subject to editorial review. What's more, the homepage for the Commentaries notes that they were "greatly enhanced as a result of debate and discussion involving many correspondents". In any case, this article now meets WP:V far better than many wikipedia articles that have no sources. The other source [11] seems to be part of the Discovery Channel, as you'll discover when you click on the link in the top corner. I think that's certainly reliable.--Chaser T 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete as recreation of Everywhere Girl.--Chaser T 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chandra

May be a non-notable model. Lacking in notability and verifiability. Google gets 258 results for her name. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Withdrawn from AfD process by CJCurrie.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of religious freedom in Canada

This afd has been withdrawn. CJCurrie 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently, this page was a harmless redirect. Now, it's a POV/OR rant arguing that recent advances in gay rights are an affront to religious liberty. (Click here for the changeover.) I don't any compelling need for an article on a topic this subjective. CJCurrie 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the afd, with a recommendation that the page be radically rewritten. CJCurrie 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation not accepted. Do we need to write every Canadian article like it was drafted by Jack Layton himself? Leave the afd and let it be debated with an international audience. Deet 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't required to accept the recommendation, but it's immaterial to the afd being closed. CJCurrie 03:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there might be too much LBGT stuff me and Deet have been arguing the point for a bit today he decide to put his piece up it was a surprise hehe.

I can prove what I say in Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada but wasn’t ready to post it yet .

Canada is special in that it supports religious schools and the church objects to same sex marriage’s so I feel there should be a section on that

I have no problem with deleting any of the bullet points you like

I do have a problem with keeping haskett she was not acting from OFFICAL church view (I get that a lot of people think that god say hate gays but that not the current and office view).Ansolin 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Would you be open to the possibility of reverting the page to a redirect? CJCurrie 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why would we have the article topic for some countries, but not Canada? It's part of a global template. Deet 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems you're correct. I wasn't aware of the other national pages when I created the afd, but I understand the motivation of keeping it now. I'm withdrawing the afd, accordingly. I would recommend that you take Fabrictionary's comments to heart, however: the page isn't even close to neutral in its current form, and needs radical revisions to be brought up to Wikipedia standards. CJCurrie 02:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it can be written in a neutral way, like Fabricationary suggested, no problems will come. Ardenn 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be open to delete and redirect, but I want the history gone. Ardenn 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the article is right now, I see no reason to delete, but it's mostly a collection of facts, and needs more rewriting. --Usgnus 02:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn (song)

This is what happens when the crystal ball fails. It's an album track announced as an upcoming single release back in February 2006; as of July, nothing has materialized. I think most people would agree that any momentum that once existed for the release is now gone. Unint 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Current consensus is that malls are not inherently notable... We could use a guideline to determine what makes a shopping mall notable, but I doubt this would meet the vast majority of editors' standards. Grandmasterka 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Town Center

Another mall with no claim to notability. Website shows the usual rundown of retailers. We already have an article on cookie-cutter malls: shopping malls. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while it's true that malls cannot be speedily deleted, they can still be deleted per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pascal.Tesson 00:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JYolkowski. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because something is real does not make it instantly notable or worthy or a Wikipedia article. The only claim of notability was tacked on by a user whom removed the prod[13], just for this discussion. The user whom wrote it, most likely doesn't know about this mall, also the one line claim to notability, which is extremely weak, is unsourced. There is nothing unique or notable about this mall. I think using critea from WP:BIO, is an excellent way to assess the notability of nearly anything. The only coverage this mall got was for being a mall, and that coverage is not about anything notable but about stores and the like. If the mall could prove it was notable like, say Mall of America, then yes this would be notable. However, just existing is not reason to keep an article that barely asserts importance. Yanksox 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yanksox Davidpdx
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grandmasterka 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livoda

The entry is not encyclopedic, but is an advertisement. Much of the text has been lifted directly from the product's website. Paul Fisher 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touch suit

This article defines a neologism. Few google hits. No dictionary hits that I can find. It clearly describes something that likely should have a name, but it isn't up to Wikipedia to create and legitimize the name for it. I don't really have an opinion as to whether the article should be deleted, moved or merged, but it shouldn't stay the way it is. Rather than vote delete immediately, I'd rather see what the community thinks, hence an AfD rather than a prod. -- cmh 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect to Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority). --Ezeu 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Chicago Subway Fire

When this article was created on July 11, the cause of incident was unknown, and some suspected terrorism, especially as it happended just at the time of the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. But now, the cause of the incident known; a derailment, and there were no casualties. So now, this incident is not noteworthy or encyclopedic - derailments happen in cities around the world all the time. Ten years from now, few are going to care about this; even ten days from now, few are going to care about it. And so, this is just a news event, not an encyclopedic topic Rye1967 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was spam. DS 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Perfect

Spam. Article creator has been spamming hair laser treatment page also with links to company home page. Rob 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BONEYARD

Notability in question. Not much came up in google. --NMChico24 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedily deleted according to CSD A7 (non-notable person). Alphachimp talk 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anthony Drockton Jr. M.A.

Non notable individual. Prod removed. The notability claims are that he ran for Mayor of Parma, Ohio, that he is a district manager for Farmers Insurance and that he has had discrimination complaints filed against him. Ghits = 0 for "Paul Anthony Drockton Jr." [16], 0 for "Paul Drockton Jr." [17], and 14 unique for "Paul Drockton", of which 8 relate to the individual in question; 6 are from web forums. -- Samir धर्म 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It sure seems like we could have a good article on this though, if someone is willing to spend some time on it... Grandmasterka 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer board game

Dictionary Definition, WP:WINAD --EazieCheeze 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Grandmasterka 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario

Unsourced POV-laden essay. Part of a campaign by WikiRoo (talk • contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk • contribs) to insert pretty much the same disparaging material across multiple articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WikiRoo 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with this material. It is fact based and straight written. Wikipedia is not a source for maintaining government propaganda to mislead the public about how things are or are not. If there is editing required then I don't see any reason why someone can't add possitive things to say if this is seen as all negative by anyone. I am sure people see this as balanced factual information.[reply]

WikiRoo 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Looks like some people here are getting all their friends together to post in favour of deleting this article. Someone once said something about protesting too much! I have more details and information to post about the uniqueness of Regional Government in Ontario Canada and will provide links and other reference material to augment this article. I don't see what all the fuss is about. But since the Regions altogether spend close to $10 Billion dollars and therefore a lot of people are dependants on them it may explain some of the insistance against publishing negative details. The same holds true with lack of press about their activities.[reply]

WikiRoo 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Regional Governments in Ontario are considered by many to be the most corrupt type of government in the world for being outside of public scrutiny hidding behind a false democratic front. The network of families and individuals pilfering from the $10 Billion dollars anually is well known and documented by people that have dealt with them. They use these billions of dollars in public spending to advance their interest. The people that are dependant on the corruption of Regional Government, which includes many professionals and legal systems will do anything to preserve the status quo and keep from general public knowledge the basic structural problems that permit their form of corruption, favoratism and encumbancy to by maintained. I am surprised that we don't yet have hundreds of posters comming here to ask for this article to be deleted.[reply]

WikiRoo 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) One of the problems with on-line editing people can be anywhere or anyone and use proxy's so everyone fighting to delete this could be all one person or a small group of friends. I could do the same and post 1000 votes to keep this... but I won't fight dirty like these (alledged) different people are doing over this benign article[reply]

Take your personal attacks and unfounded allegations elsewhere, neighbor. --DarkAudit 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I meant your allegations here, not the original article. I've said what I feel on that already. Before you go throwing around accusations based on your own paranoia, you'd better be ready to back it up with hard evidence. --DarkAudit 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRoo 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) This persecution of everything I add to wiki is rediculous. I think those people should be bammed permanenltly for stalking and vandalism.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grandmasterka 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfest

Only 200 google hits [18] and many don't seem to be related. I just noticed that it was written by Butterfest, so this is looking like some pretty blatant spam to me Irongargoyle 04:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unrelated, I was just making a joke (I didn't add it, whoever wrote it did) because that's what I was expecting to find. No one living outside of western Wisconsin would have ever heard of the Sparta one. BryanG(talk) 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mostly Rainy 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Marolyn Morrison

Politician of little note. Mayor of a small town in greater Toronto. Ghits: [19] --NMChico24 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with Annette Groves, these people are listed on the city's page, and don't merit their own article yet. Yanksox 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both as per Yanksox. 219 unique google hits for Marolyn Morrison, 109 unique hits for Annette Groves. Fails WP:BIO. Dionyseus 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a second AFD running for Regional Councillor Ward 5 Annette Groves --NMChico24 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too short, and more importantly, non-notable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio, as was Annette Groves. -- NORTH talk 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Mayor of a minor suburb does not meet notability standards. Also, 'Mayor' should not be in the article's title. --DarkAudit 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The town in question has 50-60K people, according to the town website. -- Mwalcoff 03:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does that make this person notable? --NMChico24 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any mayor of a town of that size should have lots of stuff written about her in the local papers, allowing us to write an article with independent, verifiable info. -- Mwalcoff 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, the mayor is not notable enough on his own according to the standards of WP:BIO. Unless he did something on his own that made him independenly notable from the town, then he would merit an article. However, he is not notable, and the proper place is for the town's page. Yanksox 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. I would recommend that you read the introduction of WP:BIO. It indicates that "notability" is not in and of itself the reason for inclusion of deletion of a subject. Instead, it helps determine whether a subject will meet the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and not including indiscriminate information. For example, Eduard Einstein is probably not notable, but being Albert's son, he meets WP:V, so the article on Eduard survived an AfD. -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:BIO is one of my top favorite pages, so I have a decent grasp on it. However, this page is drastically different, and that AfD is really questionable and most likely should be reseructed as most of the people whom thought the article should have been kept have some some not so stable reason to remain. And for pointing to another article, I kindly ask you to read WP:INN. Let's examine this article. "Mayor of the Town of Caledon, Ontario, Canada," that's the article, a one line sentence that is just perfectly fine in the main article. There is no reason for a seperate page for something that alreadly exists near ver batem. Comparing this and Einstein's son is like comparing apples and oranges. E's son has a slim range of notability (I may re-nom it for AfD), while this subject's notability does not exist and is not necessary for a Wikipedia article. Yanksox 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree that this is a terrible "article" as it exists. No one should create an article just to create it. That said, it certainly is expandable. I'm sure there are several interesting issues surrounding Caledon -- the province is trying to put most of the town off-limits to development, for example, and the mayor of Mississauga is trying to get rid of Peel Region. Morrison must have opinions on these matters and others. Certainly, the article could be expanded into something worthwhile, perhaps by someone willing to look through the archives of the community newspaper. -- Mwalcoff 02:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If it can be expanded, please tell me what makes her notable/unique from other mayors/politicians? The things you listed are more of local flavor and notability, there is nothing notable about her outside of her limited scope of notability, which should exist only within the city's article. Yanksox 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It doesn't matter. "Notability" is not, in and of itself, a criterion for deletion. If the information is verifiable and of interest to a significant number of people, it can stay according to current WP policy. -- Mwalcoff 03:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Notability is and can be a criteon for deletion, it's the main reason why articles about students whom stress notability within their scope of "notability," are deleted. The logic you are proposing is contradicting WP policy itself. If we took everything and didn't have standards for notability (like WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and WP:BIO) this site would be bogged down with hundreds upon hundreds of articles not worthy of inculsion. Yanksox 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It should also be noted that, by simply reviewing a number of similar AFDs, it's clear that community consensus is that general notability must be established for an article to survive here. --NMChico24 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WP:BIO disclaims any pretense of being a criterion for deletion. It reads, "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included." (my bolding) It appears to me that "notability" is a tool used to assess whether an article can meet criteria for inclusion (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, etc.) and is not a criterion in and of itself. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then you miss the point of my argument. --NMChico24 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's put it like this: whom aside from the people in the town care about her? What has she done outside the town that has made her noted by "outsiders," has she done anything within the town to make her notable? I am serious when I purpose this, it's a serious issue that needs to be approached. What exactly gives her reason for the article to remain? Yanksox 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think that enough people within the town of 50-60K alone would be interested to make the article something more than "indiscriminate information." I think that her views on the Ontario Greenbelt and the shape of Peel Region might make her of interest to some of the 5.3 million people of the Greater Toronto Area. I don't know enough about her to say what she has or hasn't done. From quick Internet searches, it seems Morrison is not nearly as outspoken as some mayors, but any mayor of a town of 50,000 will have to have made some significant deicisions. The article should stay because, while it is crap now, it theoretically could become full-length without violating policies like WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. -- Mwalcoff 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50-60K isn't that big of a community, my city has 98K and our former mayor who was noted in papers like the Boston Globe has borderline notability. The issue is: "If she is so outspoken has she gained any coverage for this?" The answer from what I can tell is: no. There are alot of outspoken people out there, but that doesn't make them worthy of being put up here. Yanksox 04:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're at the crux of the problem. I think a mayor of a town of 50K is "notable" and you don't. (I grew up in a city of 15K, so 50K seems big to me.) Who's right? There's no way to know. That's why "notability," in and of itself, cannot be the criterion to decide whether a subject should have an article. It can only help us determine whether the article meets other criteria, most importantly whether there's enough independent, verifiable info out there about her. My feeling is the answer to that question is yes -- a search on /+Morrison +Caledon/ in the Toronto Star archives finds 69 hits. I'm sure the Orangeville Citizen, Brampton Guardian and Caledon Enterprise also have had lots to say about her. -- Mwalcoff 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issue is really the notability of the town/city/community itself, it really has to do with outside sources. A mayor is obviously going to garner alot of coverage from a local city/town and state/province, I think politicians since they will gain automatic coverage from local sources should be held to somekind of national coverage. I know it sounds shaky, but I am tired. Yanksox 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete by Deltabeignet as a copyright violation. Yanksox 05:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeviceNet

Original research and possible copyvio. Naconkantari 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the actual text of CSD A8[21], it appears this is the correct move. It's kind of a gray area, but from what I have learned anything that is copied and not used with permission is a copy-vio. Yanksox 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link. From A8 criteria, "Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service)" (Emphasis added). While this is certainly a copyvio, it is not from a commercial content provider in the usual sense. At least this is my understanding. --TeaDrinker 05:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of an issue with policy, also keep in mind, that it is also an issue with the GFDL. Everything has to be released by the creator of the work. Thus, it actually is a copyright violation within the standards of Wikipedia. Yanksox 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedily deleted (CSD A7 (non-notable person)) Alphachimp talk 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Councillor Ward 5 Annette Groves

Politician of little note. Ghits: [22] --NMChico24 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved

This is a game-guide. GameFaqs was created for those that are looking for a game-guide. Also, see the current discussion in the AfD for another Halo related game-guide Dionyseus 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qbasic.com

Non-notable website. I made this article when I was very enthusiastic about the site and I now know that it's not important enough for Wikipedia. The QBasicJedi 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G7) – Gurch 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironworks Consulting

This company fails WP:CORP and may be spam. Their only news coverage is a bunch of press releases. There's nothing in the first 40 google results.--Chaser T 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is spam. I created this page simply to detail this consulting firm. It is not an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the text maintains a neutral point of view. While I cannot currently find information to support compliance with WP:CORP, this is a major company that, due to its nature, has little public mention (e.g., Google results). However, its development on major online presences such as www.cancer.org add support for this article's existence. Mgiuffrida 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll accept for the moment that your intention was not to create a spam article. The AfD runs for five days, so you should have plenty of time to find sources. Even if it gets deleted, a friendly admin would probably undelete it upon later presentation of appropriate sources. If you can provide some stats or evidence to backup your argument about the company's size, I will reconsider the nom.--Chaser T 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. This company will never cease to fail the "rough guidelines" at WP:CORP unless it is made public. None of the mentioned lists (Fortune, Forbes, etc.) include private companies that have no stock market indices. If these guidelines must be strictly, objectively adhered to at all costs, then I concede - please close this discussion as soon as possible and get this over with. However, I still believe this is a case (like so many others ) where "non-notability" is not a truly valid criterion for deletion. Consider that this is not spam, vanity, etc.; that this aricle was created to give information (that I certainly would have liked to have earlier), not to make an object more famous; and that besides "non-notability" according to guidelines that cannot possibly apply to companies like these (no significant online/Google presence is directly, positively associated with its importance?), no other reason to delete this article has been given. This article does currently or can in the future provide information that is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as who was responsible for the websites of major, notable companies. The potential for crosslinks when appropriate strengthen the notability of the article. Mgiuffrida 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a developer for a consulting company (not listed in Wikipedia) which has also developed the websites for many major notable companies, my personal opinion is that no one cares who built the websites. There are thousands of companies building websites and listing them would generally serve no purpose other than advertising. Fan-1967 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, and major kudos to Joe Beaudoin Jr. for cleaning this up and referencing it all. Grandmasterka 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zsanett Égerházi

Very minor porn actress, article prominantly advertises her web site, no idication of notability. Wikipedia is not the IAFD.
brenneman {L} 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. I'd also have my doubts about the image, since it's got a URL attached to one corner. BigHaz 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PORN BIO. Dionyseus 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Égerházi, aka "Sandy", is one of the most popular adult models in the world, and heads two of the most popular adult websites: 21sextury.com and clubsandy.com. Olessi 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dionysius. She's not currently notable so there shouldn't be an article for her; if that changes, we can see about recreating things. Tabercil 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the update done by Joe to verify the facts present, and the statements by Olessi and Bwithh that she's better known overseas, I withdraw my previous Delete vote and now vote to Keep. Tabercil 06:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Keep This is a difficult one. Sandy is really quite well-known amongst uh... the mainstream porn-mag reading public of at least the UK. She's had only a modest career as a porn actress but has been much more successful as a porn magazine model. A no-brainer for a Porn wiki - if there is one out there. For main wikipedia, verification of her fame is difficult. Can anyone come up with her features/shoots for mainstream mens lifestyle magazines GQ and FHM? That would help. Bearing in mind the limitations of Alexa rankings (which can underrepresent as well as overrepresent), I would note that Sandy's Club Sandy website (which she owns) has an Alexa ranking of 8,055 [23] compared with US porn superstar Jenna Jameson's own official Club Jenna website which has a ranking of 16,489[24] - even though Jenna has an advantage in being much more well known in the United States, has a well established video career, and has been aggressive in her website publicity e.g. multiple billboards including 4-storey billboards promoting her Club Jenna website up on Times Square[25], and Jenna's website has been around since 1998 or earlier and Sandy's since 2003 (based on whois.net registration data) Bwithh 12:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per imdb and other references. But make sure she is the same one as documented. Date of Birth is off by 3 years of the one reported in imdb. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Olessi. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is notable, an actress. Page Up 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bwithh. Text needs a cleanup with verifiability concerns and image appears to be a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konkani catholics

article taken care of by other sources Hornplease 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As an attempt to reorganise the india-and-christianity-related pages I came across this as one of a bunch of pages created by the same editor a few months ago and then abandoned. Most of the pages for the church and catholics are divided up into region-specific articles, like Roman Catholicism in Goa and Roman Catholicism in Mangalore. Konkani is a language. I prodded it, pointing out that whatever useful information, whenever it comes, will be put on the appropriate pages. Deprodded with the statement "this is not about Goa". Sending it here, though am actually quite neutral about it, perhaps could be replaced with a redirect or a list of alternative articles. Hornplease 05:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being open to redirect or merge suggestion if suitable stable articles exist. Currently it is only trivial dictionary definition and hasn't evolved over the past one month. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a well-defined social group in India. Page Up 18:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was spamtastic. Grandmasterka 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VSTORE.ca

Self-promotional spam for a web hosting company. Fails WP:VSCA --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Nominator withdraws nomination. Alphachimp talk 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port City PD

Alexa rank of 2.7 million fails WP:WEB. Google serach could not yield any instance of being mentioned by a non-trivial work, much less multiple ones. Prod/Prod2 removed by author. Hbdragon88 05:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grandmasterka 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Management Information Systems Association

Vanity article for a faculty-wide only university student organisation. Google hits for "Management Information Systems Association" + "Simon Fraser University": 149. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joshua Wells Institute of Higher Learning

PROD tag removed, bringing for discussion. There's no reference to this on Google at all; I suspect it's a hoax, and I'd suggest it definitely has verifiability issues. The editor, after removing the PROD tag, placed a comment in the article stating this institution conveniently has little Web presence. Also note that the creator of the article has uploaded an image that, in one edit, states the creator of the image is Joshua Wells. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the author has blanked the article. Tony Fox (speak) 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-mesh

NPOV. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IEEE 802.11s for now. The IEEE has started work on a new 802.11s standard that merges both proposals from the SEEMesh and Wi-Mesh Alliance consortiums, so there's no real reason to have a seperate article on the Wi-Mesh Alliance anymore. But until the IEEE finally ratifies the new standard, we won't know for certain what neogolism the industry is going to settle on, but judging from the fact that WiFi and WiMAX are commonly accepted now, WiMesh is a pretty good bet. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted for copyvio. enochlau (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Radio

Copyvio spam. This is a non-notable online radio station (Alexa ranking ~270,000). Their biggest claim to fame is being featured on the World of Warcraft website - not the most impressive credential. Also, make sure the many redirects are deleted, too.Wickethewok 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 08:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PWE (E-Fed)

None notable e-fed, (a site where write roleplays and people pretend to be wrestlers) Englishrose 06:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its helpful and relevant to fans of E-Wrestling, a growing community on the internet. As the biggest E-Fed, it serves as an example to other [User:KlintKastaway]

  • Deletion of this article has no merit. It is not hurting any one for it's presence on the site. It is not producing falsified information in any way. It is an E-Federation site where people with english talent are able to re-produce that talent in the form of characters from their own minds. It is an art form, though many will not see it that way and that's fine. It is the perfect example to have on wikipedia for an example e-federation for those interested in the area. It has over 1000 members and growing and has seen a life span of over 3 years. There is simply not a good enough reason to delete it. Notability? What defines that anyways? Over 1000 people have visited and signed up to the website and if you look at the edit history, there is interest in this wiki and it will CONTINUE to be updated since the federation CONTINUES to live on and expand. The information and history will continue to be written. Is it so bad and so wrong to have a prime example of a successful and fun e-fed as an example wiki and as an extension of the E-Fed wiki? I don't think so. Please keep this article. It is a great addition to wikipedia and the fact that a couple persons do not enjoy or understand e-federations is not reason enough for it's termination. Thank you, and again, KEEP this article. --Shmylann13 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable, and non-verifiable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cause Stone Cold said so. Also because it shows an extensive history of the federation and serves as an example for others. The IWC takes interest in this hobby and there's no strong reason for its deletion. --CaptainLice 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC):::*Note. User's first edit Englishrose 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: There is a large group of people who take interest in this hobby, and this federation has been around for a long enough time to make it notable to those in the Internet Wrestling Community. Everything on this Wiki can be verified. People who see Professional Wrestling for the art form it is, should see this for what it is: an art form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Revorg Restam (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2006:::*Note. User's first edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Starfish

