Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 8

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a soundtrack that doesn't exist (it simply attempts to run down the music played in the movie and when), and there is no sign that one ever will. Delete as original research on a non-notable topic. --InShaneee 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't? What is this then? Keep. Aplomado ^talk 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the soundtrack as in what music was in the movie, not a soundtrack as in a commercial cd with that music. --InShaneee 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that it is at the moment valid, even if a soundtrack doesn't exist per se at the moment, one might exist in the future and the article makes it seem as if one may be in the works. Weak Keep --Lakhim 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A soundtrack "refers to the recorded sound accompanying a visual medium such as a motion picture, television show, or video game." It doesn't have to be released on CD in order to exist. Virtually all movies have soundtracks. Aplomado ^talk 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but does that make it notable? --InShaneee 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some work, but it's a sufficiently notable topic. --TorriTorri 01:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]

• Why? · rodii ·

• Even if it isn't a specific soundtrack, it is still useful to those who have watched the movie and want to find certain songs that have played in certain parts of the movie, since there are so many from different episodes of the Silent Hill series. It is more like a 'music of Silent Hill(film)' page, rather than a soundtrack page.
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically a POV endorsement of the film followed by the titles of the score. I don't think either are encyclopedic. --Hyperbole 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Silent Hill (film) after cleaning up, then delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the film. Frankly, this stuff shouldn't come here. Someone just needs to be bold. --- GWO
• Merge and see that no POV matter remains --Andy123(talk) 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft. Apart from the fact that it's largely original research (where is the secondary source for the points at which each track is played?), the precise points at which individual tracks are played in the film is of almost no interest at all to anybody outside the most dedicated fans - who probably already know. IMDB has a track listing. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's factual and I'm sure will be of interest to a lot of people. Tyrenius 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete and merge to Silent Hill (film) useful content, more of a fancruft thing and original research. --Terence Ong 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shorten, Rewrite and Merge adspeak! Unless the soundtrack is released (and sells) it's shouldn't have an own article. --eivind^t@c 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable enough. --Knucmo2 12:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Andy123 · rodii · 12:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question and comment-- If we delete it now, can someone recreate the article after the subject does become notable? For now, it would be best to try to work the information into Silent Hill (film). The article does sound like it’s pushing the film, so it needs some NPOV work. IF the soundtrack is as wonderful as the article says, the subject will be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is a big “IF”. Thanks.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Silent Hill (film) based on content. If this were for the released soundtrack of the movie, I would say keep, but since this comprises unrealeased music that just appears in the film this seems to be an unnecessary fork from the film article. Article also appears to have content problems (no sourcing for the names of the songs).--Isotope23 15:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Silent Hill (film) because it's integral to that film and not a commercially available soundtrack in its own right. Useful information so definitely keep somwhere. Iancaddy 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Putting this up for deletion is inappropriate and out of order. Should be a proposed merge. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No reason to completely get rid of the information, but there's no reason to keep it as it's own article. Just put it in the Silent Hill Article, I say. Jared W 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Silent Hill (film). Not an actual soundtrack. Optichan 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be original research. Such information as is not OR is already in the main article, so there's nothing to merge. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe merge some of it though it seems non-notable. Lundse 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definately notable, and the soundtrack DOES Exist. Beno1000 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the film. No reason to delete all info, but doesn't need its own page either. Voice of Treason 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe merge some of the content with Silent Hill, but this is an article about an entity that has no existence. Vizjim 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge-I'm a non-member, and I don't know if my vote has any bearing, but I think it should be merged. I personally find it very useful, but then again I am one of those dedicated (but not obsessed) fans. -Jedah Kalm 11:50 AM (EST), 11 May 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.6.120 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Why does it even matter to you if it's around or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.177.136 (talk • contribs)
• Keep or Merge then Delete - I must say this is very useful and Christophe Gans and Akira Yamaoka has not ruled out a official soundtrack for the Silent Hill movie, however there's no word from Konami about a possibe soundtrack. But this is very useful for me and apparently to other users to Wikipedia. This seems like this would fit under the "List of..." articles of Wikipedia as well. If this article is deemed inappropriate, I would want to go with merging this article in with the Silent Hill movie article and then I would support the deletion of this article. KSweeley 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand what the big deal is about? It's just a list of songs from the film that might be(or can be) on a soundtrack. I created this article because the creator of the film's article thought it would be more useful as a separate link, so i make a separate link. If you're complaining that this needs to be deleted then you obviously have nothing better to do other than complain. It's simply a list of the songs that are on the film's soundtrack. It's highly-doubtful that an actual soundtrack will be released and if one were to be released, it would be because of the fans speaking up. This article would probably help to get fans to create their own soundtracks with the albums they do have. I think this article is informative and serves as a guide to the music of the film. Please come up with a viable reason for deleting this, InShaneee. -Fever_Chill