Was prodded, prod removed, nn notable boat, failed Ghits, advertising John Lake 07:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Willis

Deprodded. This is a well written article, but there's no indication it meets WP:BIO. The person is non-notable.--Chaser T 07:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) withdrawn, though I understand that the AfD should continue when there are other votes to delete.--Chaser T 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposing PROD, I wouldn't have created the page if I didn't think he was notable. Also, there were already a few red wikilinks for him, so obviously others thought he was notable. (These were from Worlds of Wonder, Basic Role-Playing, and Ringworld (role-playing game).) Also, though Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) only mentions original creator Sandy Petersen as the designer, you can see in the graphic of the 6th edition cover that Willis is now being given co-designer credit. I've added Call of Cthulhu into the entry to reflect this.
Google claims to have 21,300 hits for "lynn willis", and though a good number of these are for other people, that still leaves thousands of hits. His Chaosium staff bio[28] credits him with being "the constant force behind Call of Cthulhu." This interview[29] describes him as "a stalwart of the gaming industry" and the "longest serving member of the Chaosium staff." If Chaosium is notable enough to get a Wikipedia entry, why shouldn't its Editor-in-Chief and "longest serving member" be notable enough for Wikipedia? If the Cthulhu RPG is notable enough, why not its current co-designer? Not to mention his other work.
Perhaps the number of redlinked wargames helped convince you that he only designed non-notable games, but that says more about the weak coverage of wargames on Wikipedia than Lynn Willis. Godsfire, at least, deserves an entry. --Groggy Dice 07:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Thanks to Chaser for "playing fair" and adding my comments from Talk:Lynn Willis. To summarize:
    • There were already redlinks from three articles for Lynn Willis, so apparently I was not the only one who thought he was notable.
    • The page lists some of his design credits, which implies that those who want to delete him consider all those games to be non-notable themselves. I have to wonder whether pro-deleters are familiar enough with the wargaming and RPG fields to know who is notable in them and who is not. Dungeons & Dragons isn't the only "notable" RPG, after all.
    • Google gives 21,000 hits for "lynn willis", some of these are other people, but adding terms to narrow it down still gives 9,000 12,900 hits[30]. --Groggy Dice 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm getting better at "playing fair". I don't have an opinion about whether the games themselves are notable, but I'm skeptical about pages for game designers. Perhaps a passing mention in the articles for Chaosium and Cthulhu would be appropriate? In any case, we have plenty of gamers on Wikipedia, so some knowledgeable comments shouldn't be long in coming. I admit my ignorance here.--Chaser T 08:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a wargamer, not an RPGer, so defending his notability based on what he's done since going over to the "dark side" feels a little strange. However, to wargamers, saying that games might be notable but not their designers, is akin to saying that Wikipedia should have entries for notable films but not their directors.
I think part of the difference in perspective comes from the way mass market boardgame publishers fail to acknowledge designers. Nowhere on the box or in the rules will you find the credits for Monopoly or Risk or Chutes and Ladders. Yes, you can find out from a historical source who designed Monopoly, but Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley want you to associate the games with them, not the designer. Furthermore, such games have relatively simple rules, so designing them doesn't seem like a lot of work.
But in fields like wargaming, where the designers are identified (and rules are typically more complex), designers can gain reputation and loyalty. For a "grognard" wargamer, there are designers that walk as gods among men. Now, Willis wasn't prolific enough to be in that category, and I'll admit that there are more prominent designers who don't have entries, but there are also less prominent ones that do. --Groggy Dice 09:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the multiple non-trivial requirements. Has 20K google hits, > 600 with the name in the title. Over a dozen books ( editor/coauthor ) for sale on Amazon. Meets WP:BIO criteria for authorship alone probably - Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripterus. I think it might be good in the long term, though, for List of designers of role-playing games to become more like List of Doctor Who villains, so if an RPG designer narrowly misses the notability criteria for an article of their own, there is still a home for content of this nature. I shall raise the question with WikiProject RPGs. Percy Snoodle 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is notable. Page Up 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripitus. Dionyseus 23:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, I learned more about Lynn Willis from the talk page (and this discussion) than from the article. If the article could be expanded, I would think this a Speedy Keep. --Wine Guy Talk 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (withdrawing nomination) I still don't think he meets WP:BIO. A more specific google search turns up 600 results, and though he has 16 results on amazon, they're mostly game guides and such and amazon indicates nothing about multiple independent reviews of or awards for them (as WP:BIO requires). However, I'm persuaded by Groggy Dice's argument in his last couple of paragraphs that these particular game designers generate a more substantial reputation. I saw enough minor webpages in those google results where Lynn Willis (and others) was mentioned prominently in a brief blurb about various games (examples: [31] [32], plus this interview).--Chaser T 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but now I've found out from Ghostbusters (role-playing game) that he was a co-designer on that as well, and it won the HG Wells Award for Best Roleplaying Rules of 1986. His name wasn't wikilinked on that page earlier, I'm going to link it now. --Groggy Dice 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to awards, one problem is that his work for Chaosium seems to have been very collaborative, so it's hard to find an award for which he would get sole credit. On the Chaosium site's list of awards[33], I did find an award from the "Game Designer's Guild" for Lords of the Middle Sea. (Since that was the only wargame he put out for Chaosium, it's possible his other wargames also garnered some now-obscure awards.) But he should get partial credit for some of those awards, besides the Ghostbusters award I mentioned earlier. For example, the 3rd edition of Masks of Nyarlathotep won the Origins Award for Best Roleplaying Adventure of 1996. Though he was not the primary author of the original edition, he edited, rewrote, and contributed to it, and got co-author credit. And he also edited and did the art assignments, though not the layout, for the third edition. (This is from an interview with the co-authors.[34]) Given his role as editor and contributor, I'm sure he deserves a good measure of credit for a lot of those awards, the Cthulhu-related ones in particular.
      As far as the Google testing goes, I tried to run a search that would clear out false positives, and even err on the side of caution. The reason I revised the result upward is that afterwards I thought of adding "cthulhu" to my terms, and found that just the combination '"lynn willis" cthulhu'[35] got 10,000 hits, more than my previous search terms combined! Also, note that these searches exclude pages where his games and works are mentioned, but he himself is not. For instance, a search designed to turn up hits for his Godsfire game, but excluding pages with "Willis," gets 1,350 results[36]. A similar test for pages mentioning his Olympica game but not him gets over 500 hits[37]. --Groggy Dice 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have now incorporated some of the additional information into the article, as suggested by Wine Guy. In fact, this whole process has actually been a blessing in disguise. I first intended to create the article based on his wargaming work alone; I didn't know what had happened to Willis since the seemingly abrupt end of his wargame designing. In the process of checking "what links here" I found him linked from some RPG articles, and was able to put that into what I was writing. And having to defend him against PROD and AfD has forced me to turn up more information, which has now gone into the entry as well.

Since AfD started, I have found four additional Wikipedia articles where he was already mentioned but not wikilinked; I have now linked him, sometimes finding someone else to link, too. I added a sentence into the Call of Cthulhu page, noting Willis' assumption of the game after its original creator left. I looked at the Chaosium entry, which I found to be very Stafford-centric, and put in a mention for Willis and the other designers whose names I had run across. As a result, I think there is now a healthy number of other Wikipedia articles linking to him, and that's before any entries have been created for any of his wargames! --Groggy Dice 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Live at Studio 1255

Does not seem to meet notability requirements of WP:WEB. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chrisd87 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Naruto

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The source given lists almost exactly the same information, so the link can be added to the Naruto article if necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto geography

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per creator.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Years at Wake Forest

unencyclopediac WP:OR and possibly copyvio from student handbook. Prodded and removed by anon without comment. Wikipedia is not a student guidbook. The university already as a perfectly good website for this Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding with Girls

Non notable band. Originally speedied which provoked User:Uk metal and User:Xsharksx into becoming abusive Nuttah68 07:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bored.com

An article lacking content about a non-notable web directory, maybe speedy. Wine Guy Talk 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep serving in State Senate satisfies WP:BIO Eluchil404 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Giffords

Comments for inclusion and expansion: More articles on politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position, are important. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information.

This article's subject is hardly borderline (see below for more on the concept and controversy of notability), to say so is highly subjective. Her inclusion needs to be objective and not a political ad. The simple fact that this subject is a credible candidate in an election makes her anything but borderline on the notability scales.

Elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic. Adding in the accomplishments of this subject (youngest woman elected to AZ Senate) and the case of calling her borderline makes even less sense.--Utahredrock 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nomination for deletion: This article's subject is a borderline non-notable person. Gabrielle Giffords is currently only a candidate for the US House of Representatives, not actually a current politician. She was the youngest woman elected to the Arizona Senate, but I don't think that this makes her notable enough for inclusion. DarthVader 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am reverting the edit by 67.40.93.236 (talk · contribs) because it slightly messes up my nomination statement. It seems obvious that this article will be kept, but I wish to offer an explanation of why I did nominate the article in the first place. There seem to be a couple of candidates for this election that are going to have their pages deleted; for example John Courage. When I came across this page, it looked like she was pretty well was just a candidate for this election, as well as once being a politician in the Arizona Senate. I agree with nae'blis that since she is no longer a politician she is not necessarily still notable. Also, being a candidate for this election does not imply notability either. I asked on IRC first before nominating this article for deletion, and a few users said that she was not notable, so I nominated the article. I didn't prod because it is obviously a borderline (and therefore controversial) case about notablility, so I took it here to ask the community whether this person is notable or not. It seems that the consensus will be to keep the article, and that is completely fine by me. At the end of the day, I wanted the community to look at this article and decide on its notability so that we can be sure that our articles are about notable people. To be honest, I was simply unsure of its notability; it wasn't that I "deemed" it to be unworthy. DarthVader 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment on Further comment What is meant by "ad material and linkspam?" This is information on Giffords--the point of having an entry in an encyclopedia is to contain information.--Utahredrock 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This is "ad material and linkspam." How does "Giffords hopes to be part of a Democratic wave in the fall that will take the U.S. House back from the Republicans who have been in control since January 1995" qualify as encyclopedia content? JChap (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to reply This is a point well taken and in the last version I removed the comment about the hoping to be part of a Democratic wave. Clearly that crosses a line into inappropriate political rhetoric. At the same time, the external links, which I am restoring again, provide additional outside information, censorship of this information seems suspect.--Utahredrock 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This proposal for deletion is absurd. Giffords is an accomplished Arizona politician and the leading candidate to replace Jim Kolbe. In a democracy citizens need as many sources of information as possible on their candidates. This article was created in attempt to provide basic facts and links to information on Giffords. It's bad enough how much politicians have to spend to get their messages out, Giffords, and candidates from all parties and levels of government are important to our political process. Supressing information about them makes no sense. Wikipedia exists not to promote a candidate or cause but to serve as a source of information. The discussion for deleting this article is misguided. Instead people need to write more articles on other candidates.--Utahredrock 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Recreate if she wins seat in US House, but as of now she is a non-notable politcian hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Appears to meet most of the WP:BIO bit Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage but seems to miss out on the Major requirement. I agree with Hoopydink that winning will make her notable but at the moment she's just another candidate. --Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think that state senators are only notable in certain circumstances, such as when they are particularly powerful and/or serve for many terms. I think she would be notable enough, by Wikipedia standards, if she wins the election. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate if per hoopydink. Giffords hopes to be part of a Democratic wave in the fall that will take the U.S. House makes it sound like the interest in creating this article was not primarily encyclopedic. ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice toward recreation if she wins. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not think we should have articles on U.S. House of Representatives candidates, but I think we should have articles on all approximately 7,500 state legislators. As a former state senator, she meets the "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." requirement of Wikipedia standards for article notability.
    Presently Wikipedia has articles on many members of the California, Texas, New York, Quebec, Ontario, and Tennessee legislatures. In the interest of conformity, I advocate that the results of this debate also be applied to other articles existing almost entirely on the basis of that person being a member of a state legislature. In addition, while I do not think being a candidate for a federal legislature is a qualification in itself to be listed in Wikipedia, I think it adds to the qualities listed above.
    An issue does not need to be decided at the federal level for it to be important. When an issue is to controversial for it to be handled, it is the state legislature that decides whether to set a minimum wage above the national level, to ban or allow gay marriage, to arrest you for possessing marijuana, to allow euthenasia, to raise state taxes, and if you can be arrested for not buckling your seatbelt. If a state legislature does not cooperate with the executive branch under certain circumstances, then, as in New Jersey, the government may even shut down. Please consider this when deciding whether or not non-federal politicians, judges, and cabinet members have a place in Wikipedia. Thank you. Daniel Bush 18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per general rule on state/provincial legislators. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up as a former state senator, standards are met for an article, but in this form, it's a campaign ad. --DarkAudit 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --JJay 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. I stubbified it so it's no longer an ad. JChap (Talk) 00:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Borderline, but as a state senator and per WP:BIO I lean slightly in favor of this one. --Wine Guy Talk 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That she is the youngest woman elected to the Arizona Senate is significant, and distinguishes her from other politicians at a similar level. If the notability guidelines must be used, then she passes WP:BIO as a member of a state legislature. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a sitting state senator, there should be lots of info available about her. -- Mwalcoff 03:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and fix up. I've actually heard of her (I'm in her state), so she's at least somewhat notable.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wine Guy and bainer above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but make it more biographical. --Kitch 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To all of the above who voted keep, please note that she is not a current state senator! She was an elected official from 2000-2002 in the Arizona House, and 2003-2005 in the Arizona Senate, but she's currently not in office. Whether or not her past status is enough to make her notable is up for debate, but let's get our information straight. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being elected to a state legislature makes someone worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, according to the Wikipedia notability policy, whether now or 200 years ago. Information relating to her service in the Senate seems to have been temporarily removed, though I'm sure, given the lack of trouble I've had in finding things to write about current Tennessee senators, that there will be little trouble in finding something related to her past service. Daniel Bush 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please point out for me where we say that someone who has once held a state-level office is worthy of a biographical article. All I can find is Wikipedia:Notability (people), which uses the verb "holding", implying that they currently have the position. Once they leave office, not all will continue to be notable, will they? -- nae'blis (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really have a strong opinion on state legislators, frankly I think simply being a state senetor does not confer inherant notability, but the current guidelines state otherwise. But just for clarification, are you suggesting that once someone leaves state office that their WP article should be deleted? The guideline really does need to be cleaned up in this respect. --Wine Guy Talk 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Essentially, yes. I think that if a person's ONLY claim to fame is that they were once a state senator, they don't necessarily need an article here. Of course, politicans usually find ways to become notable for other activities (notable bills sponsored, scandals, rousing speeches, etc) so I don't think this is a particularly high bar to set. I realize I may be in the minority at present. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • C'mon! While I am suspicious of the whole notability test, Giffords passes that with flying colors. She is the youngest woman ever elected to the Arizona State Senate. That's notable!--Utahredrock 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if cleaned up Agree with DarkAudit's comment, sitting or not. Disagree with Nae'blis. MKV
  • Keep The article needs to be cleaned up and more information added. There are several state senators who are running for high office in Oregon who are listed on Wikipedia. This at least gives some (but granted not a heck of a lot) noteablity. Davidpdx 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyority

A neologism, coined by a judge Nuttah68 08:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. The removal of a speedy tag is a problem sometimes. You can try {{Drmspeedy}} next time. Unlike proposed deletion, an article qualifies for speedy deletion even if someone objects. However, an objector can explain why he or she thinks the article does not meet the speedy delete criteria on the talk page. -- Kjkolb 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Andrew Pickelsimer

This biography fails to assert the notability of its subject. BigNate37T·C 08:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete nonsense by User:Pgk. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth 2.0

In the words of the creating editor, "This is a proposed idea by me, not a real planet made of cardbaord". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so this editor's plans for a cardboard planet for "50 billion angry asians" is not a legitimate article. I've proposed the article for deletion; my prod was removed. BigNate37T·C 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyvio - the image of the Eath (Earth 1.0) is from Google Earth Martinp23 11:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Delete copyvio - it's a press release copied & pasted. I'm sure it is. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemage

This company may not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. The article appears to exist solely to promote the company and does not follow Wikipedia style or NPOV recommendations. At this moment it has been edited by only one editor (excluding myself) who has ignored a request to re-write the article more appropriately. Alf Boggis 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal. As for the straight merge minority, they fail to make a case as to WP:NOT. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Pokémon glitch articles

Extremely detailed cruft about a bunch of "Pokémon" that are just placeholders in the game code, accessible only with a cheat device or a short circuit (really). There's nothing in this article that could possibly be sourced anywhere (the only source is a particularly bad Bulbapedia article), and I can't imagine how this could possibly be encyclopedic. Pokémon is notable, but every single glitch associated with it ever is not.

I came across these while working on merging the wholly crufty and unsourced glitch articles into Pokémon glitches, which is not included in this AFD. Suggesting that this article be merged there, however, isn't very helpful unless someone can also offer a reliable source with which to verify the claims in this article. (The sourced or sourcable ones went into that merged article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more wholly unsourced glitch articles, all laden with how-to information. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguica (webmaster)

I am not worthy of a Wikipedia page Linguica 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FRED (newspaper)

Non notable school paper Nuttah68 10:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Celestianpower háblame 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Series 3 (UK)

This article is based on Deal or No Deal, Series 1 (UK) and Deal or No Deal, Series 2 (UK), and contains nothing but speculation and rumours. Nothing has been confirmed about either the length of this series, or the start date. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a television guide. — FireFox 10:57, 15 July '06

Comment: This AfD is not putting series 1 and 2 up for deletion. Only series 3. — FireFox 11:50, 15 July '06
  • Strong Delete All as gameshowcruft of a high order. Bwithh 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. Replace with an article explaining the show (already exists). Wikipedia, IMO, does not need and should not have lists detailing every participant in a gameshow. Nuttah68 11:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three series. Wikipedia is not a result services for gameshows. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep All. If someone misses the original broadcast and the repeat, where else are they gonna find out an outcome as detailed as the ones on here? Besides, what happens when Series 3 actually starts? That article is going to be required. No good can come of deleting it. Double Dash 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can always ask other members of the Deal or No Deal fan community who will have detailed score records and blow-by-blow transcripts plus screen captures and video clips of each show on their websites Bwithh 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for where to find stats, Screw the Banker contains all the information you need, save for Madie's game which he forced them to delete. Bobo. 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per nominator, and no-one else has voted delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodridge, Queensland

Funny, but unsalvageably POV, totally non-notable, and uncited. --Cornflake pirate 11:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep with total rewrite, based on precedent, eg Toowong, Queensland. Sorry guys, I genuinely thought this was non-notable. Anyway I guess this can be closed. --Cornflake pirate 06:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. The merge is complete, and as it was merged we cannot delete (per GFDL). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Crosse Loggers in the Pros

This article is claiming that 4 people have gone pro,but the La Crosse Loggers article disputes this by saying "none." I am neutral on this one, because I know nothing about baseball. --Richhoncho 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleteall. Tyrenius 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polmont F.C.

Fictitious team; believe me, if they were a real team, I would know. Also no such league as the League of Polmont. Keeno 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are about the fictitious league and national association with which Polmont FC is associated:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find the strongest argument at the moment is to leave it as it is. I will leave it up to those working on Sex Tourism as to whether they want to move it to Male Sex Tourism, though this does seem like a very good idea. Tyrenius 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female sex tourism

In light of the number of sources which have been added, I am voting Keep on this. I'm not sure whether merging this with the main sex tourism article or having two separate articles would be optimal, I'm fine with either option. I'm not entirely sure this should be deleted, but I'm concerned enough on this to nominate it. The article appears to have only one source, a book where the author matches the name of the person who wrote this article. In addition, the publisher which amazon.com lists for this book has only published two books... both by this same author. I'm thinking that a self-published book is not a reliable source, and this article may be just the author's way of advertising her book Xyzzyplugh 11:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- There's lack of source. If the person is the same name of the person who wrote the book. Then they should let someone elese write the article. It would be almost the same as orginal research.--Scott3 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. So lets make a bonfire -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. On the other hand there may be a couple of lines worth saving for Sex tourism. After all, female sex tourism does happen! --Richhoncho 12:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless better sources are provided abakharev 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC). Well, beter sources are provided. Keep. abakharev 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequately sourced, apparent WP:OR, likely WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise, but provide guidance please? Hi everyone, original author here. I read 800 books, articles, memoirs in three languages in my study of female sex tourism, which was reviewed by 25 scholars, including Erik Cohen, Suzanne LaFont, Scott South, Eugenia Wickens, Mick Bloor, Ron de Graaf, and Donald Symons, all leading experts on female mating behavior. In other words, the scholarship and editing of this book is on par, or surpasses, books published by larger houses, and tackles a niche of no interest to large publishers.

Most of the seminal works, such as "For Love and Money: Romance Tourism in Jamaica," by Pruitt and LaFont, are in scholarly journals such as Annals of Tourism Research that cannot be linked to directly, often not even indirectly. They can be cited w/o URL links I suppose? Another major work, April Gorry's "Leaving Home for Romance: Tourist Women's Adventures Abroad," is a doctoral dissertation that can only be purchased via UMI or viewed at UC-Santa Barbara. The most important newspaper articles lie behind the wall at Lexis-Nexus. Some of the best and most riveting online discussions on Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree were removed in the passage of time. If you want to know details on Victorian female sex travelers from the United States and Britain, who visited Europe and India, that will require a month in the Library of Congress looking at books, some in the antiquarian section.

If anyone has ideas on how to proceed on this topic w/ a paucity of possible external links, let me know, I can revise it. If you want someone else to tackle the topic, that is fine too, the question is ... who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelliveau (talk • contribs) --Jbelliveau 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep or Merge Notable and valid topic with multiple academic sources available on Google Scholar [40] and Google Books [41] [42]. Also has been a subject in mainstream news and entertainment as the article notes. Examples:[43][44][45](scroll down)[46][47] . However,I feel that the article should be merged as a section in Sex tourism rather than have its own article however, unless a reasonable argument can be made for a separate article. Bwithh 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More work necessary The author has done some good work to keep this article going, and, on reflection, there is a different slant on male and female sex tourism. I'd like to see much more reference to facts rather than reference to fictional characters, which is merely trivia padding. I am changing my vote to keep on the grounds it is a important subject and others will help. --Richhoncho 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your ideas -- I've worked hard to improve and broaden the content. Bwitthh also thanks for the New York Times cite for "Libidos of a Certain Age" -- didn't know it was published yet -- I was interviewed by the reporter Wednesday, and her questions were basic yet so thought-provoking I came here to Wikipedia to put together starter information. It would be tricky to merge with the larger sex tourism article because the academic citations are so specific to female sex tourism but that is for the group to decide. Will check back for other's guidance later on! --Jbelliveau 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick reply to some of the points raised earlier by Jbelliveau. First, welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for creating this article, and we hope that you will join in contributing and editing to other articles too. Freely available external web links are ideal references, but references from newspaper databases, thesis databases, published works, and library archives are also generally acceptable (even if not on open search engines like google scholar etc.) as many Wikipedians have access to such databases and can cross-check and confirm such references - this is not quite a routine part of the verification process, but does happen often. Also, all wikipedia articles are subject to editing by multiple authors of varying degrees of expertise - very often, no special expertise is necessary if an editor is simply creating content from verified external sources. On the subject of academic citations, these can be turned into small font footnotes. There may be cause for a separate subarticle if a main article's main body of text is too long, but this is not the case for references. But are there good reasons besides layout why there should be separate articles? Bwithh 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great question. So much of female sex travel requires at least a semblance of wooing and affection that some observers (Pruitt, Lafont) dub what is going on "romance tourism" instead. So there is a raging debate on the extent to which women's love journeys parallel male sex tourism. Also, making female sex tourism -- a very poorly understood activity -- a subset of the Sex tourism entry, would sort of bury the new information and interest in casual travel sex by women under some boilerplate on prostitution in Amsterdam and Nevada (? would think Nevada is not relevant to sex tourism). I do keep coming back to the question of design as well -- (being a student of Edward Tufte and how to present information) -- the Sex tourism entry does not have information on the history, reasons and depictions of male sex tourism. The female sex tourism article does have this information at this point. It's hard to envision a cohesive article that spans Nevada brothels and prosecution for pedophilia and then jumps into a longer, more detailed, with different subheads, discussion of female sex tourism. A proper article merging the two might have to be called the Globalization and Commodification of Sex and started from scratch and really address men, women, traveling for sex and a worldwide Affection Deficit Disorder. --Jbelliveau 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there's a significant difference between male and female sex tourism. Destinations is a factor, even though I've seen an article detailing female sex tourism in Thailand (specifically British women; Taiwanese and Japanese women have been documented already) and I'd imagine male sex tourism would go to places other than SE Asia (which is probably more correct) and Eastern Europe. In addition, the part stating masculinity and feminity is not only stereotypical but Euro/Americentric. --ColourBurst 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of popular destinations, there's considerable overlap between female and male sex tourism, isn't there? Bwithh 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlaps in Thailand (though to simplify, men go to Bangkok / Pattaya, women to Phuket / Pattaya), the Dominican Republic and Cuba. Other sites have little overlap, i.e., the Philippines and Vietnam cater to men only; Greece, Barbados, the Gambia cater strongly to women. There are some places mainly catering to gay men and straight women, such as Morocco and formerly Haiti. --JBelliveau 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think I basically agree with having separate articles. I recommend moving the male-specific content of Sex tourism to Male sex tourism, and add a prominent disambiguation (not just in "see also") Sex tourism to link to Male and Female articles. Bwithh 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- here's a noob question -- who should actually proceed with following this recommendation? And are there steps needing to be taken to place the Female sex tourism entry in good standing rather than as "recommended for deletion" ? --JBelliveau 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to JBelliveau. It will be up to an administrator to decide whether this article should stay, 5 days after nomination. I don't see any reason now why it shouldn't stay, given the voting, when that happens anybody can create a redirect. It may be better to make Sex tourism a disambiguation page to male, female and child (which is presently a redirect) sex tourism. There may be other related articles that should be listed as relevant to the general heading of sex tourism. --Richhoncho 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to JBelliveau Standard process is that the afd discussion stays up for 5 days and then an administrator (who should not have taken part in the debate) comes along and closes the debate, and takes whatever actions the admin thinks have been consensually decided by the debate. This is not a simple vote - the admin decides which side has the best arguments (taking wikipedia policy and precedents into account). Sometimes, the admin may decide that there is no consensus (in which case the article is kept and should not be renominated for deletion for 2 or 3 months). Occasionally, an admin may decide that the minority opinion in the debate has the better arguments, and make a decision that goes against the majority. People who think the admin closed the debate unfairly, may take the case to other admins at Deletion Review, where it's possible an article will be undeleted or relisted for discussion. An article can get a consensus of "speedy keep" or "speedy delete" votes which may be acted on by an admin, meaning that an article nomination lasts much less than 5 days. The admin may also decide to speedily keep or delete an article if it is clear that an article was incorrectly nominated or clearly breaks core Wikipedia policies (e.g. copyright violation). An admin may also decide to speedy keep if the original nominator withdraws the nomination, or if the article creator (but only if they have created almost all the article content, and there are no suspicions of ulterior motives) asks for the article's deletion. In this case, the article may be speedily kept once an admin notices that the original nominator has changed their vote. When the article closes, note that the admins does not have to undertake all the specific changes/renaming/editing actions suggested by users that are outside the main calls for deletion/keeping/merging etc. - usually its the responsibility of the users to follow up on that Bwithh 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, are you sure this topic isn't of interest to large publishers...? I would have thought the opposite. Bwithh 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large publishers are interested in: spinoffs of the Da Vinci Code, diet books, movie tie-ins and celebrity bios! Would that this were not the case! Small publishers are better able to pursue niche topics. Successful niche books are occasionally purchased in due time by big houses. --JBelliveau 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Often when you merge male and female data / information, you end up with mud, especially with regards to sexual behavior. For example, if you say the average American has eight lifetime sexual partners, that is close to meaningless, if the men have 20 partners and the women, three. The "merged" information is almost disinformation that obscures a very important distinction between male and female sex behavior that is the real point of the data. Sex tourism may be a similar case, where combining the two is like mixing vivid colors of paint and ending up with brown. I am not saying the articles cannot be merged, but to do so will essentially require (a) expanding the material on male sex tourism to be comprehensive and structured in parallel with material on female sex tourism (b) pondering whether the material in the sex tourism article regarding Nevada brothels and pedophilia prosecutions is germane to the larger question of sex tourism as a response to economic and affection-deficit problems in the West and the developing world.--JBelliveau 11:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, I see no issue with having a female-specific section of the article. My point is this: if female X is sufficiently different from male X, that is a good reason to have a section in the article about X discussing gender differences concerning X, or even two separate sections (one male, one female) within the article about X. But you still haven't given a reason for having two completely separate articles. And the reality is, even when female X and male X differ, there is still some commonality, so having two or three articles is going to inevitably result in overlap. So I think its better just to have one. --SJK 10:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There were no voices to delete other than the nom. Tyrenius 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 13

There is nothing intrinsically notable about the chapter, and scholars treat the bible as a collection of narratives, and themes, rather than dividing it by chapter and verse (which are a mediaeval invention, anyway). Not one major encyclopedia, nor famous faith based encyclopedias (Jewish Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.), treats the bible in a chapter-by-chapter manner, and most scholars regard it completely inappropriate to divide it like this.

The article as it stands is nothing more than a collection of unrelated trivia, and this is all it is likely ever to be. It is true that parts of the chapter have been used at weddings, but that only makes the parts notable, not the whole thing as a unit, in the same way that alas poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio is an often used quote from shakespeare, but that doesn't mean we can justify an article concentrating on Act 5 Scene 1, all of Act 5 Scene 1, and only Act 5 Scene 1, of the play in question. (Delete/Merge - merge if anything is salvageable) Clinkophonist 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Also, adding a link to the previous AFD in May. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 13 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neier (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006. - where the result was Keep - Glen 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to clarify my vote. At a minimum, I think the article should not be deleted, but be preserved; be it in the article about the 1 Corinthians, or in a standalone article. I tend to favor the busting out of articles that can stand on their own from their parents, see main article XYZ, even when the sub-article is small. So if facing a choice between keep and merge, I would choose keep. Neier 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not every chapter of the Bible is independently notable, this one is. It is the most common reading at weddings, was read at the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, was the origin of the phrase "through a glass darkly". To Clinkophonist: the analogy with a Shakespeare play does not realy work. It's more akin to an individual sonnet, or perhaps Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't akin to a sonnet because it isn't a natural unit, the subject matter spans more than this chapter and/or breaks up within the chapter rather than spanning it; the "love" section starts at 1 Corinthians 12:31b and continues to 14:1b, and that it starts and ends half way through sentences demonstrates it was never intended to be a distinct unit. And what is worse is that the prophecy section seems to start at verse 9, i.e. the section that continues in chapter 14 starts in the middle of chapter 13, and the division that makes the love part mostly fit into its own chapter, rather than the prophecy part fitting into its own chapter is entirely arbitary. It is more akin to "lines 17-37" of a sonnet, where lines 17-37 are chosen for no notable reason other than that someone in the middle ages thought that lines 1-16 were a nice total size, and drew a line under them, then drew a line under 37 because lines 17-37 were about the same size. Clinkophonist 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. - Bobet 22:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transmitter Mainz-Kastel

Are tv transmission towers notable? If they aren't then I shall be listing a few more. I'm in favour of delete especially as the place isn't listed at WP. --Richhoncho 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EScan

Also nominating MicroWorld. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed advert tags without making any attempt to clean up the articles. Delete as spam. Nuttah68 12:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake dusselier

Nonsense, Google has no hits on the article name or the alledged TV show. Nuttah68 12:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was} Speedy A1/A3, empty article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raceconflicts

Already deleted once, author constantly removes speedy tags. Nuttah68 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted under CSD A6 (Personal Attack). Whether this is a hoax is irrelevant. An encyclopedia article cannot claim its subject is gravely mentally ill unless there are sources confirming this. Xoloz 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Jenkins

Subject is unverifiable and possibly non-notable (not every deranged murdered needs an article). The story is also very confused. Where the heck does Clark come from in this story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metros232 (talk • contribs)

Comment: The article has been changed several times by anonymous users since this AfD started. I removed some of those changes (they were simply things better suited for the talk page) but one that's stayed is that "Clark" references have changed to "he". Metros232 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm...confused...This is boderline non-sense, and most likely something someone wrote about a friend. Unverifiable, and unencylopedic. Yanksox 13:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yanksox. --Shizane 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NN and WP:NOR. I'm sure it fails alot more but you get the picture by now....Zos 18:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other valid comments made above. I put multiple tags on the article, attempting to prod the author into making improvements (including verification and references), but rather than improve the article, he simply deleted the tags. So, let's just delete it altogether and be done with it. ---Charles 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobo Jenkins is a great threat and to delete the entry would create much concern for those who face his wrath.. like little pud wankers like the above authors who have nothing better to contribute to society than edit wikipedia. Get a job and buy some storm windows or atleast do something meaningful with your life, and yes, I'm aware of the irony of this so keep it to yourself bright eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.68.81 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom non-noteable. Also Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Davidpdx 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of said "hobo Jenkins" relates to a David Jenkins, born CT. The date given by the author is incorrect, as jenkins birthday is in the year 1950 not 1968. Possible hoax story from some overwieght college kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.123.223 (talk • contribs) User's first edit is to this AfD. Metros232 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BioMérieux

reads like an advert, also a copyright violation--RMHED 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings/List of the dead

Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atticus

Seems to be a non-notable vanity article, is against Wikipedia:Autobiography: "It is a faux pas to write about yourself, according to Jimmy Wales. You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved". Also nominating Tsunami Productions ("TP employs 7 people and has created several games, but most have never been released, or even finished for that matter") and Tales of Asgaria (game under developement, has 40 google-hits altogether even if we include WP mirrors.) --Zoz (t) 12:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Atticus has been tagged as {{db-bio}} 1 min after its creation (template removed by User:DanielAtticus), has been tagged with prod by User:AmiDaniel (contested by User:DanielAtticus). --Zoz (t) 13:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green bastard

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Google has numerous hits on "Green Bastard" drink, none of which refer to this drink apparantly invented by the author but i must say the drink presented here looks a lot better than that ound on google. Nuttah68 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that author Davidjohnmartin removed the afd tag on 13:06, 15 July 2006.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Prison Match

Crystallballism about a wrestling match. Prodded then removed ( with some amusing vandalism to my Userpage ) with no useful comment Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What are you talking about? WWE hasn't mentioned anything about the match, so saying anything else would just be speculation. TJ Spyke 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ViperBite 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why ? this is not a vote but a discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waffling Keep The article will be valid come 7/23/2006, but no public comment has been issued as yet. It's obvious that the article will get better, but right now anything other than "A Punjabi Prison Match is a WWE stipulation match, which will be debuted at the Great American Bash on 7/12/1006, between The Undertaker and The Great Khali." And that isn't really an article. 67.162.172.173

Add it to the special matches page and update it after the match ryan d

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Room Escaper Game

Vanity article written by one of the developers of a non notable game. Nuttah68 13:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. - Bobet 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shizz

Non-notable internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of almost 4,000,000. Recury 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Nuttah68 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added links to 2 articles about the site in the entry. There's also an article in the October/November 2005 issue of ARTish magazine. Unfortunately, that article isn't online yet, but there's information about it on the ARTish forum [52]. Wyatt Riot 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never believed that Alexa was a notable means of computing a websites popularity or notoriety. This is especially true considering a large portion of the community follows alternative browsing practices, and wouldn't be caught dead with an Alexa toolbar on their system. Such a practice is no different than that used for television monitoring, in which 1% of the poulation is responsible for all of the determined ratings. The entry for theshizz.org does not constitute advertisement, and it is a resource of several historical facts that are not common knowledge. The site has also been subject of several newspaper and media articles in the Arizona area with regards to the excellent work the site does in promoting bands and arranging the stellar Bands on Grand local music festival.--Nitramzero 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edit.[reply]
    • It's not called the Phoenix-area video game music-related Wikipedia. It's just Wikipedia. Why should anyone else care about this website? Calling anything in that article a "historical fact" is pretty damned ballsy considering it has crap in it like "Meatwhistle has rocked the valley for over 10 years. They are extremely entertaining to watch as well as listen to. Plus, cock rings!" and "A forum post originally created as an accidental double post and has grown to a giant miscellaneous thread of epic proportions thanks to the efforts of forum member Spunkman." Oh, WOW! A post that has grown to epic proportions, you say. Those are pretty rare from what I can tell. Do tell us more! This website has no notability to anyone except those involved, so you had better make sure all of the forum members sign up for accounts and vote here as well. Recury 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. It's more than just a Phoenix-area thing. There are users from all over the world. (Hell, I'm from Minnesota.) 2. Obviously, it's important enough that articles have been written about the site, which makes it pass WP:WEB. 3. I do agree that it needs to be edited for POV, but that has no bearing on its notability. 4. Suggesting that forum users will flood this page is out of line until that actually happens. Yes, I post at The Shizz, but you can see that I've been a member of this community for a while now. I honestly have no idea who Nitramzero would be, but at the very least he/she makes good points. Wyatt Riot 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two other anonymous users complained when I prodded it plus the guy here, so I don't think a few more showing up is out of the question. Congrats on finding all three articles that have been written about the site, sorry if I don't seem all that impressed. It is probably a pretty notable accomplishment for a small site like this one, though. Lets say that all of the site's users are so alternative they would never install an Alexa toolbar, then what accounts for the site only having 17 incoming links to it? Or that the Wikipedia article has exactly 3 internal incoming links? Maybe it's just that no one cares? Recury 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I honestly don't know what the issue is. The Shizz "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and so it is clearly notable per WP:WEB. Whether or not you are impressed with the site has nothing to do with it. I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed. Wyatt Riot 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I agree that the cites weren't included in an External Links section, but that has been fixed." I have no idea what you are referring to there. There are other guidelines and policies that apply besides WP:WEB, like WP:NOT; just because it scrapes by WEB doesn't necessarily mean it is notable enough for an article, which is why I'm guessing people are still voting and saying "non-notable." There isn't just one issue, there are many. Terrible Alexa rank, few incoming links to the site, few incoming links to the article, no demand for an article from other users not affiliated with the site and an amateurish article (which, yes, could be fixed, but probably won't be). Recury 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're only responding to the reason that you requested deletion: "Non-notable internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of almost 4,000,000." It passed "any one" of the guidelines in WP:WEB, and hence is notable as far as that is concerned. By the "that has been fixed" comment, I meant that external links were included in the article, just not in the External Links section. That has been fixed, as I said, and I'll be cleaning up much of the non-encyclopedic content in the coming weeks. Assuming, that is, the entry isn't deleted. Wyatt Riot 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • RE:recury: If you would be so kind as to point out why it fails WP:NOT, that'd be nice. Now I know you've (as well as the other people agreeing with the delete) have taken it upon yourselves to patrol the site and make deletions of scrupulous articles, but I would simply appreciate a nice explanation beyond it fails this and that guideline “so tough nuts”. Now you must understand that I don't quite understand how it fails these guidelines, as after reading them myself, I cannot find an applicable case for the matter. Your argument on linking may be slightly more relevant, but I still fail to see how this warrants an entire delete over the many other more trivial and poorly written articles. Stick a "stub" tag, or a "needs a re-write" tag, but I still don't believe it needs to be outright deleted. --Nitramzero 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't only responding to the reason I gave in the nom; I'm free to bring up other reasons as the AFD goes on. I never said external links weren't in the article and couldn't care less if they are. WP:N has a good explanation of why I think it fails WP:NOT. There are worse articles, but they aren't up for deletion like this one is (yet), so lets just stick to talking about this one for now. Recury 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem that I see is that we should be responding to the reason you gave in the nom, but we should, for some reason, be required to accept more general proof as the argument goes on. I would just like a simple explanation as to why the article meets a certain criteria of importance for deletion. I do NOT feel that it is necessary to fall back upon a more general article (possibly relating to the possibility for deletion) every time a request of evidence or a 'proof' of lack of said evidence is preformed. The main issue is that a proper case for deletion has never been potentially presented, merely a proposition that feels it can infinitely generally modify itself to suit itself.--Nitramzero 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. JChap (Talk) 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is no the Phoenix-area video game music guide. -- GWO
  • Keep - Per above. Duh. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Close call, but probably fails on notability. Normally I would say "Doesn't hurt to keep it," but as written the article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:ADS. Needs a lot of clean up to save. --Satori Son 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works indepedent of the site itself Yuckfoo 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Look

Search engine with an Alexa rank of > 600,000. No evidence of innovation, reach, significance - fails WP:WEB. Likely WP:VSCA, started by User:Websearcherman, who has no contribs other than this article and linking it to others. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Vandenbroek

I don't see the notability in this bio. NawlinWiki 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2006 Gaza conflict. There are already two other articles dealing with the same subject. POV concerns should be dealt with in the respective talk pages, not by creating new articles. --Ezeu 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Hamas crisis

This new article is of the same subject as Operation Summer Rains. The creator (User:CltFn) chose to write a new article instead of editing the current one for some reason, a propose merge has been made as well, although IMO all the information is already in the article. TheYmode 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The kidnapping and the other events are in the Operation Summer Rains article already in details, plus the kidnapping is also described in Gilad Shalit. If you have anything to add to these articles please do, if you think the article should be renamed then propose it in the talk page, don't simply write anther one. --TheYmode 05:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CltFn. "The kidnapping and the other events are in the Operation Summer Rains article already in details"!! so what ?! It should move to the current article which has a more appropriate title. --Gorbeh12:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not more appropriate title. Israel Hamas crisis is not limited to 2006 and even in 2006 there are other events, which you probably prefer not to note. -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web-beacon

Web directory with an Alexa rank around 100,000, no evidence of innovation, significance, reach. Looks like a fail on WP:WEB, article is a stub anmd unsourced. Not spam, though, creator is a good-faith editor. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - An Alexa ranking shouldn't be a criteria for deletion. While this particular web directory might not be considered notable to the general public, it is notable to people interested in web directories. (Most web directories might not be notable to the general public, but if we deleted every article that was on a topic that wasn't considered notable to the wide public, we'd be deleting an awful lot of articles. Rray 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if awards listed can be verified probably meets the WP:WEB criteria. Eluchil404 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "awards" listed do not satisfy WP:WEB. For example, FriendlySites.com states "If you are a website owner or have a personal webpage and you would like to have the FFS emblem display on your website and be listed in the FFS Directory, just agree to the FFS Guidelines and submit your website URL." AWomansResoure.com says "Do you have a family friendly website that would be of interest to women? If so, feel free to apply for A Womans Resource Excellent Site Award!" and then lists six basic requirements, among them "4- The website award must be placed on the websites main page or awards page." As far as I can find, SafeSurf.com does not bestow actual awards; it simply lists child-friendly classification requirements for their rating system. Many, many non-notable sites are registered on these three website directories. --Satori Son 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, it's a list of wikipedia articles, not a web directory on itself. - Bobet 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of web directories

If WP:NOT a web directory, is it a directory of web directories? Just zis Guy you know? 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a web directory, but it includes many legitimate articles about web directories. This list article just links to those articles, the way all the other list articles link to articles on other topics. Haakon 15:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being "an invitation to spam" is not a reason to delete, since almost every article here about any commercial subject could be considered such an invitation. The article is well-maintained and useful, and it is not an attempt to turn the Wikipedia into a directory any more than any other useful list in the Wikipedia does. Rray 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Web directory. There's plenty of room. There is no obvious reason to break it out. Merging it into Web directory will help keep it under the oversight of editors interested in and knowledgeable about web directories, and able to judge importance of individual entries. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors interested in and knowledgeable about web directories are already overseeing this list. If that weren't so, then the list wouldn't exist in its current format. Having separate lists and articles on a topic isn't unusual at all here. It wouldn't make much sense to merge List of casinos with Casino, either, to give one example.Rray 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a list of related articles that is useful. There would be nothing to be gained by deleting this. Why would we have an article on web directories but not allow people an easy way to find the web directories with articles? I wouldn't merge it. It's linked as it should be, like many other articles. 2005 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is important to have such a list; we cannot trust web directories to be accurate in listing their competitors. Let's not be dogmatic. Some mentions on there have historical value. Galaxy was the first web directory ever. Smkatz 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclosure: I have edited this page.)[reply]
  • Keep As one who keeps an eye on this page for spam, it does serve a purpose. This page is not a directory, it lists directories which have articles on Wikipedia. StuffOfInterest 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyLEDGE

non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Ghits: [56]. Appears part of a marketing campaign [57]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. JonHarder 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP -- Alias Flood 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree after reviewing this from the wikiproject. This appears to be part of a marketing campaign to forward this company, which is more of a start up than anything, and their product is a mess of neoligisms for corporate buzz words. Wikipedia is not a vechicle for advertising. Kevin_b_er 07:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cyLEDGE article has now been edited to take into account justified criticisms by several users. Please accept our apologies for what may have seemed excessive or unclear marketing jargon (the jargon which, for better or worse, we are most familar with...), and have done our best to follow the Wiki Style manual. Though cyLEDGE contains the company site as an external link, it is not so much a marketing campaign than it is an attempt to communicate what we are doing and get reactions from other people working or interested in the field. Since there is a natural affinity to cyLEDGE's activities and open-platforms such as Wikipedia, it is important for us to be present there - an additional paragraph has been added to make as clear as possible what the issues at stake are, and which we are trying to come to terms with. --Knusper 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom marketing spam. Davidpdx 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also as non-encyclopedic; article discusses interesting concepts but not the company. Discussion of said company would likely be non-notable. (With apologies to the folks at cyledge, who seem nice enough, this isn't the proper forum for what you are intending to achieve. Unless you were intending to write an encyclopedia article, of course. Would World Book be interested?) Eaglizard 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as the nomination points out, it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also fails WP:SPAM's how not to be a spammer. (especially the note "Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site") Pascal.Tesson 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New jersey dragons

NN fictional team from a book that hasn't been published yet. BoojiBoy 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaa, Nigeria

I wrote this stub for reasons which should be readily obvious. But my lack of knowledge is not the determinant of what belongs here. Since the assertions of notability have been removed, I'm nominating this for deletion. — Jul. 15, '06 [14:42] <freak|talk>

  • Comment. The NGA geographical names database [59] has an entry for this name, so we don't have to depend on fallingrain. Mapquest shows the coordinates for Gnaa as being just off the road from Awe to Lafia, which seems plausible enough. Spacepotato 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NGA "Places"≠ "Towns or cities:
Thanks for the NGA link; it looks like the NGA geographical names database doesn't just include cities but also "places". See for example the list of place files by country; you'll see they have names for 8,229 places that are undersea features. They list 43,342 places in Nigeria, 31 of which fall within just 10 km (6 miles) of Gnaa's reported location. Are we going to get 43,342 place articles just for Nigeria?
At least we know there is a place by that name, even if it's not a town. I go back to the Google Earth picture for these coordinates and see nothing there. Ditto my Nigerian road map. --A. B. 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last factoid: Here's an online map of the towns and roads around Awe and Kaor (Kaor is 2 km from the reported location of Gnaa). No Gnaa nowhere. --A. B. 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the NGA database, Gnaa is a populated place, which the database explains is a city, town, village, or other agglomeration of buildings where people live and work. The undersea features in the database are of course not populated places. Spacepotato 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The population figure of 6,559 for Gnaa that this article used to have was taken from fallingrain, but this is probably bogus as fallingrain lists the same population figure for Kaor, Nigeria. Gnaa is either an error in the NGA database (which also contains the apparently nonexistent populated place Polfbroekstraat), or a place too small to show up on multimap. Spacepotato 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article exists currently simply as vanity for gnaa (gay niggers association of america). This article is being used as a support article for an attack article used to harass wikipedians. --Bouquet 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article help GNAA harass Wikipedians? That might persuade me to change my vote.--A. B. 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism and Plutocracy

POV essay, original research abakharev 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mannon

Hoax, I can't find any information on this guy or his crimes TigerShark 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete discounting new users and IPs. Jaranda wat's sup 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society

Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members My vote is

Here are some good reasons not to delete it: first, the Society has been written about many times in mainstream publications; second, it has been listed in various listings of international organizations since its founding in 1982; third, it is the oldest and best known of the "ultra high IQ" organizations.