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party after one month from closure. Metamagician3000 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of little importance to either the wikipedia project or its parent page Lakhim 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. I never knew I was going to create such a firestorm. My main point is that as it stands the article provides nothing to the wikipedia project that isn't present in a manual already and is far too focused and technical on this one topic. We're an encyclopedia here, not a guide for those who want to play C&C generals. It is a fine game, but as it stands the article is too far gone for saving. Perhaps a better idea would be to revise it to point how all of the GLA structures are different from the other sides, but as of now it's simply a laundry list of buildings with no attempt to point out how this is notable. To TomStar: Would it be an amicable solution to simply combine all of the structures lists into one page and simply point out the basic differences between the structures/how they affect strategy? I think this would solve most problems with a manual and better preserve the thrust of the "Structures of the *blank*" pages --Lakhim 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we can merge the pages togather. I have no beef about rearranging the pages in that manner, so long as the important information is preserved. When we chose to design the pages in this manner it was with the intent that they be flexiable to adopt to wikipedia's standards and practices. This option would be vastly prefered over the mass deletion of relevant material. I would invite you to add comments and suggestions about the layout of the articles on my talk page or any of the other talk pages for users who, like me, have been involved in this overhaul from the start. Your input would be apreciated so that we can avoid these problems from the start, rather than raise a hornets nest of fury over them later. It saves everyone time and grief. TomStar81 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support that, nor do I think the majority of this vote currently do. Again, this seems like more something for one of the gaming wikis. --InShaneee 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Some delete votes prior to 9 may 2006 may not be reflective of a vote on the compromise reached between myself and Tomstar/the GLA editors. This is not to say that all delete votes are invalid before then, but rather that they were cast before an agreement to radically change the nature of the article was reached. Some users, however, are still requesting deletion despite this agreement. --Lakhim 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE: User:TomStar81 has posted notices to six users' talk pages (specifically those of gamers) alerting them to this page's deletion debate and urging them to save it. See: User_talk:Mrbowtie#Deletion_Emergancy.21. Aplomado ^talk 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to explain. This was part of a much broader overhaul that the six of us agreed to. I have been creating the new templates and associated pages, and they have been helping to clean up the spelling, fix the grammar, check the facts, and so forth. Given that the six of us have put so much work into the article(s) it seems only fair that they be alerted to this sudden development. If you wish to prove this you can check the talk pages and histories of the users I have contacted; all have had a big role in this new design. I am not out to inflate the vote in my favor, and I understand fully that in the end all articles are subject to community consensus. If I have gone against a policy or rule by alerting these six users than I sincerly apologise, and as per the law of equivilent exchange I will accept whatever punishment the community deems nessicary. TomStar81 08:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Aplomado ^talk 00:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aplomado Bhoeble 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. RobLinwood 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Comment that this article seems to have about as much notability (or lack thereof) as almost all of the other articles linked to from its infobox (or is there another name for template boxes at the bottom of a page?). TheProject 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, much of them will need to be nominated as well. Aplomado ^talk 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is not a video game guide, this is a valid page listing units that appear in a video game, much the same as one would list characters from a TV show or list songs sung by an artist in a certain year. Furthermore, if this page is deleted then what will happen is that all of these units will end up with individual pages, creating a massive train wreck that no one wants to see. I will also point out that many of these articles are in the process of being polished up by the community at the moment, and that this design layout was felt to work best for the presentation of relevant information involving the Command & Conquer series of games. If you delete this page, what will happen to the rest of these articles and the articles linked by the template:C&C? It is a philosophy of mine that one is not entitled to strike down an idea unless he or she can propose a solution. If you have a better idea, I am all ears. TomStar81 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TomStar81 is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Aplomado ^talk 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it would be more accurate to say that with one or two exceptions I created all of the articles appearing on the Template: Command & Conquer: Generals. TomStar81 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes point by point describing each structure and its uses in the game. How is this not a video game guide or manual? I've played this game before and read the manual, and it's virtually the same material. Also, the fact that there are other (equally non-notable) pages similar to this one does not establish a precedent ipso facto. Aplomado ^talk 06:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fish (talk • contribs)

This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado ^talk 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per TomStar81 Mrbowtie 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado ^talk 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if videogames are to be included in Wikipedia (and they are by precedent), they should at least be limited to a single article. I suggest moving the content to another site, if that is allowed by Wikipedia's license. -- Kjkolb 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could merge some of the pages, I suppose, but the pictures are a problem. The Commons does not allow fair use images, and if the article(s) are deleted then there is a rather high possibility that the images will also have to go. User:Run! would be a good person to talk to regarding the merging of the material into a single article, but when he tried that with the C&C series several users (including me) gave him a very hard time over it. TomStar81 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're pictures from a videogame. I'm sure the commons can manage very well without them. -- GWO
• Delete nerdcruft. -- GWO