Size alone is not a good indication of "encyclopedic" nature in this case, because the nature of the Society limits its size. A better criterion would be "utility." Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day. That qualifies it at as a useful entry.

My vote is

Comment. "Utility" is not an accepted criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jefffire 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that being small is no reason not to include it, but I'm not yet seeing the notability. Could you point us to some of the articles in mainstream publications you mention? Google News and the NYT archives have nothing. In Google itself I found a couple of media mentions (one in Esquire, one in The Wave), but nothing that qualifies as "written about". Thanks, William Pietri 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Wall Street Journal first wrote about the Society on April 19, 1992; I am aware of articles in Omni Magazine, Esquire Magazine, and Republic Magazine that discuss the Society. I believe there have been others. The Society appeared in several editions of the Guinness Book of World Records. I don't know if Mensa International counts as "mainstream," but the Mensa FAQ has listed the Society since the early 1990s. Canon 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [User: Kevin Langdon, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Mega Society is small because it attempts to select members at the one-in-a-million level. Many issues of our excellent journal, *Noesis*, appear at our website, http://www.megasociety.org. I am currently the Editor of *Noesis*. If you want to vote on retention of this listing please take a look at our site. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Langdon (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am wondering why the editor of their newsletter has an IQ of 150 and claims to be a member. Obviously not a legitimate organization. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have IQ scores considerably higher than 150. It's strange that the assertion that my IQ is "only" 150 seems to be accepted uncritically by certain posters to this discussion. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not strange at all. They can read your deleted edits on the article's Talk page. No one who understands the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia would start a Wikipedia entry that way. If your IQ score is higher than that (and I sincerely doubt it is), then what is it? And on what test? DaturaS 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a member of the Mega Society though I spent two years trying to join it. There is shamefully little work being done in the area of high-range psychometrics (above 4 SD) and the founder of Mega is one of the few experts in the field. Now you might well think that the concept of g, general intelligence, is not valid, and that therefore not only high-end psychometrics but all psychometrics that attempt to measure IQ are not valid. But many reputable scientists would disagree with you. It is not in the category of, say, astrology. Since you (hopefully) wouldn't dream of deleting the article on IQ, why delete one of the few societies pioneering its use and measurement on the far right tail of the bell curve? Brian
Two more points. The Mega Society article has been one of the most vandalized I've seen; check the history. Also, it is NOT affiliated with a society of a similar name that endorses CTMU. Brian
Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability. Byrgenwulf 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for notability, and indeed the notion that notability is even relevant, have been hotly debated. I notice that some of the debate concerns inclusion of college fraternities. What scientific research do they conduct? (And some fraternities are open to charges similar to those leveled below; they are elitist, sexist, racist, etc etc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.7 (talk • contribs) 22:55, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
After checking the page history, the Mega Society article has never been vandalized, although I fail to see how it would be relevant if it had been. I agree with Byrgenwulf that some sort of reference as to what the Mega Society actually does might be useful. -- NORTH talk 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment North neglected to note that my moderate and balanced comments (before the present deletion debate) were moved by one of the editors to the "Talk" page. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also in January 2005 comments were inserted that were non-neutral, by one "Asmodeus". Kevin removed them and they were restored by Gregor B in May 2005. That's what I meant by vandalism; if I misused the term I apologize. I've seen homophobic slurs and silly jokes inserted into the pages of other high IQ societies, but never on Mega. Brian
    • Comment Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate a farce. Notable or not (and it is not), I would like to see some evidence that this society actually does what it says it does. Are there any meetings or activitied of these one-in-a-million members? The short answer is "No". You have a handful of pseudo-intellecuals with phony credentials (or none like the editor) who have created a bogus group and advertised it on Wikipedia. Independent verification requested. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The higher up the scale the cutoff percentile for a high-IQ society the smaller it tends to be. Mensa has lots of local meetings but this is impracticable for a group like Mega. The primary activity of the Mega Society is the publication of its journal, *Noesis*, which is available on the Web. Note the abusive language in the above comment. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no point in deleting it, since it is in no violation of any rule whatsover. On the other hand, if deleted, same could apply to any article on any other HIQ society. By extension, a whole HIQ Society Wiki article can be deleted for no good reason at all.
Comment - HowlinWolf is no sockpuppet - he is my brother - will send a family photo to get this scum off the web. I definitely agree with HW that Langdon is a known fraud. Defrauded Omni readers in the 1980s of more than $30,000 after Omni published a version of a test he made up and bilked readers for scoring fees. Sanctioned by the State of CA medical board - see judgment here. Vanity page for this lowbrow wannabe. DaturaS 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above accusation of fraud is actionable. I demand that the author thereof provide proof of his assertion; in the absence of such proof, I demand that the editors of Wikipedia remove it from the Web. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mega is not a large society, but the idea that there's only one active member refers to the so-called "Mega Society East," founded by Mega member Chris Langan (not Langdon). Langan insisted that his society was the real one but not even one other member of Mega went along with him and he lost a court decision and is now prohibited from using any form of the name "Mega Society." He also lost an ICANN arbitration regarding Mega Society domain names. Details can be found on this page: http://www.megasociety.org/about.html . The real Mega Society has many active members, as is obvious when one examines recent issues of *Noesis*. As for Langdon being a bigot, his jokes pages contain jokes about many different ethnicities, religions, etc. Categories include: Arab, Horrid Nursery Rhymes, Black, Interbreeding, Misc./Mixed Ethnicities, Buddhist, Irish, Polish, Celebrity, Jewish, Polish/Italian, Chain Letter, "Johnny," Polish Pope, Christian, Knock Knock, Redneck, Commercial Parodies, Lawyer, Scientology, Dead Baby, Lightbulb, Sex, Dyslexia, Mexican, and Space. It would be pretty exhausting to hate all of these groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment - This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon, a fellow who pretends to have a high IQ but sadly does not. Langdon's so-called Mega-society has NO MEMBERS except for unqualified Kevin Langdon and a handful of hangers-on with dubious IQ credentials. Maybe Kevin Langdon can tell us what his IQ score is (150) and what test he took to get into the "Mega" society. Totally bogus. Yes, please click on Langdon's "Dead Baby" joke page before you vote for this sick puppy. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Mega Society has a number of members other than Kevin Langdon, as can easily be ascertained by looking over recent issues of *Noesis*. I *can't* tell you what test I took to get into the Mega Society because the founder of the predecessor 606 Society (6-in-a-million cutoff), Chris Harding, didn't explain the basis on which he invited members. Members of 606 were grandfathered into the Mega Society when it was founded. However, as the limit of what can be measured with reasonable precision is somewhere around the 606 qualifying level the difference in cutoff levels is academic. Mega does the best it can to select members at its nominal cutoff level. It may be that the actual cutoff is a few points lower; that's the price you pay for pushing the limits of psychometric science. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Does it strike you as strange that this person is looking down his or her nose at IQ 150 (the one in a thousand level)? This IQ elitism is characteristic of Mega Society member and sore loser Chris Langan. In fact, when several Mega members took the Mobius Test, by Edward Cyr, an extremely difficult test, I got the highest score and Ron Hoeflin was just one point behind me. The objection to my compilation of jokes is irrelevant and absurd. The study of jokes is as valid as the study of any other sociological phenomenon; I am not endorsing prejudice and the butt of many jokes which stigmatize whole demographic groups is not the group stigmatized but those who stigmatize them (as in certain jokes about Blacks which really target the intolerance of rednecks). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
We don't allow people to go get family members to back up thier votes. Please let wikipedians sort this one out. Votes from anons, accounts created after the vote started, and accounts with very few edits are usually simply ignored by the closing admin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Theresa - I will tell HW that he needs to run crosstown and visit the library (like another on this page) if he wants to cast his vote. Have moved comments. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthey have published over 180 issues of their scholarly magazine, many of which can be read at their website. Have a look. Kevin's not a bigot, but in any case this is a red herring. Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.67 (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
A "scholarly" journal that prints comments like this (from the society's founder): "If I were a black person and were as intelligent as I now am, I'd probably regret that my black brethren tend to be less competent than members of other races, on average. I would see two possible future outcomes for my race: (1) after the less competent blacks are culled from the population through homicide, AIDS, homelessness, etc., there might be a flowering of black civilization as the more competent blacks began to compete more successfully, or (2) the blacks might cease to exist as a race due to interbreeding with other races." [60]. Come on. Byrgenwulf 21:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation is extracted from a longer section in which Hoeflin is arguing that biological evolution is an ongoing process. This is the same point that Nicholas Wade makes in his new book Before the Dawn (ISBN 1-59420-079-3). While I don't persionally agree with the argument, there are scholars who do. However, how did we get to discussing whether the Society is "scholarly" anyway? The original reason given for deleting the article was that the Society was not "notable." This ambiguous criterion was then defined as requiring that the Society has been discussed in the "mainstream" press. That criterion has been satisfied. Canon 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those remarks seem pretty reasonable to me. Blacks, like other populations, are subject to evolutionary pressures. This isn't racism or bigotry, but one has to wonder about the motives of those seeking to have the Mega Society listing deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment Known bigot. Neither Hoeflin nor Langdon have IQs anywhere near the supposed level of this bogus society. No qualified members as far as I can tell. Other contributors to his racist rag are not qualified either. What a joke. HowlinWolf 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you suppose this Wolf guy has the inside track on other people's IQs? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment This commentary confused the action of the California Board of Psychology against what it saw as "the unlicensed practice of psychology" with *Omni's* lawsuit. I don't know where the $30,000 figure came from, but *Omni* sued me for *a million dollars* after I received an overwhelming number of answer sheets in a very short time (the test was taken by over 27,000 people after appearing in the April 1979 issue of *Omni*), most of them within the first few months after publication. I had problems with my computer (they were even more buggy back then) and it took me many months to catch up with my backlog. When I did I supplied *Omni* with a list of testees and they verified that I had, in fact, gotten results to most of them (some had moved during the period of delay); the lawsuit was settled and I didn't have to pay a dime (I'm sure glad they didn't get my million dollars :-) ). The cost of scoring was $2.50. How would you like to have to open all those envelopes, input the data from each answer sheet, score all these tests, and mail out results and interpretive materials for $2.50 a pop? As for the California Board of Psychology's objection to my IQ testing activity, it's unconstitutional. The First Amendment's right of freedom of assembly guarantees very-high-IQ people the right to form societies and select members any damn way we want; we sure can't rely on the standard tests to select at our target level. The abusive language above indicates that HowlinWolf has some kind of axe to grind. It should also be noted that his accusation of fraud is libelous. --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club. (The magazine titles cited by Canon are not enough to establish notability.) IMHO, it seems that Byrgenwulf is the only editor who has expressed an opinion on this that is coherent with deletion policy. AfD is not a vote. HowlinWolf's comments should not have been struckthrough, even if he is a suspected sock puppet of DaturaS. Everyone's comments are welcome, provided that they are civil, and everyone's comments will be taken into account by the closing admin. That being said, the closing admin does hold the right to discount comments made by anonymous IPs and accounts created for the sole intent of "voting" in this discussion (which appears to apply to the majority of the comments here). Please keep this in mind on the off-chance anyone here has plans to participate in future AfD discussions. -- NORTH talk 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin (or anyone else) wishes to read HowlinWolf's comments that had been refactored, I restored them on the talk page. -- NORTH talk 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud "civil"? And how can members of the Mega Society who don't happen to have edited Wikipedia entries before defend themselves against the false accusations made against the ssociety without creating new accounts and weighing in? This should not be a criterion for taking people's comments seriously. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are the citations I've provided insufficient to establish "notability" because (1) the publications cited are not "mainstream", or (2) I did not provide issue dates, or (3) I did not provide enough citations, or (4) "notability" is not established by citations. I can deal with each of these, but I'd like to know where the deficiency lies. Also, as should be pretty obvious by now, the society is certainly "notable" in that a lot of people are very interested in it, which the members will agree is not always a good thing. Canon 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is #2, 3, 4, and 5. Saying that you are aware of an article in such-and-such magazine is not enough. Show us the article. However, even if you did tell us which articles in which issues of the magazines you listed mention the Mega Society, I still doubt that would be enough. Just because it's in a magazine, even if it's mainstream, doesn't make it notable. We are an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and our standards are just a tad bit higher. Mentions in magazines are a factor in determining notability, but only one factor. Which brings me to #5, which granted you didn't apply an actual number to. Another factor for determining notability is whether "a lot of people are very interested in it" -- although again, interest alone is not enough. But I'm curious as to why you say it "should be pretty obvious" by now that a lot of people are interested in it, because it's certainly not obvious to me. -- NORTH talk 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment above refers to points 2, 3, 4, and 5, but there are only *four* points in Canon's remarks above it. Has something been censored? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been censored. This can be confirmed either by reading the page history (something I am doing constantly when trying to catch unsigned comments), or by reading my comment, in which my reference to #5 is a clever joke, referring to a point Canon made, but did not assign its own number. -- NORTH talk 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I've referenced are either about the Mega Society itself or about ultra high IQ societies in general and the Mega Society is discussed as an example. There are many more articles that merely mention the society. In what format do you want me to "show you" the article? For reasons I've previously stated, I believe that the Mega Society page on Wikipedia is looked at by several hundred people per day. That's a pretty clear demonstration of interest. Canon 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't referenced any articles, you've listed magazine titles. If this is a notable society that is still active today, surely there is some recent reference that you can show us online? A Google News search yields none. A mention in the Wall Street Journal 14 years ago does not constitute notability.
You did not state any reasons previously as to why you believe this page is looked at by several hundred people per day. You only said, "Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day." Is it? By who? -- NORTH talk 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that the Wall Street Journal article was an early reference. I have found a page (not affiliated with the Mega Society) that specifically cites many "mainstream" articles and was maintained up through 1999 (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/refer.html). That is a broad enough sample of "mainstream" to establish "notability." As for Google News, many "notable" organizations will not have generated news articles in the recent past; a search for "mega society" in Google Groups returns over 350 hits and in Google proper over 9000. Finally, we can determine that several hundred people view the entry each day because several dozen people follow the link to the Mega Society home page. Canon 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some citations.

Baumgold, Julie (February 6, 1989). "In the Kingdom of the Brain". New York Magazine Graham, Ellen (April 19, 1992) "Minds of Mega", Wall Street Journal Prager, Joshua (May 14, 1997) "Let's see now" Wall Street Journal "Genius Issue" (November 1999) Esquire Magazine (reprinted in http://www.uga.edu/bahai/News/110x99.html ) see also http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#Mega Oh, and one more I forgot: Guinness Book of World Records 1989 page 29, "The most elite ultra-high IQ society is the Mega Society" I am unclear why very recent cites are required; even a defunct society -- which Mega is not -- may be of historical interest. Surely a group which has for almost 25 years made a careful and credible attempt to select the one in a million most intelligent people is noteworthy. I've finally figured out the four tilde thing, and I've tried to go back and sign some of my earlier comments. Brian 70.234.150.40 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More recent citations are preferable precisely because the Mega Society is not defunct. -- NORTH talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Homebrew high IQ society of no notability. If people with high IQs are so smart, how come they don't realise what a bogus, discredited concept IQ is? -- GWO
You seem to contradict yourself when you appeal to a common sense notion of "smartness" and yet in the same sentence deny the existence of intelligence. However, this probably is off the subject of whether the Mega Society entry should be deleted; maybe we should move the discussion to sci.psychology.theory or comp.ai or you can email me directly. The only relevant point seems to be your use of the term "homebrew" which implies "slipshod" which is simply not true; Hoeflin (and Towers, and others) have done an enormous amount of first rate work in assembling and norming these tests. The details can be found here (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html). Canon 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, the concept of IQ has not been discredited. It's part of mainstream psychology. See *The g Factor* by Arthur R. Jensen. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it is not appropriate to call for evidence of notability on the talk page of an article and then put that article up for deletion in less than an hour. The Mega Society has been written up numerous times in the media. It is probably the best known high IQ society, after Mensa. Anyone looking into IQ societies and high IQ tests will immediately encounter references to it. I personally have known about it for 8 or 9 years. (And for the record, I have no association with it whatsoever.) Because Jeffire and Byrgenwulf have acted so hastily, who could possibly have time to track down offline articles from numerous periodicals over more than two decades before the vote is completed? I'm certainly far too busy in my personal life to do so in a few days.
In my experience, thoughtful Wikipedians do their own searches for evidence of notability and discuss their results on the talk page of an article, and only then bring it up for deletion when there is clearly no evidence of notability. On Wikipedia, editors bringing an article up for deletion have a responsibility to give valid reasons why they think the material is not notable, not simply claim it appears to be not notable. They also have a responsibility to allow time for an appropriate discussion; with a less-trafficked article it would be easy to band together and rush into delete it before those in the know even have time to find out about the vote. This is not a race to delete; this process should be handled with care and deliberation.
I strongly encourage Byrgenwulf and Jeffire to read Wikipedia:Notability. In particular, you need to understand the important difference between notable and famous. Just because an organization is obscure, does not mean it is non-notable. In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability.
And as for some of the other points raised in this discussion, this is not a debate on the merits of IQ or even the Mega Society. —Tox 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, it is. There is no evidence that this is a legitimate group. It's only vocal member has an IQ well below the supposed admission standards. Seems to be totally bogus. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Uh, this does not jibe with my own knowledge of the group. You can look at numerous issues of their journal online. Furthermore, there are other notable current or past members (especialy Christopher Langan, who had a total falling out with the group and especially Kevin Langdon — gee, wouldn't he have blown the whistle long ago if the current group were a hoax perpetrated by Langdon?). And furthermore, it is only an argument for putting evidence documenting the hoax in the article, not an argument for deleting the article itself. As a hoax it might be even more notable. —Tox 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This "hoax" idea is bizarre. One may quarrel with the notion of IQ and with the selection criteria employed by the Mega Society but it's a real society that's existed for almost a quarter of a century. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, Langan has been trying to "blow the whistle" (actually the tuba) on me and the real Mega Society for years, but he's had very little success in making his case. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My username is being consistantly mispelled in an identical manner by many of those voting to keep. For future reference, J.E.F.F.F.I.R.E. Jefffire 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Jefffire is calling a misspelling is a consequence of the long-established rule in English prohibiting triple letters. Note also that he misspelled his own user name above (I wonder if he takes his car to Jeffylube ;-) ). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
My username isn't english language, and identical misspelling of it may be indicitive of sock-puppets. Jefffire 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that the readers of this English-language article have certain usage habits; they don't expect triple letters and so they tend to overlook them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability, regardless of whether an announcement was made on the talk page, or when that announcement was made. This article was created in December of 2004; the time to cite sources and assert notability was then, not now. -- NORTH talk 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia worked like a formal debate. But it doesn't. Anyone who's been around here for any length of time quickly finds out there are thousands of articles with no references on relatively obscure topics.
In a formal debate the judges would quickly cross out arguments not backed up, but here we are not judges but editors, and this is not a debate but an encyclopedia. Our job is to improve the quality of the article or seek out convincing data that it should be deleted, not rush to cross out what wasn't done right in the first place because someone else should have done it right. We all always have the burden of backing up our own actions, especially deletion of an entire article. This is the only way of gaining consensus and preventing our actions from being undone by other editors.
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion. I have seen great care taken in removing mere references to obscure topics in an article, let alone an entire article itself. Mature editors do their own research into a topic before bringing it up for AfD. If you read Wikipedia:Notability you will see that it clearly states non-notability is ambiguous and that if you use NN as a reason for deletion you must carefully qualify your reasoning. Jefffire and Byrgenwulf did not qualify their reasoning, and they are the ones who decided to bring it up for deletion (in less than an hour, a page that had been around for 2 years and was ineligible for speedy deletion).
Keep in mind that the AfD process is over in a matter of days. It is easy for many Wikipedians who care about an article to miss the AfD process entirely. If the article is not well-trafficked a group of individuals desiring deletion, by random chance alone, could easily overwhelm the debate during a time in which proponents of the article are absent. That is precisely why those bringing an article up for deletion have an obligation to do their own research into the notability of the topic instead of brazenly bringing it up for deletion. —Tox 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion." This is patently false. WP:V states, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending on one's POV), Wikipedia is not the U.S. courts system, and one is not innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on editors wishing to include the material to show why the topic is notable, not for those who wish to delete it to show why it is non-notable. Nevertheless, Byrgenwulf (in his follow-up comments) as well as myself and William Pietri have shown why we believe the Mega Society is non-notable; other editors have stated why they believe it is notable, although IMHO it is not enough.
You are correct that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with no references on relatively obscure topics. And many of those are on AfD, or will be when someone discovers them and takes the time to nominate them.
Wikipedia--or at least the AfD process--does work like a formal debate. When the closing admin (the "judge", if you will) views this discussion, s/he will ignore (thus "crossing out") arguments not backed up, because as you read the tag I had to put at the top of this page, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads". -- NORTH talk 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Brian70.234.150.40 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Thanks for allowing comments. There appears to be very little advantage to deleting information and some benefit to keeping it. Why restrict the knowledge or information, unless patently fradulent? Editing, of course, is desirable, as with all submissions, but deletion actually subtracts value from Wikipedia, and retaining it can only add to it. I know nothing of Langdon, but if he is a fraud, or a racist, or the second coming of the Messiah, publish that information and the controversy in the Mega article. In fact, if he is all those things, it actually adds weight to it's inclusion, in order to keep Wikipedia readers well informed. Should we eliminate comments on Enron, or the NSDAP? It is all information, and it's relative value is it's accuracy, not it's politics, legal compliance, recent impact, or obnoxious opinions. Thanks again for soliciting comments! Don Zacherl (dzacherl@t3-tigertech.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.65.193 (talk • contribs) 16:19, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

DaturaS claims that the Mega Society is a "bogus group" composed of members with "phony credentials," has "no activities" and "one active member." As a long-time member of the Mega Society, I can assure you that these claims are not only false, but preposterous. Please ignore this crackpot until he provides evidence to support these allegations.Zorro24 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Zorro24.[reply]

—The above user's only edit is to this discussion. [61] -- NORTH talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Tox, who states, "In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability." This is wholly untrue. In order for any topic to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is, it needs to be notable period, not notable just for people wanting to know about high-IQ subculture. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs does not make a notable club. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs that does something might, depending on what that something is. Some of the people wishing for this article to be kept stated that the group does some scientific research, but never explained what that research was. Magazine articles used to establish notability must do exactly that--establish notability--not just prove existence. -- NORTH talk 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Mega Society doesn't do scientific research--and neither does a scientific journal; both report on research done by individuals or small groups of them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as being notable period. Values are subjective, so "notable" is in the eyes of the beholder. These "eyes" change as one descends into the bowels of an encyclopedia written above the eighth grade level. For example, here is a sentence extracted from today's featured article: "The only important British honours over which the Prime Minister does not have control are the Order of the Garter, Thistle, and Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order, which are all within the 'personal gift' of the Sovereign." This is a fact that is "notable" only to (some) citizens of the UK. But this sentence is entirely appropriate in the context of an article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. What is "notable" depends upon the context in which the article is likely to be looked at. In the Mega Society article's case, this context is likely to be the context of high IQ societies. I take it as established that the existence of the Mega Society in that context is "notable".
The new requirement that the activities of the society be "notable", as opposed to the existence of the society, strikes me as pushing an already ambiguous standard further into dangerous territory. The assembly of the society required bootstrapping over a period of years starting with Mensa International. Science has been defined as the process of "torturing nature for her secrets" and the study of many phenomena is best done where these phenomena are extreme. This is why we build high energy particle colliders, for example. Hoeflin and Langdon are pioneers in the area of testing for high intelligence, an area that traditional psychometrics largely ignores because there is very little economic incentive to explore it. Sometimes we need to look over the horizon a bit and go beyond immediate economic value. Assuming that intelligence is an important thing to understand, they are trailblazers in a potentially fertile area. The society is notable because it is possible in the same way that climbing Mount Everest is notable because it is there. Canon 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations): "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." This requirement is not new, it was first posited about 6 hours into this discussion when Byrgenwulf said, "Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability."
I agree that the whole notion of notability on Wikipedia is ambiguous, and Wikipedia:Notability takes the form of an essay, not guideline or policy. However, it is written as an extension of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, both of which are official policy. Your assertion that the Mega Society is notable because it is possible (not even that it exists) is what is scary, not our request for citations of its scientific research.
Marilyn vos Savant is notable not just because she may or may not be the smartest person in the world, but also because she was the author of a popular column, and because she was one of the primary players in the media craze caused by the Monty Hall problem. The Mega Society is not notable because, as far as has been verified, it is nothing more than a group of 25 really smart people. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marilyn vos Savant is a member of the Mega Society, but she hasn't participated actively recently. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Marlyn participated briefly 20 years ago and has had nothing to do with the "old" or "new" group since. DaturaS 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion about scope in the context of the proposed criteria for organizations in the essay on notability is clearly intended to exclude purely local organizations like my Boy Scouts troop. The scope of the activities of the Mega Society is international in that it (1) has members in more than one country, and (2) publishes a newsletter that is distributed to more than one country. One of the Wikipedia articles that I've contributed to is Crystal Cove State Park which is as far from international as it is possible to get. Nonetheless, no one is suggesting it be deleted. However, this is descending into mere wordplay. I've read the essay on notability and I think it is quite clear that the Mega Society is notable as defined in that essay. I am willing to let the Wikipedia editors judge that for themselves based on the record assembled in this article. Canon 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of what activities? -- NORTH talk 01:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The members interact and this results in essays that are published in the newsletter (latest issue: http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm) that is read by tens of thousands of people each month. Several members are working on a Web site (http://www.mental-testing.com) that pushes the state of the art in testing for high intelligence. So far over 50,000 people have tried this test. Canon 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way I'm reading Issue 177 of Noesis, the mental-testing website appears to be done by one person independently of Mega Society. (Incidentally, the Mega Society's own newsletter is not valid for establishing notability; I did find one third-party reference here that links the Adaptive IQ Test to Mega Society.) Is there a third party source you can cite for the newsletter's readership figures?
Comment The mental-testing site is the work of Mega members but is not officially a project of the Mega Society. *Noesis* is now a Web-only publication; we get lots of hits. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Mega Society's only *public* activity is the publication of *Noesis*, but a high-IQ society provides an avenue for highly-intelligent individuals to interact privately with one another and there is a considerable amount of such interaction among its members. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should be adding this material to the article itself, otherwise even if it's kept, we'll be going through this whole procedure again in a couple of months. -- NORTH talk 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sites that link to http://www.mental-testing.com, but I'm not sure what needs to be "third-party verified" since it obviously exists. It seems to me more relevant that a third party finds it credible, and in fact the independent review site http://www.iqte.st/iqtestreviewarchives/index.html ranks it second on the Web. This is quite gratifying since the test is a high-range test and thus does not look like a traditional IQ test. As for the usage statistics, if you email me directly I can arrange for you to verify these. Your point about preserving (some of) this material to streamline future reviews is taken; I will do so and preserve it on the article talk page. Canon 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you fail spectacularly to see my point. Again, it is not enough that the Adaptive IQ Test exists; what needs to be "third-party verified" is that the Adaptive IQ Test is a project of the Mega Society, and not a single individual independent of the Mega Society.
The Mega Society article itself must make a claim as to why it is notable (not its talk page). All these wonderful things that you feel make the Mega Society notable should be in the article, so that people who might nominate it for AfD can see that it's notable and make their decision based on the article, not material provided after the fact. -- NORTH talk 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NORTH's concept of notability clearly concerns importance. However, importance and notability are not synonymous. Both notability and importance are subjective, but their respective sepectrums do not line up. Wikipedia:Notability discusses this to some extent. There are plenty of things that are notable but unimportant. For instance, if I overheard a conversation about so-and-so who died and clearly perceived this was some famous person, but did not hear enough information to acertain what they did, I might come home and look that person up on Wikipedia. Not being a fan of most team sports, if I were to find out it was a basketball player, I would find that person unimportant, however, I would clearly understand why they were notable and listed in Wikipedia. And, one of the major reasons they would be notable is that you are likely to hear their name and (if you don't know who they are, you need somewhere to look them up). That is why the importance of the topic itself is different from the importance of having the topic in Wikipedia. Notability is much more closely related to the importance of having the topic in Wikipedia than the importance of that topic in the grand scheme of things.
The same applies to the Mega Society. If they do absolutely nothing and have no important impact on society that doesn't matter so long as you are likely to encounter their name and need a place to look them up. Since they have been in major periodicals multiple times over the last couple decades, that is a definite possibility. Furthermore — and this is where context especially plays a role — if you were to research high IQ subculture (and/or measurement of high IQs) you would immediately encounter the Mega Society, the Mega Test, Christopher Langan, Marilyn Vos Savant, Mensa, Kevin Langdon, and Ronald Hoeflin. I know because years ago I got interested in the subject and upon looking around the Web I quickly encountered all of those topics. Since high IQ subculture, including high IQ societies, is a notable topic, and the Mega Society is a highly notable element of that subculture, it becomes important to understanding the subculture itself.
NORTH, you keep harping on the argument that Wikipedia being an encyclopedia negates the desire to have an obscure topic in it. There are reasons not to have an obscure topic in a 20th century encyclopedia, but not a 21st century one. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The reasons to leave the Mega Society out of a 20th century encyclopedia are fairly obvious: the physical constraints of searching through, carrying around, and storing a paper encyclopedia. Since with Wikipedia we no longer have those constraints, we can and definitely should include topics that are less obviously notable on a grand scale, but are highly notable in notable contexts.
The obscurity of a topic makes an article on it more useful, rather than less useful. The less likely you are to know about a topic, the more likely you are going to need an article on it. The relationship between obscurity, notoriety, and importance of a topic, and expected information return from an article gets quite complicated (and would probably be highly interesting research on the information content of Wikipedia and its resultant utility). The ideal topic for a Wikipedia article (as far as information return is concerned) would be a maximally obscure, maximally notable, and maximally important topic. That would entail a topic that you have a high probability of not knowing about, that you have a high probability of encountering, and that has a high level of intrinsic information (ie its effect on the world is great). Of course, in the real world these parameters are going to affect each other and this post is already too long for an AfD to look at the interrelationship.
Suffice it to say, Wikipedia becomes useless if you can't catch the tail end of an NPR piece, see a reference to some organization in someone's CV, or thoroughly research the various aspects of a specific topic (ie high IQ subculture or Canon's example of the British Prime Minister). I want a Wikipedia in which I can do so. What use is Wikipedia if I can only look up what I would find in a 20th century encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tox (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 July 2006 GMT.
Oops, that was an accident; I'm writing too many posts in a rush tonight, as I have to get up for work in only a few hours. Sorry. —Tox 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, William, and I apologize dearly for leaving you out of my original comment when I said that Byrgenwulf was the only one who expressed an opinion coherent with deletion policy, as your original comment clearly was. -- NORTH talk 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to User:Kevin Langdon: You say that the Mega Society doesn't do scientific research, it merely reports on it (contrary to what other Keep "voters" originally said). Then what is it the Mega Society does? Does it do anything other than publish Noesis? The Alexa rank for megasociety.org is 3,944,660 (approximately 200,000 lower than the 50-person discussion board I run), so clearly it's not getting nearly as many hits as you think. -- NORTH talk 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank for http://www.mental-testing.com is 2,217,499 which is considerably higher than the Alexa rank for www.megasociety.org, which is 3,944,660 (as of this morning). However, the actual site visits to mental-testing.com are about half those for megasociety.org. Thus Alexa is inaccurate this far out on the curve, which is not surprising since it is based on sampling. Nonetheless the usage numbers given in this article can be verified if you email me directly. Canon 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was an e-mail from you a reliable source? -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An e-mail by itself is not evidence, but it can *contain* evidence. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The Mega Society has existed for 20+ years with media exposure (e.g. Omni) from the start. ("Mega Society" = 9,100 google web hits.) The Wiki article receives a steady stream of hits. That passes the notability test in my eyes. As for many of the other claims here, such as whether it performs scientific activity, its membership level, the validity of its entrance requirements or of the concept of IQ in general: these are simply irrelevant issues. A lot of other society articles would suffer deletion if judged by the same criteria. I think there is some deletion agenda here, possibly spill-over from the fighting at CTMU, Mega Foundation, Chris Langan et al. --Michael C. Price talk 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I don't know much about the subject and didn't read through all of the comments on this page, I think the fact that google gives 9,090 results, that they have an own magazine, the fact that such a small organization creates so many public reactions (for instance the ammount of comments on this articles-for-deletion-page), its connection with the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, etc. prove its notability. Sijo Ripa 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have their own magazine, they have their own web publication, which according to the Alexa rank isn't read all that much. -- NORTH talk 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, they do have their own magazine. It used to be paper based (I have some), now it's electronic.--Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They had their own magazine. Now it's a non-notable online newsletter. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that's got nothing to do with whether the society is notable, which is defined by the level of interest in it -- the tirade here is evidence that it is of interest to many. --Michael C. Price talk 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who think that a paper-based journal is the only valid kind are woefully behind the times; many scientific journals are online-only these days. --Kevin Langdon69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A couple of comments:
  1. The society verifiably exists, and does what it says it does.
  2. Number of members is irrelevant, given the one-in-a-million qualification level.
  3. IQ is not bogus. If IQ is bogus, then how come that people we perceive as "smart" typically achieve high IQ scores, while the people we perceive as "dumb" typically achieve low scores? Pure coincidence? I don't think so.
  4. The only (relevant) controversial question here is the quality of the test used for admission, i.e. 1) does it really measure intelligence, and 2) is purported one-in-a-million cutoff reliable enough. This should be discussed in the article, just like any other controversy. GregorB 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't a relevant question at all. I don't give a hoot about how the IQs of these people are or what tests they use to establish this, howsoever valid these tests might be. I want to know what this society has done to make it notable, i.e. encyclopaedic, and this article is not vanity or an advert. How much Internet traffic a website gets doesn't matter either. Byrgenwulf 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been noted, repeatedly, in the media. That makes it notable. What do you mean by the word? --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being commented upon by a media is not enough to constitute notability. It must be shown that the society does notable things, and is widely known by others. Jefffire 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my question, what is notable? And I note that there are an awful of lot of less notable things on Wiki. --Michael C. Price talk 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that there are, and if they come to my attention I can assure you I shall recommend their removal as well. I still haven't seen a single media article about this club, anyway, for what it's worth. Byrgenwulf 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That you haven't seen any is not a criterion for removal. BTW notable means worth noting or of interest to other people. Thus the traffic figures and media coverage are relevant. --Michael C. Price talk 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, I have not seen proof of media coverage. Not that that on its own constitutes notability, but it is a start. Byrgenwulf 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omni magazine, April 1985. Contained the Mega Test. Frequently covered by the magazine after that because of the high level of interest. --Michael C. Price talk 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a recent article from South Africa for you (mentions the test though not the society) http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/23/insight/in03.asp Brian -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.7 (talk • contribs) 19:09, July 17, 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that, among people with an interest in high-IQ societies, nearly everyone has heard of Mega Society. That's what "notable" means. It is not reasonable to expect wide notability outside of the circle I mentioned. GregorB 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References have now been provided to several specific articles. Look up the articles; there's your proof. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This group does not do what it says it does. Many of the first people who said keep claimed that the Mega Society does scientific research. Now by admission of Kevin Langdon himself, that is untrue; research is done by individuals and then reported to the Mega Society. As far as has been verified, the only thing the Mega Society actually does is publish an online newsletter that receives little traffic according to the Alexa rank, and is thus non-notable.
Comment Many of those commenting here are less knowledgeable than the members of Mega. We can't be held responsible for their speaking loosely of the Mega Society (as opposed to individual members) doing research. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank is accurate enough in that it doesn't matter whether it's #2,000,000 or #3,000,000--either way it's out on the boonies of the curve. -- NORTH talk 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the online newsletter is non-notable. It figures: that's why there is no Wikipedia article on it. GregorB 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and since all this group verifiably does as a group is publish a non-notable newsletter, the group is non-notable. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd criterion... It is not necessary to do something to be notable. There are many articles on people who haven't done anything, but are undeniably notable. GregorB 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... what? Of course you need to do something in order to be notable. You don't get notable by sitting on your ass. -- NORTH talk 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about Terri Schiavo? (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist...) The point here is that notability is not necessarily about "doing something". GregorB 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... actually quite a lot of notable stuff gets done whilst sitting on one's arse. Hint: writing desk --Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, clever joke. You don't get notable by sitting on your arse doing nothing. If you want to get notable by sitting on your arse writing a book, be my guest. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of you claiming to have said something you didn't say. --Michael C. Price talk 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I left two words off of my original statement because I thought it was clear enough. I guess I'll have to be explicit in the future. It doesn't matter, though, I'm done with this now. Everyone knows how I feel, I'll just leave it to the closing admin from here. -- NORTH talk 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our feelings being debated here, but our reasoning. --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Its capacity is unlimited and, thanks to search engines, little-used entries do not clutter things up. That's why, as far as I know, notability has NEVER been an accepted criterion for deleting an otherwise valid article. Notability is not always immediately apparent. This is especially true of an organization. One of its members might later become famous, and it would be of great interest to historians to trace the people and ideas who were formative influences on him. An article about an organization to which he belonged could be of immense value. It is far from improbable that Mega might one day have famous or influential member. Also I should note that the criteria for notability of organizations are badly defined, if at all. (It's an ongoing project.) Take a look at all the college fraternities that have their own articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities Are they notable? What about tiny state roads in the hinterlands of Washington State? Each one has its own article. Brian152.163.101.7 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false. Notability is frequently the main criterion for deletion, and is the basis for WP:CSD#A7. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no official policy on notability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Brian

Keep. Criticisms of the officers/founders are not relevant to the issue of the validity (and historical or current "interestingness" ) of an entry. Mega Society is a well-recognized entity with a history and with meaning within the high-intelligence organization world (HiQdom), and deletion of it would not serve informational goals. Similarly, deletion would set a worrisome example, if done for political or personal reasons. Norming/admissions standards are evolving (for the most part) with all HiQ groups, and the fact that some people might be grandfathered into organizations where according to current practice they could not gain admittance is an issue germane to the groups themselves (and not really of external concern). I see no value in deleting the group from Wiki and many strong reasons for retaining it.--M StewartMstewarthm 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- 25 member society? There are definitely millions of such things in the United States alone. This does not bear inclusion as it is not notable. If we don't keep every school, why should we keep a 25-member society of no interest to anyone except its members? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Mega Society actually has a higher percentage of actual members, among those who are theoretically qualified, than any other high-IQ society. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't even seem like there are 25 members. Also the members don't seem to meet their own requirements. IQ tests don't measure that high. No notable accomplishments. No member activity. Vanity club. AstroLev 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How would AstroLev know how many members we have? I do agree that the Mega Society's 99.9999th-percentile cutoff is pushing the limits of measureability, but only by a few points. We do the best we can, given the state of the art of high-range testing. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Why, after the initial reasons fell flat, were others so desperately attempted?

Here (for reference) are those initial reasons: [a] "Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members" (Mr. Jefffffire)

[b] "seem like an advert" (Mr. Beowolff)

Then a Mr. DaturaS complained: "Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate a farce"

Mr. DaturaS further complained: "Strong Delete Totally bogus "society" with only one active member"

Then he added: "Langdon is a known fraud"

Also: "This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon"

Then this from a Mr. HowlinWolf: "No qualified members as far as I can tell."

Then Mr. NORTH jumped in: "Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club" [This can't be because of the small membership, which was the initial "reason," so this must be a different "reason."]

Then came Mr. GWO: "Homebrew high IQ society of no notability."

And then there's a Mr. William Pietri: "I can't help suspecting there's some vanity involved here."

Why did these "reasons" have to be plugged-in after-the-fact? SOUTH 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (NOT a member of the Mega Society)[reply]

Because IQ freaks out the PC crowd. --Michael C. Price talk 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe just because not everyone thinks exactly the same, and some people have slightly different reasons for wanting the article deleted? -- NORTH talk 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe but given the number of non-sequiturs floating around one can't help suspecting rationalisation and hidden agendas. --Michael C. Price talk 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The non-sequiturs and hidden agendas, as far as I can tell, have come only from DaturaS, one of the single purpose accounts, and those should be ignored. -- NORTH talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me refresh your memory:
Right, and since all this group verifiably does as a group is publish a non-notable newsletter, the group is non-notable.
A non-sequitur if ever there was one. --Michael C. Price talk 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some part of that statement you'd like me to clarify so you can see why it's not even remotely a non sequitur? -- NORTH talk 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a double non-sequitur: 1) Notability is defined by the interest of other people, not by one's actions per se. What the society does is irrelevant. 2) Even if we accepted 1) then one non-notable action does not make the whole society non-notable. --Michael C. Price talk 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a subjective verifiable measure of notability, what the society does is of utmost importance. As I said before, people/orginations gain notability (and people's interest) by doing something. As for (2), yes, it does make the whole society non-notable, if it doesn't do anything else that is notable. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key new word there is "if" which wasn't in, or implied by, what you said originally. Such trifling matters of historical accuracy don't seem to concern you, so I shan't bother to pursue the matter. --Michael C. Price talk 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There must, however, be some sort of discretion upon which diminutive societies/groups warrant some sort of inclusion into Wikipedia. Furthermore, our use of the word "notable" is erroneous. A 25 member bookclub is not notable. Conversely, a highly exclusive IQ society that discriminates at the 1/1,000,000 level is. What the naysayers have been arguing, is whether the society has been previously noted. That is irrelevant. Particularly in our culture, where psychometrics is an established field, the most elite HIQ Society is noteworthy or "notable". CDiPoce 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'd like to point out to the closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us, that in addition to the numerous anonymous IPs, there are a number of single purpose accounts participating in this debate on both sides.

-- NORTH talk 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being a notable subject it has created new logins and unlurking activity. --Michael C. Price talk 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Wikipedia for years and even edited one or two articles on the very few occasions when I thought I had something to contribute (such as now). But since I could read and edit without creating an account, I saw no reason to do so. Don't tell my fellow highIQers, but I wasnt sure I could remember yet another username and password. And, as an AOL user, I'm blocked half the time anyway. Brian 205.188.117.67 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the National Puzzlers' League entry should be deleted? If not, please explain how the two organizations differ significantly. Canon 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd also like to point out to the "closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us", that the naysayers have succumb to ad hominems to refute the validity of the Mega Society entry. Heck, if they could at least SUSTAIN one single argument that even challenges the Mega Society and its qualifications for a page in Wikipedia, I'd give them some credibility. All we've been subjected to is them lamenting the importance that IQs have historically received in society. Their inept arguments seem flat-out petty, to be quite honest. CDiPoce 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Your level-headness will be a valuable addition. --Michael C. Price talk 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't ad hominem attacks from a naysayer. It's a statement of fact that applies equally to the three users who said delete as it does to the five users who said keep. I'm just trying to make life a tiny bit easier for the poor closing admin who has the sorry task of parsing through this discussion.
Comment There are many ad hominem remarks here directed at me and at Mega Society founder Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin. --Kevin Langdon69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to call the statement "their inept arguments seem flat-out petty" level-headedness. While I can't speak for the other users who wish to see this article deleted, my argument is now and has always been that I have yet to see a verifiable source that says this society does anything besides distribute a non-notable online newsletter. -- NORTH talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've yet to see any sign that NORTH understands what notable means, despite it being repeatedly explained. --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Is it "notable"? "Notable" means "worthy of being noticed, important", but the context is undefined and the words used in the definition are themselves ambiguous, subject to diverse interpretations.