• Delete cruft. Appears to violate WP:NOT, plus anyone who cares already knows. Just zis Guy you know? 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Could someone tell me how this article differs from the numerous ones concerning Pokémon and why they are kept if this one is not? NB This is not a comment: it is a question. Tyrenius 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I have no idea. The Pokemon articles are awful, and someone suitably bold should just merge them. But the answer to a plethora of godawful Pokemon articles is not more godawful articles about other topics... Kind of like how the fact Ross Youngs is somehow in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean they should induct Billy Southworth. If the best argument to keep something is that its better than the worst articles in wikipedia, it probably shouldn't be kept. It's hard to correct the Poke-screwup, but that doesn't mean we should keep screwing up similarly. -- GWO
• Strong Delete Gamecruft² --eivind^t@c 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rewrite so its less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures. --Knucmo2 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Illogical, Captain! This is fiction to start with :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, it's fact that the fiction exists. (Which is still a step up from, say, Uqbar.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete gamecruft, agree with GWO on the Pokemon argument. · rodii · 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far, far more detail than we could possibly need on Command & Conquer: Generals. Or any other game, for that matter. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will state now that I am one of the ones TomStar81 contacted. I don't have much of an issue either way with what happens, since if the spread of excessive-info pages are deleted I can just recreate them as sections in a few Goliath-sized ones. CABAL 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a game guide, it contains a tremendous amount of information about a tremendous number of video games (not just Pokemon). This article does a good job of describing elements of a game with which I have no familiarity. Having read the article, I understand the game better, but I would still need to read the guidebook before playing. Not that I would probably want to <grin>. It does not go on to provide gaming tips or instructions for play. While it is currently true that aficionados of the game probably already have this information, Wikipedia acts as a handy reference for people who might want information about a subject they are not familiar with. The article could conceivably survive the subject. Years from now, someone might need the article for information about real time strategy PC games and be thrilled to find this article.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please. This level of detail about a game is not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , moved to the command and conquer wikia --Astrokey44 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: sorry that you guys put so much work into these articles, but I do not believe that they belong on the Wikipedia. Where Astrokey alerted us that it is now is a good place, just needs the images up'd. Good luck. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rewrite so it's less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures as per Knucmo2 above. I feel there is a lack of tolerance on Wiki for enthusiasts of this form of activity, although there is considerable interest in it, and demand for it in the wider world. These people should be accommodated, whether it is to our personal taste or not. These games are no different in intrinsic value from more established games such as Cluedo, which merit articles. We are documenting a sociological phenomenon for the future as well. Tyrenius 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't about an article for the game, but about specific details; more like a List of rooms in Cluedo or List of weapons in Cluedo page would be (imo of course). -- Hirudo 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Cluedo article does indeed contain the lists you mentioned, so we've established the list in itself is acceptable—it's just a question of where it should be, maybe as part of a bigger article on the game then.Tyrenius 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Existence does not equal precedent. Aplomado ^talk 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Great collection of information, and there is plenty of precedent - see things like List of Mega Man weapons. Command and Conquer is hugely popular game franchise, and this work is valuable in that it will be here long after copies of the game and its manuals are history. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you're referring to as "precedent" is more accurately described as "gamers made a bunch of video game guides on Wikipedia that no one has nominated yet." I'll nominate one of the MegaMan articles to see what consensus is, but I'm worried that, as has happened with this one, the video game subculture here at Wikipedia will see the AfD and will pour into the debate in defense of the article. Aplomado ^talk 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? That is the very definition of consensus. If you nominate an article, and fail to build consensus, then the community has spoken for the article. Any time I see an article like this tagged for deletion, it never fails that I encounter this "I don't like the topic" or "I consider the topic sophomoric" and therefore it must be deleted attitude. Also, I will admit that "ownership" is a problem here, but I know from experience that any time someone writes or contributes to an article, they are going feel the urge to defend it, and I certainly don't begrudge them that. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't either, I'm referring more to "rallying the troops" in an effort to defeat consensus rather than build it. Aplomado ^talk 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term "video game subculture" seems to be used in way to convey a pejorative association, but it just means there are a lot of people interested in this subject. I feel there is prejudice against these people, but from a NPOV it's just an observable phenomenon like any other. We have an article on an underarm deodorant on the basis that it is of significance to a lot of people that use it. This is the people's encyclopedia, not the intellectuals, nor the "cultured" person. Let's be generous and inclusive in what we accommodate. Otherwise it is a form of censorship on the basis of taste. I have minimal interest in these games myself, but I think in society now it is the people who appreciate the arts (of whom I am one) who are the subculture, while video gamers and suchlike are the mainstream. Tyrenius 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm a gamer myself, I have no prejudice against them.Aplomado ^talk 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already transwiki'd to where it belongs. --InShaneee 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - So what if its a game? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I don't start a crusade to wipe it off the website. I go through literally HUNDREDS of pages on here that other users might find useless. If this page gets the boot, it sets the stage for anything else related to gaming, because the same argument could be made that "this is not a gaming site". While I agree this is NOT a gaming site, this is legitimate information. It may require editing, but not full-blown deletion. Lemme list a few other game pages on here overflowing with info: Halo, Warcraft 1-3 + WOW (which has its own Wiki I hear), Diablo 2, the C&C Universe, Doom-series. I won't even START on how the entire genre of Japanimation should be removed. I believe the tag "Deletion" should be removed and have the "Cleanup" tag applied.... and Aplomado, stop crying to Admins that another user talked to other users about this. Go crusade against something more meaningful. Ghostalker 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, so what if it sets the stage? Maybe it should. Just because non-notable articles have been piling up doesn't mean they aren't in violation of policy. I am not on a "crusade," you would do well to read the notice on the AfD page which says "please don't take offense" just because it was nominated for deletion. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another whether this page is deleted. If the community decides that this is a legitimate article and doesn't violate policy, it doesn't bother me one bit. But you are judging the validity of this article based on the sheer quantity of articles similar to it rather then whether or not it is actually in violation of Wikipedia policy. If there are other articles that need be deleted, they will be dealt with in time. The "argument from quanity" doesn't fly, however. ... As for "crying to Admins", I think it is useful for them to know when someone is going around posting "deletion emergency" to the talk pages of people likely to be sympathetic to his cause, basically an effort to "stuff the ballot box" so to speak. Aplomado ^talk 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that anyone here does't LIKE the article, just that we don't believe it is appropriate given our current guidelines. --InShaneee 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aplomado, the deletion notice you posted clearly states, and I quote:"please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". A consensus can not be reached unless people on both sides of the issue are informed of such actions. As for your accusation regarding the so called "stuffing of the ballot box", I never asked the six Users I posted my message to to vote "keep", that is a disicion they will make of thier own free accord. Furthermore, I find your failure to assume good faith in this matter very disturbing. A notable user such as your self should know that assuming good faith is a policy here, and it goes hand in hand with our policy of being bold in updating articles. Lastly, It specifically says on the AFD page not to nominate articles recently created. If you will allow us some time we can expand the articles to include artistic designers, real life inspirations and so on. Lastly, real-time strategy and turn-based strategy games are somewhat different from the game articles on here beacuse the units and structures of such games are an intimate part of the games. Stripping the structures and units of RTS and TBS games entirely from Wikipedia does not advance the ideals of an encyclopedia. TomStar81 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You wrote on the user pages, and I quote, "Help save this page!" Let's not play word games here. In any event, I didn't nominate the article - your beef is with Lakhim in that regard. Aplomado ^talk 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • <sheepish grin>Oops, I forgot that I include that (it was not in my original draft)</sheepish grin>. I concede a point in your favor, sir. TomStar81 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about it, I'm not trying to be an asshole cuz lord knows I've made mistakes on Wikipedia before, and I know you've put in plenty of work into Wikipedia so kudos for that and keep up the good work. Aplomado ^talk 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - list of facts about a game, not interesting to the common observer. Only usable as a guide to the game or point of comparison. All the info does not have to go, WP could hold info on the basics of game units (eg. whether you build from a moving unit or a "town hall", is there a unit cap, one or five "factories", etc.) Lundse 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - as per TomStar81, Tyrenius, Aguerriero, and Ghostalker. Jareand 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete It's an indiscriminate collection of information. --Nick Y. 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think some very valid observations have been made about this article to improve it, and one of the main editors TomStar81 has asked for time to improve it with more encyclopedic content. These editors are acknowledged to be hard working and sincere. I propose we halt this AfD for now and give them a month to knock the article into acceptable form, then, if necessary, relist. I think discussion and debate at this stage is more appropriate than AfD. Let's work together, not apart. Tyrenius 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that motion. Jareand 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem here is more that the topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, rather than the condition it is currently in. Aplomado ^talk 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree, but I think that it can be solved with a gradual phasing out of these pages rather then an AfD at the moment. I support the motion to delay for the moment and see if anything can come out of the consensus. It is clear that a consensus exists against the page as is, but it is possible that a changed version focusing less on a rote list and more on how this affects game play is acceptable for wiki. --Lakhim 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Those arguing for deletion seem to have few guidelines to cite, and there does appear to be precdent for this sort of article. I'm still uncomfortable, though: see see "instruction manuals" at [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this comes close to being an instruction manual. If it can be rewritten to describe the game in a way that explains it to a non-gamer like, and if it can assert notability, then it would have a place here. Maybe the editors should be given that chance? --BrownHairedGirl 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose the following solution: We allow one month for the C&C community to see if they can transform the pages listed on the template Command & Conquer: Generals into something more befitting an encyclopedia article. If after one month the articles show little or no improvement then a discussion should be opened as to whether the articles have reached a state where mass merging would be a vaible option. Alternatively, if the articles listed on the pages show little or no improvement from their current state then we can open a discussion focused either on transfereing them to a wiki better suited for the information presented or simply have them deleted. I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia. I think that some sort of consensus must be reached so that future AFDs that cite a game manual layout as the primary cause for deletion can reinforce this claim by having an accepted definition of the term as it applies here. Unless we have a game manual definition to look to other editers will argue the same points that I have raised here, and the cycle of what gets deleted and what stays will get ugly (or uglier). Part of the problem with this AFD is that we have no definition to cite, which leaves some ambiguity as to whether this page— or any of the other pages created in this manner— should be treated as lists or as game manuals. As they say: It sometimes take a solution to identify a problem. TomStar81 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia." I concur, and was thinking the same thing myself. The "not an instruction manual" guideline is very vague and someone should start a discussion about it. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You beat me to it in an edit conflict. I think all of this indicates there needs to be community consensus over guidelines on games throughout Wiki and the discussion transferred to a suitable location to do this. One suggestion is a project on the matter, if one does not already exist.Tyrenius 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, lets start one up. We already have a good debate going, and we are the ones who opened pandora's box, so to speak ;) TomStar81 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to wonder how many times the exact debate has been had, every time someone tries to delete a Gundam article, a Pokemon article, a MegaMan article, etc ad nauseum. Not that it's not a useful debate; I just hate to re-invent the wheel. I tend to be of the opinion that people trying to delete articles should need to demonstrate that the material is either wrong or useless, and neither is the case here.Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I would second the motion to give people time to develop the article and then see. But I would like to know what kind of new information, deletion of old and/or general editing will make this article relevant for wikipedia and not just a collection of knowledge about a game. Lundse 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good way to format it would be to condense all those articles into concise sections like the Dune II structure and unit list is formatted. This provides the same information without all the unnecessary strategy information. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont be jerks, leave the page as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.17.43 (talk • contribs) .
• Realizing that I am quite new to this discussion, I find it pertinent to point out that this debate really isn't a debate at all, rather it more closely resembles an internet power struggle. I say this not because I support keeping the page around, but rather because in order for a debate to be successful in any way it must have some sort of framework, an issue that can actually be fought to a conclusion. What are we debating anyway? Whether or not the article should be deleted? If such were the case, then I would expect some sort of grounds to measure why it should be deleted. All of the nay-sayers to this page have offered comment after comment about why they think the page should be deleted, but most say that it is simply because the page is a kind of game manual or guide. If such were the case, I should assume that as in any matter of intellectual dissent there would be supporting evidence to back the claim that the article is deserving of deletion, but alas, none has been provided. In fact, I would assert that all actual evidence that can be presented in such a debate points in the opposite direction. A game manual, by definition, is a book that specifically gives instructions, and a guide is, by definition a tool used for direction or advisement. Seeing neither of these prerequisites present in the article in question, I have no choice but to find that the argument supporting deletion is fallacious and flawed, and must either be presented with actual evidence or considered subservient to those who have voted to keep the article alive.ChiRoGuardian06 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or merge it and the other two into one list. Same goes for every set listed in the {{C&CG}} template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - big picture thinking says this simply isn't encyclopedic. Vizjim 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proposer of this AfD seems to have effectively withdrawn the nom by coming to an agreement with one of the main editors to allow time to improve the article.Tyrenius 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe it is up to everyone else to decide if the agreement is acceptable, not myself. --Lakhim 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can take that option or withdraw the nom, whichever you prefer. Tyrenius 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer to leave that option to the community as a whole, as there is apparantly some opposition to the compromise. Lakhim 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the opinions were prior to the compromise being reached, and the ones made after don't seem to have taken it on board that this is an option, and, furthermore, the one agreed by you and TomStar81.Tyrenius 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like he said, not everyone shares that particluar view. Saying the nominator may have changed their position doesn't mean the debate will automatically close. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, my vote and I would guess the other votes here were made having read the discussion above, and in full knowledge of the option. And even knowing that, my vote remains "delete" in the strongest possible terms. The objection is to the article, not its content. Vizjim 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Seconded -- Hirudo 11:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete this piece of randomcrapcruft. Actually, it's not random or crap, but it is gamecruft and doesn't belong on wikipedia. A well-written article, it deserves to be transwikied to some sort of C&C wiki. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or Transwiki. Not encyclopedic enough. Garrett^Talk 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per nom. WP is not a free webhost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong delete per nom. I do not accede to the Lakhim/Tom compromise (even as I appreciate the spirit in which it was reached), and this delete should not be construed as merge, inasmuch as the subject of the article, irrespective of the formulation of the article, will always be insufficiently notable/instructional (and hence unencyclopedic). With respect to Aplomado's marking the "votes" of editors whom Tom solicited to participate, such tagging is perhaps useful since it helps one to identify underlying motives, but, as we assume good faith and as each contributor has offered a defensible reason for keep, the primary admonishment ought to go to Tom; talk page spamming is looked upon with disfavor, but spamming with the explicit purpose of soliciting a particular vote is remarkably egregious. Nevertheless, Tom has offered an apology and explained his ignorance of the process, and so, I think, we can all move on. Joe 04:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the nominator wishes to confirm withdrawal of the nomination (which currently appears ambiguous), I am prepared to close the page as "nomination withdrawn" on that basis, without prejudice to any future AfD initiated by the nominator or anyone else after a period of one month from the date of closure. It is entirely up to the nominator to make a clear decision, within a reasonable time (say, 48 hours), whether or not to withdraw the nomination. I respectfully suggest that any other admin who comes here before I'm next here follow this approach, though I can't bind other admins who may see it differently. Metamagician3000 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the guidelines for this process, I would like to withdraw the nomination as I feel that a suitable compromise to change the article so that it may fit within the guidelines of what is wikipedia exists. --Lakhim 16:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted. I'll close in a minute. Metamagician3000 11:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 09:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documents as if true a very unknown and unreported, unverifiable "curse" on Superman actors; not only is this probably a joke, it is certainly not notable in an encyclopedia.  Alfakim --  talk  00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Only two people are listed as suffering from this "curse" - one who died in the 50's from suicide, and the other who was paralyzed and then died of cardiac arrest. Aplomado ^talk 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. BigDT 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. RobLinwood 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Delete - I've heard of this supposed curse, but as it stands this article is original research. --Joelmills 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and tagged per G1 (though the definition of "patent nonsense" may be a little narrow by some, who may wish to remove the tag). TheProject 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe put it back when Dean Cain, Tom Welling and Brandon Routh all die in the same plane crash? :/ Danny Lilithborne 04:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have removed the speedy nomination as our criteria require the article to be unintelligible. This isn't incoherent but is original research. It would need third party sources referring to the curse of Superman in order to be retained. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are sources which discuss the possibility of a "curse of Superman", but there isn't enough substance to the "curse" to make it worth an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough incidents to lend proof to the curse. Not notable enough. --Bolasanibk 06:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't any of you people google? [1], [2]. Can we at least judge the full facts, rather than this dire article? Average Earthman 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, non-notable, even if existant (which I highly doubt)DannyM 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Andy123(talk) 08:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Recommend nominating the articles separately instead. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is speculative, unsourced and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Mercury should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. I am also listing the related articles Colonization of Venus, Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, Colonization of the asteroids, Colonization of the outer solar system and Colonization of Titan - they all discuss future 'events' which probably will never happen. Worldtraveller 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except Colonization of the Moon and Colonization of Mars, which are common sci-fi themes. TheProject 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP is NOT a crystal ball - any non-crystal-ball content can be merged with Mercury BigDT 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is sourced, and encyclopedic. siafu 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second might be arguable, but the first is definitely not true - the only citations are for physical facts about Mercury, the rest is unsourced. Worldtraveller 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, this AfD is for five very different articles. Are you applying the same to all of them? siafu 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some are completely unreferenced, others have references, like this one, that do not back up the substance of the article. I can't see any from peer-reviewed journals for example. All are highly speculative and unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for this one. The others should be debated separately with their own AfD's, but I foreshadow that I'd be saying strong keep for some of them. Of course there are no colonies on Mercury for us to write about, but the article makes no such claim. Colonisation of Mercury is a theme in science fiction and a topic for speculation among space enthusiasts, and that is what an article with this heading should be focused on. The article could easily discuss all that, and I'm reasonably confident that sources could be found. Admittedly, the current article suffers the problem that it is mainly original research about the practicalities, but that is a reason for bold editing or some other action, not for deletion of the article. Metamagician3000 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except the Mars and Moon ones per TheProject. --TorriTorri 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Metamagician3000. Most of the content is facts with fairly minor OR, much of which could be sourced and kept. Needs some discussion and sources on NASA blue-sky projects, and some discussion and references on notable science fiction in this area. Barno 01:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but someone clean it up please. - Richardcavell 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and clean this up too please Yuckfoo 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speculation . doesn't meet standards. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Keep Moon and Mars, delete the others. There are presently scheduled trips to both these planets. Also, it's patently silly to start by saying, "We should not try to predict" and then saying, "the events predicted will probably not happen." Greyscale 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! What I mean is that events that are very likely to happen, like an upcoming election or something like that, can sensibly have articles, but ones like this which may or may not happen should not. I was trying to emphasise that these are not events that are going to happen in the near future. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• We can keep speculation as long as it is clear that we are merely reporting the speculations. Michaelbusch 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Where else but Wikipedia will I be able to find a concise summation of proposed ideas fo r the colonization of Venus? Believe it or not, I was looking for just such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.246.89 (talk • contribs)

• Keep but somebody should add sources to clarify who exactly is speculating about the colonization. -Sparklemotion 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These articles were all created to reduce the burgeoning size of the parent article, space colonization. An extensive source list still exists on that article, and most of the sources that are listed for each apply to all. The fact that they are not all individually sourced is a matter to be corrected by a helpful editor, not criterion for deletion. siafu 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: completely speculative original research. Interestingstuffadder 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all of course; the colonization of space is a significant subject among scientists, sci fi, television documentaries, etc.; the moon and Mars especially, but I'll vote a blanket keep since they simply shouldn't have been lumped together like this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - These articles aren't crystal-ballish; they discuss objectively the challenges involved in colonization. Notable as a topic of science-fiction literature and as general goals for space expanion. --Hyperbole 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all because they (ideally) discuss objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. - Reaverdrop 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All per above. --TM 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per User:Reaverdrop. JIP | Talk 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In order to keep down cries of original research and speculation, sources for claims need to be cited. Delete uncited, unreferenced assertions and reword to reduce/eliminate may be, could be, might be, etc.