Who might be interested in examining (and "examination", by definition, requires "taking notice") information about the Mega Society? "Examining" the group, its members or its claims does not mean doing so unquestioningly; it merely entails finding the information interesting/useful as data or conceptually. Interested parties might include:

Those interested, advocationally or professionally, in "high end" intelligence testing; this includes parents of children whose minds remain unchallenged in typical gifted programs, and educators/psychologists who specialize in assessments of and research on the extremely gifted. Many widely used IQ tests have ceilings at or below around 150 IQ (aside: If Kevin Langden did score "only" a 150 IQ, he may have done so on one of these tests); for the most part, this is all that is pragmatically needed, but such instruments fail for a small sector of the population. With the internet making homeschooling and distance university studies more feasible, determining which students might benefit from an educational plan outside the school's usual offerings demands higher priority. If the student is an adolescent, one may need some testing geared towards adults....an area where the ability and motivation to measure at the far right end of the bell curve has been (for various practical reasons) minimal. Even if the tests used by Hoeflin, Langdon and others are flawed, the theoretical constructs underlying these tests may be of interest to researchers in high-end psychometrics; better high end testing could emerge from a synthesis of methods and philosophies.

Historically, there has been an interest in how the extremely gifted develop, function in the realms of work/intimacy/internal fulfillment, over the lifespan; there has also been an interest in whether other, ostensibly unrelated, mental and behavioral traits are more common in those of particular intelligence at various points in the lifespan. Hollingworth, for example, wrote extensively about the social difficulties and correlated later personality traits in a cohort of profoundly gifted persons followed from childhood through maturity. Lewis Terman conducted similar research, and Grady Towers has summarized the findings in several articles (google his name!). Several researchers have looked for correlations between Jungian personality type and IQ, and found that the percentage of introverts increases as one moves up the IQ scale. A Polish psychiatrist, Dubrowski, interests a number of adult "gifted persons", due to his research linking developmental potential to innate mental traits (called "overexcitabilities"). High IQ groups (even ones with few members) may be *worth examining* for those interested in personality/behavioral/philosophical traits associated with varying degrees of giftedness; those interested in such correlations psychologists - but also, a growing number of adults trying to "come to terms" with how their own giftedness may have affected their childhoods and contributed to deeply entrenched attitudes during adulthood. Reading autobiographical statements in high IQ society journals, and (moreso) "reading between the lines" of less personal articles, may give interested parties greater insight into the personalities of the extremely gifted.

Grady Towers' article "The Outsiders" is a great place to start - and he culled some of his info (which basically supported Leta Hollingworth's claims) from members of the ultra-high-IQ societies.

For such people, I believe that the Mega society is "worth noticing", important - and thus, notable. Sol.delune 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune[reply]

Yes, "The Outsiders" was a wonderful piece of psychometric/social research and an example of the value of the Mega Society and Noesis. Grady Towers' contributions will be sadly missed[62]. --Michael C. Price talk 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believed that intelligence exists and is measurable, would you find an organization containing the hundred smartest people in the world notable? Canon 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, does this hypothetical organization do anything other than publish a non-notable online newsletter? If so, then sure. If not, then no, although a list of the members' names at List of the hundred smartest people or List of the hundred people with the highest IQs would be. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Society of Fellows article should be deleted? Canon 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In April of this year, Mega Society’s founder, Dr. Ronald Hoeflin, was interviewed for over five hours by CNN for a one-hour special on genius. This documentary will probably air (on nationwide cable television in the U.S.) in September. It is probable that some discussion of Mega Society will be included in the final edit when it airs. To verify, I suggest contacting CNN’s Susan Mittleman, who is a producer with CNN's medical unit and conducted the interview. Bryan Vare 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. NORTH (and possibly others) are equating notability only with what a person or organization does. This is an erroneous equation, though perhaps understandable since most people and organizations are notable because of what they do. However, Robert Wadlow is notable only because he was the tallest (confirmed) man to have ever lived. His notoriety led to his fame. Similary (and contrary to what NORTH said) Marilyn vos Savant was notable because of her intelligence. Her notoriety led to her fame which led to much of what she did (such as her PARADE colum).
The Mega Society is notable because of what it is, not what it does. Indeed, its many listings in the popular media are not direct evidence of its notability, but rather that it has been noted. The fact that something has been noted shows that there are people who believe it is worthy of note, which is the definition of notable. Whether you think the Mega Society is worthy of note is not the point. It is whether enough people think it is worthy of note. Popular media attention is one of the best indicators we have about large numbers of people considering any topic, including the Mega Society, worthy of note. If enough people consider a topic worthy of note, then a Wikipedia article becomes useful. —Tox 09:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Merge with High IQ Society The best solution may be to merge or redirect this article to High IQ Society. No original research and no notable articles (note that Grady Tower was never a member and his article is available at several high IQ websites). Entry is misleading, group is not notable due to few members (less than 10) and no activity, article does not have a NPOV due to unreasonable claims, and is only in Wikipedia for vanity purposes and as an advert.
There are no qualified members and faulty admission criteria so article is misleading. The editor has an IQ well below the criteria they require (150 v. 180). In the archive of the newsletter, founder Hoeflin declares the society "moribund" due to inactivity and lack of valid qualifying tests. Hoeflin has since started another group. Best solution may be to merge/redirect. DaturaS 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for Grady Tower's non-membership claim please. And the Mega Society is not moribund, it has an active Yahoo groups list. --Michael C. Price talk 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DaturaS continues to grind his axe. The Mega Society's minimum IQ for admission is either 176 (SD = 16) or 171 (SD=15). Hoeflin's declaration that Mega was "moribund" was years ago and the society, in fact, currently publishes an interesting journal, with the most recent issue released at the end of June.

Although Ron Hoeflin has founded a number of other high-IQ societies, he is still a member of the Mega Society. Grady Towers was never a member of the Mega Society but he was an important writer on the subject of high-range psychometrics and the characteristics of the highly-gifted and is very highly regarded in the high-IQ-societies community. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who bears the burden of proof here? Shouldn’t the question be “why remove this entry?” as opposed to “Why retain it? In addition, ‘notability’ is a vague and specious argument. Are any other minority group articles deleted because they lack notability? At a certail point all diversity is reduced to insignificance, a falacious 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. Perhaps an article on all HIQ societies, groups, etc (see miyaguchi at http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/#societies ) Thanks! Don--70.21.17.102 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors wishing to keep bear the burden of proving notability. Jefffire 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who says? Sources please. Perhaps editors wishing to delete bear the burden of proving un-notability. --Michael C. Price talk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the above burden-of-proof rule is the credo of the faction of Wikipedia editors known as "deletionists" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism Brian

Well, the burden of proof should be on the proponents of this entry. That is NOT to say that the need for retaining this article has yet to be sufficiently proven. In fact, I see this tangential "debate" trailing off into a loop of "Not enough members!", "It isn't even active.", "What is an IQ, really?", "Kevin Langdon hates democracy", etc., etc. CDiPoce 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The burden of proof is on those making the claims (i.e., of active qualified members; of valid admissions criteria; of notability, etc.). There is already an article on all high IQ societies in Wikipedia. It may be a good idea to merge them all. DaturaS 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that "Kevin Langdon hates democracy" is absurd. I've been in the forefront of the battles with authoritarian society officers that have taken place in a number of high-IQ societies from time to time (see "A Short [and Bloody] History of the High-IQ Societies" <http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hard_iq.html> and my "Intellectual Freedom Manifesto" <http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/manifest.html>). --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalker For the benefit of the Wikipedia editors that are reading this, we need to explain that the Mega Society is sufficiently famous to have developed stalkers. One of these is a gentleman named Paul Maxim. The story of his efforts is (partially) documented here: http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#mega. It is obvious to anyone who has had to deal with Mr. Maxim that DaturaS, HowlinWolf, and possibly others are sockpuppets of this person. Canon 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Maxim has been a thorn in the side of the Mega Society and several other high-IQ societies but he's computer-phobic and has not participated in online activities. If somebody is behind all the negative, ad hominem remarks on this page, it's much more likely that it's Chris Langan. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reply to content. Canon 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burden of proof The issue of who bears the burden of proof in an argument is even more opaque than the issue of when something is sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. This is why in recent posts I've been trying to sidestep the ambiguities of the English language and argue by analogy. If the Society of Fellows and National Puzzlers' League entries should be retained, then I argue so should the Mega Society entry, since in all aspects that have been raised in this article they are similar organizations. Canon 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mega Society is in the Mensa FAQ (and has been since the early 1990s): http://www.faqs.org/faqs/mensa/high-iq/ Canon 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have heard of the society (yes, I've seen their ads in my Mensa bulletins) but I believe it is too small and not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. Avi 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you've seen their ads but have never "heard" of them? Hmmm. --Michael C. Price talk 07:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who is claiming an IQ superior to mine, you may wish to read my sentence just one more time :lol: -- Avi 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, I erred! But similarly if you paid more attention to detail you would realise that I have made no claims about anyone's IQ.  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, but define "heard". CDiPoce 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been a member of the Mega Society since its founding and I don't recall any advertising for the society in the *Mensa Bulletin*; I'm sure that we haven't advertised anywhere for years. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm a member and have been since 2000, the MegaSociety serves as a viable source of information for the severely gifted, especially for raising children and adolescents who have been designated as such. Until you have dealt w/the boredom of a severely gifted child, you've no idea how hard it is. This is a valuable resource. 'pini 68.196.84.28

Comment - 'pini is confusing the Mega Society with the Mega Foundation or Mensa. The Mega Society contains no resources on parenting gifted children; the others do. 'pini has never been a member of the group (she probably belonged to one or both of the others). The Mega Society currently has no valid admissions criteria and hasn't accepted ne members since the 1990s. DaturaS 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh It is not true that the Mega Society has not accepted anyone since the 1990s. Canon 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size Even the people who first proposed deleting the article agree that because of the nature of the Mega Society, size is not an issue. We seem to be going over old ground, so I for one am ready let to the record stand. Unless new issues are raised I won't be making any more comments. Canon 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep May-Tzu 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. <snip> There is no official policy on notability." The Mega Society is at least several orders of magnitude more notable than the Wikipedian concept of notability. - May-Tzu[reply]

*Keep May-Tzu 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) There are apparently factions of Wikipedian "Deletionists" based upon "non-notability", but there is no policy on "notability". Hence, matters of inclusion or exclusion are decided entirely *subjectively*, by personal fiat of those who rule. An encyclopedia is more useful than a cult. - May-Tzu[reply]


  • Comment for Closing Admin Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case. My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons.

1. Notice As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. 2.Hearing The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. 3.Reasons If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve. Thank you and good luck. Brian205.188.117.67 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian. Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your concern, but this isn't a trial; it's a discussion where we try to come to agreement. With certain exceptions for biographies of living people, the effect we have on article subjects is not a criterion we consider while editing. Instead, we focus on serving our readers. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia works through consensus, which is very different than the adversarial model of the western legal system. Respect for precedent and law is also not part of the culture, as you can see from the encouragment to ignore all rules and our spirit of eventualism. I hope that helps. To find out more, you might start with the Five Pillars. William Pietri 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle. Brian64.12.117.7 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dillard's locations

This is a pretty clear indiscriminate collection of information. As pointed out at Talk:Dillard's, it contains some info that you couldn't find using the company's store locator function on their website, but none of that info (square footage, opening dates, prior occupants of Dillard's sites) seems particularly noteworthy. I feel kind of bad nominating this, as it clearly took some time to create, but it all seems rather pointless to me. I'll withdraw if someone can give me a convincing reason to.--Chaser T 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Well, I convinced myself. In the interests of not biting anyone, no matter how new or how old, I've decided to withdraw. I think this clearly violates WP:NOT, but so many people have worked on it for so long, that I'll let it be. I don't fault anyone who votes to delete or keep this, but I hope that it will just sit for four days and an admin closes it no consensus. I found sources for four stores, but I'm not going to spend days on Lexis looking up all of them. This isn't my hobby.--Chaser T 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree wholeheartedly. The article has information not readily available elsewhere. It's definitely worthy of remaining in a separate article as recently created. Has anyone wondered when a store opened or when it was closed, how many stores closed in 1990 and opened in 2002? What's your hobby? Is your hobby worthy of being deleted because, even though it may be informational, only a minority of users share your hobby? Several other articles have similar information. Will we delete the locations from other department store pages such as Macy's, Lord & Taylor, Saks, Nordstrom, Foley's, Marshall Field's, The Bon Marche, Nieman Marcus, etc.? What about the airline pages where list of destinations are included? How about airport pages that list which airlines and destinations they serve? Should a department store chain close, then where would this information be found for future generations if this article is deleted? There is so much more information from the article that can also be found on the company's website, should it be deleted too? If we do this for all articles, no article would be more than a few paragraphs. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia? Clipper471 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally wouldn't respond, but this list is the result of so much work that I want to be sure of things. To be frank, I never have wondered these things about any store. True enough that general information like that found in Wal-Mart_statistics is useful, but the same stats on every store? Inclusion of other information for other stores is not an indication that inclusion here is valid. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Jimbo does say WP is supposed to be 'the sum of all human knowledge' (bad paraphrase), but this is stretching it. Finally, and I don't mean any offense by asking this: how is this a hobby? The US Supreme Court is boring to many people, so I could just be missing something here.--Chaser T 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest for deletion, but then go and add your own references? Clipper471 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 08:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Politicizer

Listing on AfD as article was prodded with reason Assertions of notability are false (26 unique Ghits, 510 altogether), very new (one article so far) and was removed by an editor with the edit summary This page is about a school newspaper and should not be deleted because it is credible. I am listing it here because it is a disputed proposed deletion. As the article doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFY and therefore WP:NOR Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. I am inclined to say delete. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally familiar with The Politicizer -- it is a satirical paper very much like The Onion. The article appears to have some major unfounded exaggerations. - S. Komae (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also personally familiar with the politicizer. It is exaggerated but I think that that fits in with the basic principal of the politicizer.

Delete - Hardly any relevant GHits here. One issue is not enough to establish notability. I see no grounds for keeping. Further, the use of the phrase 'Do not Delete' rather than 'Keep' used by regular editors makes me wonder about the quality of the 'votes'. BlueValour 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the nomination and original votes were actually delete votes, based on the history. I've fixed them above. That being said, this is entirely non-notable and unverifiable. And... "Started in the fall of 2005, The Politicizer is a world-renowned, award winning humor publication that works with the publishing company Conde Nast to put out a biannual color magazine." Does that mean they've published all of two issues, maybe three? Sheesh. --Kinu t/c 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. - Bobet 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Barry

Delete as a non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete in its present form (there are strong copyright concerns), but allow for recreation with suitable text. Tyrenius 00:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Rover Land e

Came across an incomplete nomination from June 25 - posting for completion - no vote Gay Cdn 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a 'concept car' that does not exist as a functioning vehicle - see 2nd paragraph here. The picture may be copyvio and I wonder where the text is from? I think the article is misleading and suggest delete because of all the uncertainties. BlueValour 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably notable concept car with substantial press coverage (per Google). Needs cleanup though. Sandstein 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice obvious ad copy (original author's only contribs related to this article, surpise, surpise). If a third party editor wants to write an article on this, though, based on secondary soruces, I have no problem with it coming back on the wiki. JChap (Talk) 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Gerardini

Delete as non-notable - nobility is not earned by marrying someone who is notable. Gay Cdn 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Street

An unremarkable street. Not notability of any form Nuttah68 16:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Also included in ths AfD[reply]

Albemarle Street
  • Delete, the street is not at all interesting from the information in the article, if it is actually interesting in itself, I expect it to be added to the article how it is in fact interesting, "The street is the location of several notable London clubs - see entry." - I also see no actual information on clubs on the street. If there is information I expect it to be added, or the street should be deleted from Wikipedia. We are not a road guide.--I'll bring the food 16:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Delete Dover Street, and Keep Albemarle Street if the "first one-way street" bit is sourced and added to the article. Some streets are certainly notable, like New York's Wall Street and Broadway, Chicago's Maxwell_Street, or San Francisco's Lombard Street. But as written, these articles don't assert notability, and having notable things on them isn't enough in my book. I'm glad to change my mind if the articles are changed to demonstrate notability, though. William Pietri 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, at least for a while. I appreciate the work that Tyrenius has done, and I'm willing to let these run and see where they go. I'm still very concerned that these have crossed over into WP:NOT an indiscrimiate collection of information territory. I don't believe that a street is inherently notable just because something important once happened there or something on it is important, any more than a pair of socks is notable because somebody important did something while wearing them. To my mind the street has to be known for something like Saville Row or synonymous with something like Threadneedle Street or Downing Street. But it seems like there's enough potential for these articles to qualify. And it's also possible that my horizions are too limited; this is not a paper encyclopedia, so perhaps it's plausible that we should have 5,410 High_Street articles, each with snippets of history. William Pietri 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed NOT and don't see it applying to these two articles. It applies to the trivial, not items of historic interest. The point is that these are well-known and notable streets. The information in the article brings out some of the reasons why this is so, and is therefore not indiscriminate. It is purposeful. You obviously haven't noticed that we do already have 5,410 High Street articles with snippets of history. Take Oxford for example. There is High Street, Oxford. There are also all these other streets in Oxford:
I wouldn't suggest putting them up for AfD, as you'd be stirring up a hornets' nest.Tyrenius 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. The High Street article mentions that there are 5,410 streets called "High Street" in Britain. It seems to me that from the standard a number of people are arguing, there's no reason we wouldn't end up with articles on all of them. Personally, I don't think that important things happening in a place make the place important unless the place becomes synonymous with the events, like Chicago's Haymarket Square. Ditto having shops or galleries, unless, like Rodeo Drive, the street becomes widely known on its own. Whether these two streets qualify under the standards I'd use, I can't say, but I don't yet feel that the articles demonstrate the quality I'm looking for. As to the other articles, quite a number of them seem to be containers for trivia, and I don't believe that inclusion of articles is cause for keeping similar ones. William Pietri 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added significant extra material to both articles. Tyrenius 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep both I was absolutely astonished when I saw these two streets on AfD. They are in the heartland of London's West End off Piccadilly and both are the location for significant premises and historic events associated with the arts. I'm trying to work out how the nom managed to assess "An unremarkable street. Not notability of any form" while happily contributing to Fratton railway station, which has "a staffed ticket office, toilets, a light refreshment facility, car parking and a taxi rank"(!). Tyrenius 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, rightly or wrongly consensus says that all stations are noteworthy, within that I will make sure articles are accurate. With streets, I have no problem with Oxford Street or Shaftsbury Avenue being included, they are synonymous with the institutions in the street as Broadway is. Dover and Abermarle Streets are not. Nuttah68 08:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Within the art world, and for Albemarle Street, the scientific world too with respect to the Royal Institution, these streets are very well-known. I would suggest a little more research before an AfD in the future, or at least waiting a day or two so that the article has the chance to be developed beyond an initial stub — and at least learn to spell the names :). That said, I'm sure this has developed the articles more quickly than might have otherwise been the case! Many thanks for the excellent further development Tyrenius. — Jonathan Bowen 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' What research? My opinion is still is that these streets, regardless of what is located in them, are not notable in themselves but merely addresses. You disagree, as is your right. I am sorry that you have seen the Afd as a personal attack and felt the need to reply in kind, it was not intended in that way. Nuttah68 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence of any personal attack. Jpbowen has been most polite, restrained and friendly, while making the points he wishes to. A street is what is located in it: otherwise it is just a length of tarmac. There is a contradictory logic arguing that Oxford Street is "synonymous with the institutions in the street" while Dover and Albemarle Street "regardless of what is located in them, are not notable in themselves but merely addresses". In fact, if anything, it is the other way round. I'm not aware of any institutions in Oxford Street: it is merely an address (for shops). What research? Well, the famous associations with Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron and Whistler for a start. West End streets are rather like your claim for railway stations - they are all notable. There are other intermediary stages for stubs which are often better than going directly to AfD, e.g. a {{notability}} tag, which then gives editors a chance to improve the entry. If it is subsequently not improved, then the AfD is that much stronger. If it is done, then there's no need for the AfD. I realise you've made some very good and successful noms for AfD so I don't want to knock you, but I would urge caution when there is room for doubt. Tyrenius 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree that putting this up for AfD was hasty. As WP:DP suggests, doing a proposed deletion should be the first step. And before that, it's worth asking the author where they're going with the article. No sense in stirring up unnecessary trouble. William Pietri 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prod is where deletion is not likely to be disputed. If the article's been started by an experienced and capable editor such as Jpbowen, then some dialogue would be the best start.Tyrenius 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We are going to disagree, sticking to London - Oxford Street, Harley Street, Saville Row are synonymous with the activities and institutions connected to them, Pudding Lane, Sidney Street, Cable Street are famous for events that happened in them, Whitehall and The Mall qualifies under both. Dover and Albemarle Street do not have either, they are being included because they are the address of something notable. IMO that is comparable to including someone because they are related to someone notable. Nuttah68 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's sophistry, or at least splitting hairs. If the street is the address of something notable, then it happened in that street. Last point is more comparable to including a street because it is joined to another street. Anyhow, let's just see how the AfD goes with new revisions. Tyrenius 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the same logic, and the relations analogy, then one might say that the Kennedy family is not notable because only a few of them were really important. Rather than having an article on every notable address in a street, it makes more sense to have an article on the street as a whole, especially if, like Dover Street, there is a distinct character to it. --Jumbo 09:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, post Tyrenius' edits. -- GWO
  • Keep. Important London street. What on earth is Dover Street doing on AfD, anyway? It's impossible to walk down any of the streets in this area without coming across multiple notable addresses, blue plaques, memorials, etc. --Jumbo 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for all the lively discussion. Personally I believe any significant historic street with interesting associated events and buildings, especially if there are already Wikipedia links for them from other articles, is worthy of inclusion. This means many streets in a city like London, especially in the central area. Certainly a {{notability}} tag would have been more appropriate here initially in my view in any case. But some general guidance would be welcome. Jonathan Bowen 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, this probably should be dabbed. I suspect that there is more then one Dover Street that may be notable. Vegaswikian 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best to wait till it needs that. Tyrenius 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 08:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wik Rossley

The only Ghits for this or Rowley Simmons, also nominated, are their Wikipedia pages. Can't tell if this is a webcomic or what, but it's definitely nonnotable. NawlinWiki 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cochrane