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not in the business of being a crystal ball, true. But we are not saying that XYZ will happen, we are allowing people to describe how it could happen, given the way that the New Space movement grows. Chadlupkes 07:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all per above. Though one has to be careful in writing on them, the many serious proposals for the colonization of the solar system are highly encyclopedic.--Pharos 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is well-sourced. In case this is speculation and that can be derieved from the sources, I say that should also be mentioned on the page. --Andy123(talk) 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow-up Comment - We should veer toward adding cites and cited info rather than deleting content where possible. I added the new references to Colonization of Mercury to get the ball rolling, and to erode any remaining argument for deletion. - Reaverdrop 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article is now well sourced. Many scientific theories are just that. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this article's not about a theory - it's about an event that may or may not happen in the distant future. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - this is a notable concept in science fiction and for speculation in "real" science. I suspect the titles need a tweak of some sort, and I'd like to see the notable fictional references such as from Asimov's Robots short stories, which demonstrate that the conccept has existed for some time. Also it would be good to see how the changing facew of what we know about the planets has informed the way the subject is treated in fiction and fact. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rather interesting. Tyrenius 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All - There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that discuss future possibilities: Peak oil, Hydrogen economy, Ultimate fate of the universe, Wind power, any number of proposed transportation projects that may never happen (e.g. Union County Light Rail). Check out the "see also" section in Futures studies. The editor proposing these deletions says "they all discuss future 'events' which probably will never happen." Here is what current NASA Administrator Mike Griffin says: "I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond." http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/. (This NASA site includes many references).--agr 11:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peak oil will happen and may even have already happened, and the universe certainly will end, but our guidelines say that future events should only have an article if they are "almost certain to take place" - see WP:NOT. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peak oil may have happened already or the Moon may be colonized first; there is a range of opinion on both subjects. And I think you are quoting the WP:NOT crystal ball section out of context. The types of events it is talking about are specific things like elections or sports matches. It goes on to say "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."--agr 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all The speculations are primarily external, and not by the wiki-editors. --eivind^t@c 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I listed all the articles together because to me it seems that if one is unencyclopaedic they all are, but as it seems a lot of people don't think so, I've separated the six articles' listings. They are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Venus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the Moon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the asteroids, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the outer solar system and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Titan. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is fair. There was one proposal that seems to be largely opposed, so now we have to go back and add our comments to six different articles?--agr 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this. The core arguments being discussed on this page are not based on Mercury, but broadbased and could be applied to all. Why not delete Space Colonization entirely if we're going to follow the logic being applied by those who want to delete. After all, it's speculative and talking about possible future events. I think this discussion page should be used for all of these articles. We will spread our wings and fly. And we have to foster dreams to keep that a potential. The alternative is unthinkable. Chadlupkes 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. colonization of space is a valid, legitimate WP article and scientific concept and this is not at issue here. The issue is the clutter effect of creating a lot of tiny splinters. As I said in my note for Titan below, I think we should try to fit all ideas in either colonization of space or the outer solar system and only split off once they get too big. Crum375 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are already split off, and have a solid navigation system to enable people to move among them, why do the work to combine them now and then have to reverse that work when people start paying attention to them? With the navigation, I think they're fine broken apart like they are. Chadlupkes 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has sources that are published. This can't be said to be original research by the wiki-editors. --Knucmo2 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per CanadianCaesar, Reaverdrop and siafu User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per above. The articles were surprisingly good, and too long to merge with articles on the individual planets. Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all decent articles with references --Astrokey44 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, you could sum up this article to just read "Colonization of Mercury: Can't happen."--Isotope23 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. We could do it now if we wanted to spend exhorbitant amounts of money. You build in the shadowed polar craters, and cover with insulating material. RJH 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then you could build another colony on the sun for your friends so you could wave to them from Mercury!since sarcasm doesn't translate to the written word I tag is as such.