Non-notable person, a vanity page written by the subject Jefffire 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jefffire 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He might be very marginally notable, but there are no references provided with which to check that and debate it. The only conclusion is vanity. -Fsotrain09 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the notability yet. The most promising source seems to be his books, but they are self-published and far out on the long tail, with Amazon sales ranks of 1,403,065 and 1,468,812 [63] [64]. --William Pietri 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable --RMHED 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is unfortunate that users making comments on this page have no knowledge of the subject matter, in this case astrology. David Cochrane is the developer of Kepler, the number-two general-purpose astrology software. He is certainly notable on that regard alone. His credentials include being the curriculum director of a top astrology school, former president of the largest international astrology organisation, and advisor to another significant astrological body. He is notable by these credentials alone. His main book, Astrology for the 21st Century, has been selected as one of top ten books in The best Essays about Astrology category by the largest astrology bookstore [65]. His other book, AstroLocality Magic, gets an honourable mention in its own category. He is notable by his books alone. He is also a sought-after speaker at various astrological conferences. He is one of the truly progressive thinkers among astrologers today, who is actively shaping a new astrological worldview. Furthermore, he is referenced on the Astrology page. The only marks against the page are that it was created by the person himself (which may be attributed to inexperience), and that it has no sources. These can be certainly remedied without resorting to deletion. All in all, David Cochrane is definitely notable, and only those having no familiarity with this field of study wouldn't recognise that this is so. Aquirata 12:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Notability not established in article (or here), only contributions to the article are from the subject. siafu 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks as though this autobiography was intended for the creator's Userpage rather than a topic page. Zeusnoos 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Would you add a comment that the censorers are preventing another "keep" from being posted onto the David Cochrane page?" - personal message from User:Andrew Homer.
I have agreed to post this here as in my view it doesn't contradict the user's temporary edit block ("You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks"). This message in my opinion cannot be taken as a personal attack, and in no way compromises any of the articles. To the best of my knowledge, posting such a message is not against WP policies and guidelines. Aquirata 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack, but the user is blocked, which means "no editing". I'm not an admin, but personally I don't think a proxy opinion from a blocked user is going to carry much weight.--Isotope23 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I'm don't think it's appropriate to solicit AfD comments from people likely to agree with you: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. See WP:DP#Abuse of deletion process for more info. William Pietri 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken in your impression. David Cochrane is an astrologer. The people I have contacted have been active on the Astrology page and have shown knowledge of the subject matter. Do we not want knowledgeable users to contribute to this discussion? Or would you rather have uninformed people vote in a democratic manner? Aquirata 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am energetically opposed to voting at all on Wikipedia, and I'm not specifically seeking uninformed people. Instead, I believe that WP:V and WP:RS should allow any serious, thoughtful editor to evaluate the quality of an article. The AfD process allows us to get a relatively unbiased sample of people together for evaluation and discussion. If solicitation of participation is to be done at all (which personally I doubt) one has to scrupulously avoid anything that might pack the discussion. Astrology is a contentious topic, and I think soliciting participation only from one side of the debate is bound to introduce bias here. William Pietri 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathise with your view in principle. To clarify where I am coming from, however let me use the timely example of the planetary status of Pluto and UB313. You have to choose between the following two scenarios: (1) a group of astronomers will make an informed decision after deliberation, or (2) a larger group of laypeople, representing a cross-section of humanity (which may or may not include astronomers), will vote on the matter. Which way would you go? Aquirata 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the notion that you should let the people who focus on a thing make the decisions. Here we write an encyclopedia, so the people who decide what's in and out should be the editors. I believe that's how AfD already works. Were we building an encyclopedia of astrology, then packing the discussion with astrologers would be appropriate. But since we're writing a general-audience encyclopedia, it isn't. Better to focus your efforts on providing reliable sources with verifiable information that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. William Pietri 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To elaborate on William Pietri. Aquirata, Wikipedia does not restrict the editing of articles to experts on the article topic. This is because WP is open for anyone to edit. It doesn't matter if the article covers a topic in Drama or Biochemistry, the spirit of a wiki is to allow anyone to edit. Now, if someone editing the Botany article claims to be a botanist, the community would probably take that statement at face value. They might give that editor a certain deference and respect, if his or her edits were helpful, NPOV, and supported by several third-party sources. But the article remains open for anyone to edit. This is how Wikipedia works, and there is little evidence that an exception to this whole process, this entire ethos, should be made for one subject. -Fsotrain09 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fsotrain09 and William Pietri. I see this as an entirely different topic, which would have merits for a more detailed discussion at another time. The objection was raised not to an attempt to exclude laypeople from this page (which is not the case) but to notifying editors knowledgeable about the subject matter. My point is that a better decision can be made with those people involved. The laypeople nevertheless can provide valuable input with respect to WP standards, guidelines and policies, but those alone will not get you the best result. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them", according to WP:IAR. The objective is to improve and maintain, not simply to observe rules. Aquirata 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think trying to increase the amount of information in the discussion is always a good thing, but I believe that you unintentionally did it in a way that could have biased the discussion. That can cause biased articles, unintentional NPOV violations, and partisan behavior when others react. None of that is good for Wikipedia's quality. If you really must pull more people into an AfD (which I'd recommend against), it's better to get a group that's informed and neutral or one that is informed and balanced than to pick only a group of people who share your POV on a topic, no matter how informed they are. Thanks, William Pietri 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ResearchID

I originally slapped a PROD on this one a few months ago, which was removed. Since then, I see no evidence that this site meets WP:WEB, so I figured it was time to bring it to discussion. The Wiki's Recent changes show that a majority of articles on it are edited/created by three or four people, the main page has only got about 9,000 hits total since it's inception per the counter at the bottom. Also, while not a perfect indicator, there are a lot of hits for it, but very few from sites that are not blogs, other Wikis, forums, etc. Delete unless someone can provide more evidence to this site's importance per WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Petros471 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Panda

This article looks like nonsense --Alex9891 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There is already an article dealing with this subject. --Ezeu 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Middle East Crisis

Maybe the creator of this article didn't pay attention to the existance of 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis which was created a few days earlier. -- Szvest 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

  • Merge all these 2006 Arab-Israeli pot-shot pages into a single page somewhere. I'd rather have the information together so I can get a complete perspective. My sense is we won't have a full understanding of all the events for several years anyway. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Szvest's sentiments; I wish none of these pages were here, but Sinooher's argument is very valid; an article to tie the two (possibly more) itemns together is worthwhile, especially during the development of this situation. Perhaps when all is calm again, it may prove not to be needed, but until that is determined, let's keep this as a place to keep it all cohesive. Peace. Bridesmill 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

This article provides insufficient content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited and the article is subject to vandalism regularly by users shown to be using "sock puppets". Vandal paradise, especially popular for edit wars. -- 3bulletproof16 17:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find the timing of this Afd a bit suspicious, as an admin (DeathPhoenix) has been involved in the process to render a final version of the article that conforms to standards. Nevertheless, there are other usenet groups on Wikipedia. Many entries are subject to more vandalism than this one and your statement "insufficient context for those unfamiliar" makes absolutely NO logical sense whatsoever. Work to improve the entry has been marred by ONE user: Chadbryant, and this situation is currently being dealt with. TruthCrusader 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed unverifiable information and have provided links to verify the number of posts. Honestly, why is an Afd being proposed for an entry that is in the middle of being brought up to Wiki standards? TruthCrusader 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's much better now. But in my opinion the article is still sourced only to http://www.rspw.org/ and I don't think that meets the reliable source standards, which say "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." Now, one might say that the newsgroup itself is its own source, but I don't see how you can use it as for general, overall statements about the newsgroup itself without performing original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "highly suspicious"... No I am not affiliated with anyone involved in your apparent dispute, if that's what you mean by "highly suspicious". However what I am aware of is that the article lacks sufficient content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Not only was the information there unreliable, but no sources were even cited. The article has also been subject to numerous edit wars even after an apparent consensus was made. The continuous disputes with yourself and whatever other parties involved are for you to handle so it is irrelevant to the AFD. But just because the article is being nominated for deletion does not mean it can't be improved. Like I said in the edit summary, feel free to edit it. Oh and BTW, if you're going to Requests for comment, I would highly suggest that you read the instructions listed at the top first and Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~.. --3bulletproof16 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect that very few individual Usenet newsgroups, even old ones out of the Big 8 hierarchy, are worthy subjects for individual encyclopedia articles. As far as I can tell we don't even have an article yet for the rec.* hierarchy. If there's a reason why this specific group is worthier than others of its ilk, I am open to persuasion. Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the conditions mentioned in the nomination are valid reasons for deletion. If there's insufficient content, expand it; if sources aren't cited, find sources and cite them; if vandalism occurs, revert it. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The verifiability policy says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True but irrelevant. A lack of sources is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. (Now, if sources simply don't exist, that would indeed be a reason to remove the unverifiable information, and, if that leaves the article with no content, then that's a reason for deletion.) Zetawoof(ζ) 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it is a reason which appears to me to apply to this article, as http://www.rspw.org/ is the only source, and I don't think it meets the reliable source guidelines. It seems to me that if this newsgroup is really important, there ought to be a book or a wrestling magazine article that says so, and if someone quotes that in the article with a proper citation I'm quite prepared to change my recommendation. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
www.rspw.org is NOT cited as a source on the entry. It is only put down as an external link. The source for the number of posts, which is the ONLY information in the entry, is cited through Google, which is really the ONLY way to get a source for the number of posts a usenet group has. I repeat, NOWHERE on the entry is rspw.org used as a cite or source of ANY kind. TruthCrusader 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changing vote, see below) Deleteas completely idiosyncratic non-topic because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No sources cited that would indicate that this particular newsgroup is important outside of its own readership. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then explain the existence of the other usenet groups currently having an entry on Wikipedia. TruthCrusader 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inconsistency, which is to be expected. If you want perfect consistency and policy administered with the even-handedness of Solomon, you want a command-and-control encyclopedia. There is a good deal of content in Wikipedia which does not accord with Wikipedia's policies. As I write this, there is an article in Wikipedia entitled Andrew Greiner whose entire content is "Andrew Greiner is an amazing person." That is not an argument for keeping another article with similar content. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so then why has the entry for rspw been around for over a year, and had many comments posted by various editors, none of whom saw fit to nominate it for an Afd. Also, if you feel this way than why haven't you slapped Afd's on the rest of the useless usenet articles? TruthCrusader 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          1. ) In this discussion, I am expressing an opinion on this particular article.
          2. ) If any of these other unspecified articles is nominated for deletion, and if I happen to read that discussion, and if, on inspection, it appears to me that deleting the material in it that does not meet the verifiability policy would amount to blanking the article, then I will express the opinion that that other article should be deleted.
          3. ) If, in the normal course of working on articles that interest me, I happen to encounter a link to an article on a USENET group that contains no verifiable content, I will nominate it for deletion myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As long as one user with an agenda is allowed to abuse the system and censor valid and verifiable content from the article (rendering it pointless), the article doesn't need to exist. - Chadbryant 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to point out, the above user is the one who has been trying to insert unverifiable and uncited sources. He has already reverted the entry after I removed the information that caused this Afd. This can be verified by visiting the entry talk page. TruthCrusader 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see absolutely no reason for deletion. While professional wrestling as a mainstream medium in the entertainment industry (and, to a point, the world of sports) has wained in the last several years, becoming not as popular as it once was in the late 1990s/early 2000s, that does not mean that it no longer holds a legitimate place in popular culture OR on the Internet. Now, as per regards to that, rec.sport.pro-wrestling is one of several HUNDRED THOUSAND discussion groups on Usenet. Therefore, it stands to reason that even the most seasoned veteran, from the guys who put the first computer together in the 1960s to Bill Gates and his Microsoft cronies in the 21st century, would not necessarily know what the newsgroup is, or even what Usenet is if questioned about the subject. HOWEVER, that does not mean that an entry on Wikipedia for it must be deleted. To argue that this entry should be removed based on the fact that one person has had a personal agenda to see his information placed onto the article is ridiculous. The entry -- while copiously changed thanks to trolls such as Mr. Chadbryant -- still gives a valid, informative definition on what RSPW is as a whole. No one person should be allowed to sway the balance of a Wikipedia article, and it seems to me that Chadbryant is simply laying on an immature level of "You guys won't play the way I want to, so I'm taking my ball and going home." It's just that since this is Wikipedia, he has to have the approval of the group before he grabs the ball. Keep the article, but semi-protect it and make sure that Chadbryant is aware that he is not the only person on Wikipedia. --Dooby Scoo 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zetawoof. Spacepotato 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable, reliable outside sources are provided. Handwaving is not a reliable source. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP If you delete this newsgroup's entry, then every other newsgroup with a wikipedia entry must also be summarily deleted. WillC 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and your logic makes sense how? If you delete a biography of a politician as unverifiable, does that mean that all biographies of politicians must be also deleted? Your argument is nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that we should keep this article, I don't think that the Pokémon argument| is a strong argument. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lack of content or verifable sources has never stopped a Wikipedia entry before. If you write a letter, then before you mail it decide to add additional content, does that mean that the person you were sending the letter to should decide to ignore the whole thing if they were to find out what you did? This entire arguement has no substance. It appears to be more of a personal agenda by one or two persons rather than an actual question of the article; as a result, to delete it would not only be unjust and unfair to those who have attempted to keep it as legitimate as possible while removing material placed there by trolls, but at the same time it would say a lot in a negative sense for Wikipedia in general. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that this Web site advertised itself as a "free encyclopedia." I think I've even heard it called the one that "anyone can edit." With that in mind, sure you are going to have articles that lack content, or sources, or seem a bit awry. But that's going to happen to a lot of articles -- not just rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Looking at the history of the edit of the article, I can see where attempts have been made to keep the article in check with Wikipedia policy, as well as update it whenever possible. Given that this is a newsgroup on Usenet, however, and not say breaking news or anything current, that may have proven to be difficult in the past or it may even become difficult in the future. But if, for example, (and I know this is a bit of a stretch), the article on Richard Nixon was not added to or placed with additional sources due to the fact that his Presidency has been over for quite some time and he's passed on for more than decade now, should that mean that someone should come along and request his entry on Wikipedia be deleted? Or should the entry be polished up with whatever facts may have been overlooked, or possibly the article could be written in a better format by those authors and writers who have had no only experience writing on Wikipedia, but offline as well? I guess what I'm trying to say in this long-winded statement is that the article, while flimsy and questionable due to a certain individual attempting to modify it in a way that seems to have been regarded as incorrect or trolling, that does NOT mean that it should come along and be removed. It should instead be kept to the highest standards that an article such as that can be kept (and let's face it, since it's RSPW that's not exactly the best, but whatever works) and it should also be scrutinized and watched carefully for when such trolls as the one or two individuals involve come along and attempt to change the article for their liking, either in a malicious attempt or other such immature behavior. --Writers Block 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The reasoning that "other articles lack sources so its ok" is fallacious in the extreme. That's analogous to claiming that because one person may have gotten away with murder, murder is ok. If an article lacks verifiable sources, they need to be added. If they do not exist, the article needs to be deleted as unverifiable. This isn't a blog. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of content or verifable sources has never stopped a Wikipedia entry before. — Lack of sources is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles. I thought that this Web site advertised itself as a "free encyclopedia." — It is an encyclopaedia that adheres to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. There are projects that do not. This project does. Uncle G 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.tv.real-world, Wikipedia is not a directory, be it of people, companies, web sites, or Usenet newsgroups. For an article to be worthwhile, there needs to be scope for expansion of the article to be more than a simple directory entry. There needs to be secondary source material published and available that is more substantial than simple directory listings and excerpts from "active" files. Usenet newsgroups that have had multiple non-trivial works published about them (such as FAQs on faqs.org. for example) qualify for articles on this basis. This newsgroup has a FAQ on faqs.org. Keep. Uncle G 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AfD is not a substitute for the cleanup and cite tags, nor is being a vandal magnet a good reason for deletion. This newsgroup is indeed notable enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly per UncleG, but also because TruthCrusader has cleaned up the worst problems with unsourced opinion. The article is now a stub which acceptably indicates the sources for the traffic numbers. The description of the forum is not referenced to anything; for the time being I'm going to assume that people glancing at the actual forum content would take it to be an adequate and non-controversial description (which still doesn't meet WP:V, of course). I would be much, much happier though if the article cited some good mainstream sources indicating the importance of the group: a news interview with a wrestler who says he follows rec.sport.pro-wrestling to see what people are saying about them, or a wrestling magazine recommending rec.sport.pro-wrestling as a good discussion venue... or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Found a book mention that calls it "the largest online discussion forum for wrestling," see article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A major pro wrestling star, Stevie Richards repeatedly wore an "Rapw sucks" shirt to several ECW shows and a PPV in 1995. Doesn't that constitute notability? How are the other usenet groups profiled on Wiki any more notable? TruthCrusader 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being mentioned on a wrestler's t-shirt is grounds for an article, no. McPhail 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not alone, but we were looking for examples of other mediums that have mentioned rspw...the fact that a known wrestler on a ppv sported an rspw shirt is notable. WillC 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on the other USENET groups are not relevant here, we're discussing this article. The relevant guideline is WP:WEB, not the content of other articles. (I happen to think now that rec.sport.pro-wrestling does meet that guideline... barely). The content of other articles would only be relevant if it were crystal-clear that the Wikipedian community had judged them to be representative of good practice; for example, if they had been featured articles.Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is a wikipedia entry for Internet Wrestling Community gives the RSPW entry a permanent place here. RSPW is the first thing mentioned. WillC 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because Stevie Richards wore an RSPW t-shirt doesn't mean it warrants an article on Wikipedia. In the discussion for Bleeding Was Only Half the Job, your argument (This is to TruthCrusader) was that even though Ron Jeremy has endorsed a project it doesn't mean that it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Applied to this topic, that argument would make your Stevie Richards claim not stand.JB196 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes but the difference is that "Bleeding was only half the job" was a vanity entry made by yourself, promoting a book being written by YOU that may or may not ever be written. Big difference. TruthCrusader 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was written by myself is not relevent as there is no Wikipedia policy saying an entry can't be written by the person who it is about. Personally, I think rspw deserves an entry on WP as it has played a significant role in the development of the IWC so I am voting Keep. That being said I think the current entry needs some work.JB196 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And believe it or not, i DO appreciate your contributions to the entry, even if we disagree on most of them :) TruthCrusader 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Krakatoa. Tyrenius 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krakatoan eruption

Procedural nom. Completing nomination by anon IP 64.209.120.166 (talk · contribs), who tagged it with the edit summary: "nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This article is redundant. The main Krakatoa article is much better. Perhaps a redirect?". No vote. Fan-1967 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I right in understanding the tone of the article to imply that these are eruptions that are possibly unrelated to Krakatoa? In other words, a large eruption at Mt. St. Helens could be a "Krakatoan eruption"? Either way, the term doesn't seem to be used as its own entity--Ghits produce 15 unique links, none of which imply anything other than Krakatoa's own historical eruptions. If this term were to exist, anyone would know to visit the Krakatoa page by virtue of the name anyway. Count this as a Delete vote. HumbleGod 06:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Krakatoa. --LambiamTalk 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep do not redirect to Krakatoa, perhaps redirect to a types of eruption article. A "Krakatoan eruption" is a class of eruptive event. I've seen it in some Volcanology books. It's also classed as "Super-Vesuvian". Essentially, there's a bunch of names for the different levels of eruptions, and "Krakatoan" is one of them. IIRC "Hawaiian eruption" is the least explosive. 132.205.44.134 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no evidence here, or on Google, that this is a generally used or accepted term. BlueValour 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this. There is one, but only one, commentor who makes a case for the article -- but it is a very strong case. But it isn't really verified except from memory. And there's nothing on Google (apparantly), which seems odd, and a bunch of Delete and Redirect votes. I don't think there's enough here to Keep the article, yet. Can anyone verify from anywhere that "Krakatoan Eruption" is a valid term? Herostratus 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Maloney

Cut and paste of bio from of non-notable bureaucrat from regional website by WikiRoo (talk • contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk • contribs) who has issues. This article isn't going anywhere good. JChap (Talk) 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRooThe article was modified and updated to expand Wiki and is not cut and paste.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Middle School

delete as per notability, though there are high school articles, are junior high ones necessary? Chris 18:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael FitzGerald

Assumed to be an autobiography. And very low on biographic content. --Pjacobi 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn bowers

Non-notable teen filmmaker. Lots of results for "Shawn Bowers" (31,200), but nothings when searching for his name attached to his works. 3 when searching for "Your Cat is Dead", 0 with "Encounter Shawnee Mission", 0 with "Jesus in the Phantom Zone", 3 with "Work/Play". His name plus the museum he received an award from gets no hits. His name plus the Kansas City Film Critics Circle gets 108 hits, only 4 unique, almost all of the hits are for his "Rotten Tomatoes" account. Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:V, it's probably WP:AUTO or WP:VAIN as well. Metros232 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy keep per are you kidding? Editing the article to make it a disambiguation page does not require deletion. Take it to the talk page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be changed to a disambiguation page, because there are already wiki articles on legal and moral rights. The writing on this page is also biased towards the belief in moral rights. Sodregat 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has been around for a long time, longer than the other articles split off; it should never be deleted - other solutions should be addressed before resorting to deletion, like moving the GFDL to make room for a disambig, or addressing any bias issues on the talk page. Deletion is too extreme a measure to take with Right; that should only be as a last resort, after all other info has been carefully merged. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page. It would probably be most useful this way for people that search for "right" on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wiktionary definition of the word could be the first entry in the disambig list. It seems that most topics touched upon in this article are their own pages, so little content would be lost. The external links at the bottom could be moved to more appropriate pages - such as "Human Rights Watch" to human rights. Fabricationary 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion, the fact that so many italicized "see XXX" blurbs are needed at the top is an indication that a disambig page is perhaps not unwarranted. However, such changes should be discussed on article talk pages, and I can't see how this article would be deleted even if a disambig page were moved to this title. -- H·G (words/works) 19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest Student Traditions

Delete as unencyclopedic OR. The author had previously posted Four Years at Wake Forest based on nothing more than his own personal experience;[78] I suspect this unreferenced posting is more of the same. Even if ultimately verifiable, all of these "traditions" are so generic that they can be found on just about every university campus in the U.S.—TP'ing the campus, taking local children trick-or-treating for Hallowe'en, student religious ceremonies specific to that school's denomination, and pledge night. The most generic "tradition" of all: "Wake students...go en masse with a large group of their friends to a leisurely place for a couple days to a week of rest and relaxation, an activity known as ‘post-exams.’" Postdlf 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was MERGE to New Urbanism. TigerShark 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pedestrianism

Appears to be an example of WP:NEO. No real independent sources offered and it reads like original research. Delete as a non-notable term, unverifiable, and original research. Metros232 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "'Keep'" MIchael E. Arth has been cleaned up, expanded, and kept. This link is now more relevant. New Pedestrianism is an important variant of New Urbanism that vastly improves it. I will add a paragraph to New Urbanism also.

12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matchnight in America

De-prodded with comment on talk page. The concerns are low Ghits (155 when excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors) and low Alexa ranking ( 257,762 ) Punkmorten 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico U-17 championship victory

Too detailed for its own topic. Relevant information is already on 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship and related pages. Punkmorten 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bent marriage

The opposite of straight marriage? Voortle 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games

Listcruft, list will never be complete Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is another case where a category would work best, if at all. If there's any significance to the fact that these games had a slightly different format than other PS2 games, it's not established in the "article." If we can establish that there is, then categorize it and note the difference on the Playstation 2 article, if it isn't already. If we can't, then just delete. -- H·G (words/works) 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's some precedent to keep it here, but in this case I agree with HumbleGod that a cat would be better. RandyWang (raves/rants) 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether or not a game is multiplayer is reasonably significant; the media of the game is not. --Cornflake pirate 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A category would not work best because there will be several non-notable games on this list that will never be covered by Wikipedia. The information on media could potentially be useful, say, to someone studying specific physical media adoption rates over time, or a comparison of file usage for indie and major developers. It sounds esoteric, but I believe this could be useful information. --SevereTireDamage 06:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. I couldb't think of a good way to merge this into List of Playstation 2 games, so I'm going with keep. I think the information is minimally useful, but I'll let that slide. Ace of Sevens 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SevereTireDamage. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone ABOVE who supports deletion please re-check the list and read the new introduction/description written at the top of the list. As it now stands, there is no way to merge this information into categories without losing a vast amount of information. We would need to create a massive number of game stubs and also somehow rectify the problem of games being released in 3 regions (4 counting the rare China PS2 games I can find nothing about) in occassionally different media. It would be nice if someday this could be made into a category, but with the sorry state of completeness, uniformity, and duplication among PS2 games and games in general, I think this list is extremely useful. Also, a very small number of game page infoboxes DO include BOTH game region & game media information. At least until most games are given this same depth of info, I think this list should survive. Finally, note this companion list List_of_PlayStation_2_DVD-9_games which survived a contentious deletion request back in late April 2006. --Rory77 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable games deserve mention in Wikipedia...why, exactly? -- nae'blis (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Useful list, quite exhaustive, and as others said, many games are barely worth giving articles so a list will be more useful than a category. But it could be integrated into List of PlayStation 2 games specifying what media they are on, maybe with use of a table for easier readability. --Zilog Jones 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I had seen the article without the preface - I would have questioned its usefullness/notability as well - but understanding the function it could serve as well as seeing the outlining for keeping the list discriminate (I think a big factor here) I am swayed to vote for keeping the article. The suggestion the list would go on forever is laughable - already PS2 media as a whole should be on the decline soon - and as CD based is but a small percentage of that in the first place I see no reason why this list couldnt be completely comprehensive with a little time and contributions from people. Deusfaux 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herald (band)

I don't think it meets WP:BAND Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Safe Online

advert for a non-notable program Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, seems like a fairly widespread program, with Ghits well over 1.8 million on both British and American Google. That said, the article as written doesn't do much to assert its notability, very few edits have been made since the article was started some months back, and I'm not sure how familiar it is to the British public, being an American and all. But I'm fairly sure its coverage alone makes it a notable program -- H·G (words/works) 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from another American. The article could be meatier, but it's got enough corporate sponsorship, government involvement and Ghits to indicate it's notable.--Chaser T 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs more meat, but certianly is notable. Its present condition however makes the article quite useless.(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep; nominator request with no standing votes to delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City barbecue

Appears to be an ad for barbeque sauce, hopelessly jumbled and unencyclopedic. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Based on the comments here I am going to delete the templates. The base of the article was original intended to break up Regional variations of barbecue into sub-articles differentiating the regional differences. Americasroof 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 08:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Star Trek

I just transwikied this to Memory Alpha, another Wikimedia project, which I think is a more appropriate place for it than Wikipedia, a general interest encyclopedia. There's already an article at MA on "The Physics of Star Trek," which is basically a book review. I thought transwikiing the article would make for a nice complement to that article. I also transferred the talk page. If consensus is to delete on Wikipedia, I'd be happy to go back to MA and fix all the red links. Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, the majority at the AfD for "Physics and Star Wars seems to be pointing to this article as an example of how that one should be done, and even those people want to keep that poorly-written article. This one, on the other hand, is much more well-written and appears to be a topic of interest to a large audience of Wikipedia. As much as I hate the buildup of scifi cruft, this one seems like a keeper. -- H·G (words/works) 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great article for a great franchise. Dionyseus 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be just one book on this topic, but the topic itself isn't fancruft, and I think it has enough general interest to keep this decent article.--Chaser T 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete science fiction is "fiction" so it doesn't have to obey physical laws, WOW! Next we'll have [[Physics and <fill in your preferred sci-fi/fantasy/horror/mystery show]]. Carlossuarez46 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Take a look at the book, which has serious scientist explaining how Star Trek could work or why certain things couldn't work. It isn't called Science fiction for nothing, there is real hard science next to the fiction, and some parts of the fiction generate the idea for real science. Did you know that scientists are experimenting with beaming? --84.184.91.94 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is perfectly all right as long as it isn't original research. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About as reasonable an encyclopedia article as Cryptozoology and War and Peace. Memory Alpha is the right place. -- GWO
  • Delete. Fancruft. Artw 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ye canna change the laws of physics, yet Scotty does it every other week; yes, there's a book, but that doesn't make this topic encyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dionyseus. Topic has long been discussed and article has a reference. --JJay 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't see any obvious need for deletion; the physics of Star Trek is encyclopedic as many, many internet discussions seem to suggest 24.9.10.235 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Should we add, for every piece of science fiction X, "X and physics"? Of course, almost every piece of science fiction is going to involve scientifically impossible/unlikely elements, scientifically possible/likely elements, and elements whose possibility depends on future physics. Elaborating on this in detail for every piece of science fiction -- or even just major ones like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. -- is just fancruft. And if we are to have it, it does not deserve its own article. --SJK 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should add them if they have been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works, and we should not add them if they have not (because doing so where there is no pre-existing source material would be original research). Wikipedia should reflect the subjects that exist in sources. People have written and published non-trivial works about the physics of the Star Trek universe as compared to the physics of this one. Therefore Wikipedia should discuss the subject. They have not (to my knowledge) written and published such works about the physics of (say) the The Magic Goes Away universe. Therefore Wikipedia should not have an article about physics and the The Magic Goes Away universe. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject has been discussed in multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the authors of the universe, and the article even cites these as sources. Keep. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and eventually merge . Science is important to science fiction (hence the "science" part) therefore it is not fancruft (a discussion of a trivial issue or one peripheral to the topic would be fancruft). A suggestion has been made on the AfD for "Physics and Star Wars to create an article on Physics and Science Fiction. Once an article like this is written then it would be appropriate to propose merging this article into it. Lurker 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again, y'all. I've tried to be a really good sport about this article and not mention the f#$cr^&t word or any bias for or against Star Trek. I can't help but think that Trek gets extra-special treatment around here, and that squicks my fundamental ideas of fair play and the rule of law. I personally don't vote to keep articles I happen to like or articles on subjects I like if they grossly violate policy or what a Wikipedia article should be. I even transferred the article and its accompanying talk page to Memory Alpha, which is a Wikia (Wikimedia) project, and I didn't even have to do that. NO KNOWLEDGE WILL BE LOST. I'm starting to think that if this is a no consensus keep, it will need to go straight through AfD after a grace period of one month, and if it is a consensus keep, and I hope it's not, it will have to go to deletion review based on the flimsy evidence given in the keep votes. Honestly, I try to be a nice, reasonable guy, but this kind of thing really makes me wonder. The known laws of physics are do not apply in the TV shows and movies associated with Star Trek. That's not a revelation of any kind. Please, folks, do the right thing. Erik the Rude 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the flimsy evidence given in the keep votes — The "flimsy evidence" is not flimsy at all. And it is the article itself that cites sources. Please, folks, do the right thing. — Keeping an article on something that has been the subject of multiple independent published works is the right thing. Wikipedia encompasses human knowledge, and that includes human knowledge about fiction. Uncle G 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik, I find your comment somewhat condescending. Why don't you argue policy and guidelines instead of telling us what you will do if this AfD doesn't go your way? The relevant guideline for closing admins says When in doubt, don't delete so I don't think the burden is on the keepers in this discussion. Imho, there's been no convincing argument to delete based on policy. The fancruft essay says that the problems are usually verifiable sources, NPOV, and avoiding OR. None of these seem to be a problem here (though I acknowledge there's not much beyond the one book). I don't think this article is any more marginal than an article on a certain cross-dressing street performer (remember?).--Chaser T 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The referenced published book seems adequately notable. Because of the 5-8 editions, it's hard to establish an amazon.com sales rank, but 2 of the editions were ranked between 100,000 and 250,000 at the last check. (It was also available in the last three community libraries where I looked for it — I haven't checked ourlist of library catalogs to see if the book would be notable if an article were proposed on it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well written. Sourced. NPOV. Agne27 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't think that you could transwiki things to Memory Alpha, as their license is different from the GFDL. JYolkowski // talk 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Messiah

Stumbled onto this one through random article. Little known game. The page has not been edited since its creation almost a year ago. The google test is misleading since "digital messiah" is not such an uncommon phrase. It is in particular the name of a music band. If you google for both "digital messiah" and role-playing, the total is 46 unique ghits, and even most of those are totally irrelevant. [79] Of course fails the current proposal WP:SOFTWARE. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday (David Bowie song)

Never released as a single ... not-notable song by extremely notable artist DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Hoard

Permanent stub. Yes, several Donkey Kong games revolve around him recovering his stolen bananas. There's nothing else of relevance you can say that can't just as easily go on the page for the individual game. Ace of Sevens 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus Hall in Arlington Heights

Not quite sure what to make of this one. Article claims it's a notable music venue. Is it? Fall Out Boy played there, but then Fall Out Boy's played at a lot places. The article claims that the hall is second only to the Fireside Bowl, but then the Fireside Bowl itself doesn't have an article. I guess the question is, does the sum total of all the bands that've played there amount to notability? I say no. At the end of the day, it's K of C hall in some suburb in Illinois. I could be wrong, though. Herostratus 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, nn building. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into or mention in, Fallout-Boy and/ or Knight's of Columbus main article. Knowing Is Half The Battle 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN building. Dionyseus 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a mention in the main Knights of Columbus may be warranted. Rarr 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This particular hall has served and continues to serve the Chicago suburban music scene and was influencial in bringing Chicago punk rock into popular music. In addition to Fall Out Boy, early incarnations of Rise Against( Dreamwords Records) also got its beginnings at this venue. This article is obviously in it's early stages and will need a lot more references (which do exist) but it is of notable significance to the Chicago punk rock scene.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebno (talk • contribs) .
    • (N.B. Thebno, a new Wikipedian, is the author of the article. Given his statement above, I think Userfy for now might be a valid option.) Herostratus 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you supply us with verification of your contention of the importance of the location? Links to major publications which discuss its importance? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PETE WENTZ: "We had a lot of the bands. I mean, the bands that we grew up with are starting to go places now. We have Spitalfield and then our little brothers, who are like from the same scene, The Academy Is. It was kind of a scene that was built around us and we kind of did it in Knights of Columbus Hall. We did it by ourselves where people wouldn't book us in the city, and it's really about the people and the younger kids. It's a place where we can still go back. I went and saw The Academy Is at the Knights of Columbus Hall and kids don't harass you and bother you and you don't feel like you are like this star or whatever. It was really cool because it just feels like home and people ask how you've been and congratulate you and stuff, but at the same time, it doesn't feel awkward. I love it, it's the best place I have ever been I guess."

http://www.cfreradio.com/interviews/falloutboy.html

Here is a direct quote from an MTV Article "It's pretty insane that a band that used to play Knights of Columbus [halls] in Arlington Heights, Illinois, is now up for a Grammy," said Pete Wentz of first-time nominees Fall Out Boy http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1517699/12082005/carey_mariah.jhtml

Here is another article from New City Chicago with Fall Out Boy referencing the Arlington Heights Knights of Columbus http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/4395.html

There is a whole history behind how the Knights of Columbus became an environment where Illinois garage bands developed into mainstream punk bands, which didn't just happen over night. That is why I felt the need to create this page because it has never been properly documented before, and what better place than wikipedia. User:Thebno

The MTV link you quoted above kind of makes the case that this place is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kong family enigmas

Non-encyclopedic (more of an essay) and doesn't cover anything that couldn't be covered on the individual character pages. Ace of Sevens 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep; nothing has changed since the recent AfD; also I have concerns about personal attacks and POV pushing in this AfD debate. David | Talk 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

This article is arab propaganda filled with lieas and distortions - so it doesn’t (and will not ever) fulfil Wikipedia’s goal of Neutral Point Of View. It’s nothing but hateful original research. Especially now after the Hizb'allah Mooselimbs has cowardly attacked Israel and killed innocent lives. This and other Islamofascist propaganda needs to get NPOVed or AFDed ASAP. SoCalJustice 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW what are "Mooselimbs"? --Ben Houston 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - previous AfD result from a few weeks ago was "keep", and out-of-policy move is in arbitration. --John Nagle 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article is one of the most sourced of any I've seen on WP. The OR charge appears to be made in bad faith. According to deletion policy, POV is not a valid deletion reason. This article is probably just as incredibly controversial as it was during the previous AfD.--Chaser T 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Are you kidding me? This SoCal kid has the gall to insult well over a billion people with his "Mooselimbs" comment while he whines about an article not being NPOV (even when the article openly states that it is documenting an allegation)? If he wants to be a dick, that's his prerogative. Regardless, allegations have historical value, especially allegations which are widely supported by one side of a major conflict. This is an encyclopedia. This article has a place here. SoCal will just have to learn how to deal with it. --(Mingus ah um 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Keep ...and the drama continues. JChap (Talk) 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Belles 2: Back to the Dairy

No evidence this is actually going to be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete --Spring Rubber 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tremain Downey-Devilous

Deprodded. There are no claims to notability other than directing short films, and there is no verification of that. Googling for the name turns up nothing. Googling for him and any one of his companies turns up the copyrighted page this was based on (though if the creator also wrote that page, he might be able to relicense it). It also turns up the subject's website, and this ancient VfD. He's got a little more presence on google these days, but he's still not notable.--Chaser T 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herolocker

Fails WP:CORP - no independent Ghits here. BlueValour 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPAM - advertising and, as noted above, no notability. Martinp23 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

++What's the difference between this and Amazon.com and the other 20+ businesses that have entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annpiacini (talk • contribs) BlueValour 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Amazon has an annual revenue of USD$8.5 billion, is a Fortune 500 company, and is the 15th most visited website on the planet. In short, it's quite a bit more notable than Herolocker. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's true about Amazon, but what about other privately held companies in Wiki that have revenue listed less than USD$1 million, are not fortune 500 companies, are not heavily visited, and are not generally news-worthy?
  • This was my first foray into Wikipedia and placed the article out of ignorance. I see now that it does in fact violate policy and would agree that it should be deleted. However, as a first time user, I doubt I'll be back as the posts here are fairly mean-spirited and not welcoming to newcomers. Wikipedia users must view themselves as an elite insiders club. signed by annpiacini and yes I haven't figured out how to include my signature, but doesn't matter really, does it?
  • Comment - I am sorry that you are upset but I understand because it is never nice having your first article deleted. People are generally friendly but here on AfD the workload is high so sometimes the comments can be a bit robust. I also acknowledge that there will be many other companies on here that probably shouldn't be; it is a matter of us finding them. To sign put ~~~~ after your message. If you would like any help please feel free to contact me (click on my name then on the 'discussion' tab). BlueValour 03:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cranbury School

Non-notable stub article with little verifiable information D. G. 00:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) In the interests of disclosure, as suggested by AFD guidelines, you should know that WhisperToMe is the creator of the article and primary contributor. D. G. 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: See details added to the article regarding recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program for the 1996-97 school year. I think this would address the issue re notability, and would seem to justify a Speedy Keep. Alansohn 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are over three thousand schools that have blue ribbon awards. It is not that unique as to create notability. Must we have an article for every single one of those 3000 schools that ever was given a blue ribbon award? D. G. 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: We deserve proper disclosure by DG that he has apparently been involved in an ongoing personal battle with WhisperToMe regarding other, related articles. I would expect to see WhisperToMe or any other creator of an article defending their work. It's entirely unjustified to see someone with an axe to grind create an AfD and blame the creator for "bad faith". Let's see full disclosure from the nominator. Alansohn 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disclosures disclosed by Alansohn are correct, but that's beside the point. D. G. 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A stub can always be expanded. The information about the board of education is easily verifiable (just check the Cranbury School website), as is the other content of the article. Also, this is a school district, not just any ordinary school. School district articles should be inherently kept. WhisperToMe 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good stub can be expanded. This stub isn't really expandable. There is not really any information beyond the basic statistics, ie, how many students, who are the administrators, on the official website. It's a small 600 student elementary school in a rural town. D. G. 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to expand it - If one finds the history of the school (when it was established, if any major additions or overhauls were made), that would make a good addition. If the district served other municipalities and they broke away, that would be a good addition too. WhisperToMe 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But no such history exists and you are being disingenous. You can claim all day that just about any article could be expanded to fill a fifty page article, in theory. But in practice, you and I know that it is certainly not possible and you are certainly not going to contribute to make more than a stub with a phone number directory. This is just another vanity school article, except with a stranger origin: namely, your violation of WP:POINT D. G. 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I created this article because I wanted to get rid of the school-related category at Cranbury Township, not because of the PHS disputes. WhisperToMe 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, look what I found: http://www.cranbury.org/history/schools.htm - More material to supplement this article! WhisperToMe 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Xrblsnggt 02:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The nomination makes to claims re notability and verifiability. In response, 1) School has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program for the 1996-97 school year, which should address issue of notability. Schools and school districts are notable. This article is just as notable as any of the 300+ school districts listed in Category:School districts in New Jersey, and the nominator provides no objective criteria that the article does not meet. 2) Every bit of information was verified and is verifiable using the sources provided. Given the fact that the reason for deletion are unsupported there seems to be no reason to justify deletion. If I read the contributions by User:DG correctly, it seems that this AfD may be in bad faith. Edits made by this user to Cranbury Township, New Jersey removing a link to Cranbury School and presupposing a successful AfD demonstrate that this AfD is at best quite questionable. Alansohn 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it was the creation of this article in the first place which was done very much in bad faith, if you'll read the record. D. G. 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DG's statement claiming that this article was created in bad faith demonstrates that this AfD was part of some petty personal battle and not a good faith effort to identify irreedambly bad articles. I'd suggest that we get a better explanation of why this is not bad faith. Alansohn 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, WTM. I suggest that the information be merged into the Cranbury Township page. There is certainly a place to merge in to. D. G. 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would have been more feasible if Cranbury School served grades K through 12. But, it's K-8, and restoring the category to the Cranbury page would be misleading - The District Factor Group category applies to school systems, not the actual municipality. The Cranbury School is New Jersey District Factor Group J - Princeton Regional Schools (which serves high school students in Cranbury) is New Jersey District Factor Group I. Therefore two factor group categories apply to Cranbury's student body. As for listing both, the problem is that Cranbury doesn't have its own high school - it sends its kids to someone else's school district, which is listed anyway as Factor Group I. A school district is as much of a local government as a city, borough, etc. itself - Local government articles are notable. WhisperToMe 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, the trend now is to try to merge into the school district - When Clear Creek High School was up for deletion, at first merging into League City, Texas was considered, but later someone pointed out that it should actually be merged into Clear Creek ISD, since CCISD is the parent school district. CCHS was kept, but I'm showing the idea here. WhisperToMe 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the content from the websites above are included in this article, then surely the content may break copyright policy? I maintain my delete vote based on my long-held view that the "all schools are notable" opunion is nonsense. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of information from varied sources, with references, is what Wikipedia is all about. If you have a concern re copyvio issues, provide references, other than that your argument is baseless. The question is not if all schools are notable (which you are entitled to argue), the question is if this one is not. See the article as it currently exists and justify your claim that there is no evidence of notability. Alansohn 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Change from delete) - some latest revelation of information makes me feel the article should stay for now. (including more info about the award and that it is a school district itself) --WinHunter (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - no assertion of notability in the article. It currently is "just another public school", long history does not mean it's notable. --WinHunter (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See details in article regarding recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program for the 1996-97 school year. I think this would be an "assertion of notability" per your comment. Alansohn 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems to me that the blue ribbon award is rather easy to obtain and so many other schools have obtained this award also. For 2005 alone:
Total # of Nominated Schools Selected as NCLB-BRS: 296
Percentage of Nominated Schools Selected as NCLB-BRS: 82%
That means there are thousands of schools obtained this award over the years? If so I don't see how notable it is to obtain such award--WinHunter (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way - at the least, there are hundreds of thousands of schools in the United States alone. A few thousand out of hundreds of thousands is not much. WhisperToMe 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Cranbury School article is a carefully researched, thoroughly documented article that provides all sources regarding its backgound and claim to notability. Of the 105,000+ K-12 public and private schools in the U.S. (see the American School Directory for further details), under 3/10 of 1% of schools (based on your unsourced numbers) felt that they were willing to go through the rigorous selection proces to be recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. The article on the program describes in depth the rigor of the selection process. You provide no source for your claim (or for your statistics) other than your personal feeling that the award is "rather easy to obtain." Again, the article makes an explicit assertion of notability, contrary to your claim. You need to provide a better justification for deletion, and providing objective criteria that the article fails to meet would be a start. Alansohn 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for forgetting to quote the source, it was from this pdf from ed.gov and the figure is for the award in 2005 only (the program has been running for 24 years by now?). Also, if most schools feel this is a rigid process (and unwilling to apply/nominate) then it means that the award is not even recognized from within the education sector? Btw, my feelings that it is "rather easy to obtain" is from the high number of successful selected schools (82%) of whose schools who are willing to go through this "rigid process". --WinHunter (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, if most schools feel this is a rigid process (and unwilling to apply/nominate) then it means that the award is not even recognized from within the education sector?" - Not necessairly - Not all students in school choose to take Advanced Placement tests, but AP tests are recognized by universities. Is this a good analogy? WhisperToMe 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am no longer so certain this article should be deleted. I don't know if it's possible for me to change my vote seeing as I originally nominated the article for deletion, but if it is, I am voting keep and hope it is kept. WhisperToMe and Alansohn have more than addressed any concerns about verifiability and turned the article into something which could really grow. I feel guilt and regret for having nominated this page for deletion-- partly out of genuine belief that the school was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (a concern that I don't feel is totally addressed still)-- but mostly for petty and unwholesome reasons. I may disagree with WhisperToMe on other unrelated issues but his model behaviour on this article-- not just sitting around arguing, but actually showing not telling by improving the article-- has shamed and inspired me. I'm sorry I nominated this article for deletion. Congratulations on bringing it up to shape. D. G. 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like you can withdraw the nomination. --WinHunter (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn and the school was established in the 1850s, later added as a New Jersey State Historic Site. Any issues with verifiability have been resolved. Silensor 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Vendetta League

Delete - non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. 1 Ghit here. BlueValour 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowballed per this. Tawker 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for kids

I don't think I understand this - can anyone help on its notability? BlueValour 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15&oldid=1081095723"