--Isotope23 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sarcasm noted. However it is not out of the question to build a heliostatic observation base using a solar sail. So your remark just demonstrates a certain lack of imagination. ;-) — RJH 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Article is not speculating about what might happen, but is instead studying how it might occur in a theoretical sense. Should we not have articles about the effects of an asteroid strike to our civilization just because it is speculative? :-) — RJH 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepLeoO3 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CdnCaesar, et al. Bucketsofg✐ 17:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BigDT Sumergocognito 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps consolidate to something like Theories of extraterrestrial colonization (or something like that)? Sumergocognito 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In particular, see the very first sentence: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Kafziel 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what's the timeline we will accept? We will eventually have people on the Moon and Mars. That's probably within the next 20-40 years. Maybe Mercury will have to wait a few hundred years, but I personally doubt it, at least not if we can actually get something moving. The future is a long time. Will we prevent discussion on extra-solar colonies using the same logic? What about permanent science stations on the floor of the Oceans? We can't limit ourselves to 5-10 years on Wikipedia, not if we want to give our readers & editors the idea that what they write and work on will be read by people beyond that timeframe. We will eventually reach Mercury. It's a matter of time and will. And we have plenty of both. Chadlupkes 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. If and when those things happen, and if Wikipedia still exists at that point (which is highly unlikely), then the articles can be created. We don't need to make articles for every possible future event just in case it eventually happens. An article takes two minutes to create; there's no need to get a jump on things decades or centuries in advance. And, yes, I would advocate deleting any of the other examples you've given. Man hasn't even set foot on the moon in three decades; there's no reason to think we're about to start growing alfalfa there or something. Kafziel 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 25th International Space Development Conference was this last weekend. I think Wikipedia or some evolution of it will exist quite far in the future. At least I hope so. Chadlupkes 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. 25 conferences and how many planets/moons/asteroids have they colonized? Not a one. No reason to think anything will be different by conference #50 or 100. I'd like to think Wikipedia will be around in the future, but there's really no basis for that. There's no reason to even assume that the Internet itself will be around at that point. The colonization of the outer planets is at least a paradigm shift or two away. Kafziel 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you ask anyone in the NewSpace community, they will tell you that with sufficent capital investment they could do all of these things immediately. The Space Elevator being developed by Liftport has an estimated development cost of $10 Billion. That's accessible from any number of governments, corporations and even individuals or coalitions. How many conferences occured among ship captains in the 1300's talking about the potential for an ocean route to the West Indies? We'll never know. 33 years ago, we were on the moon. We will go back, unless naysayers continue to prevent it. Yes, we have a lot of work to do here, but the only thing preventing us from looking up is the people who keep saying "it won't happen". And this is quickly devolving into a debate on the subject, not these specific articles. It looks like there is more support for keeping than deleting. Can we resolve the vote and move forward? Chadlupkes 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup comment: These are not exclusively about speculative future events. They are about the strictly factual past and present of a wide body of research and commentary. The arguments for deletion keep repeating the idea that these are only about speculative future events needing entries to act as crystal balls, which simply isn't true. As I said above, we need to add new sources and new sourced information in the articles to contribute to their coverage of past and present research and commentary, which includes a lot of sophisticated and fascinating research by many of the best known and loved scientist of the past fifty years. I started that with the Colonization of Mercury yesterday with just sources I happened to have within arm's reach of my computer; there is a great deal of well-sourced existing research yet to be added, including many papers in the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, which many of us will be adding in the future as time allows. And that includes far more material than needed to justify each of the individual entries listed. To get started on coordinating such activities, I've opened a Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. Since the arguments for deletion have ignored the fundamental factual history these articles are intended to cover, those arguments can be dismissed as specious. - Reaverdrop 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So because I disagree with you, my argument is specious? Don't be ridiculous. I didn't ignore your arguments; I disagree with your entire premise that there is a "wide body" of work dealing with the colonization of Mercury. There's not even a wide body of work detailing plans to get there, much less to colonize it. A book and a couple of websites does not a viable theory make, and therefore I think it should be deleted. Personal attacks like that aren't going to make me change my mind and they aren't going to fool the bureaucrat who will make the final tally. Kafziel 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in fact, a wide body of research (serious, peer reviewed, engineering sand pace science) on how to get to the various planets, and why you would want (or not want) to go to specific ones. These articles don't generally go into huge depth in those sources, but they are definitely out there. The tradeoffs of trajectories, propulsion types and mission designs, landing site analysis, resource analysis, human factors of various missions, etc. The Moon and Mars are the best studied, followed by the Asteroid belt, but people have researched every possible place to go in the solar system (and outside it, for that matter) as an engineering problem for colonization.

You may not see that research if you don't hang out in those communities, but there are hundreds or low thousands of technical papers (peer reviewed, etc) published and probably ten conferences a year on the serious technical engineering and scientific issues associated with space development and colonization, looking across the world. It is a very serious deep technical field. Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any personal attack, I made a frank and informed evaluation of the argument. As I said, the references I was able to put into the Colonization of Mercury entry last night, which draw from popular and peer-reviewed literature by expert scientists, was the result of ten minutes of pulling out books I could reach without getting up from my computer. It's the very beginning. You have also shifted your argument now from denying the existence of a factual subject to denying that enough sources exist to support the entries. A very large body of work on these subjects does exist; discoveries of the breadth of this literature have astonished me more than once. Your lack of knowledge of these references does not render them non-existent. - Reaverdrop 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't shifted my argument. At no point in my original statement did I say that random speculation on the subject does not exist. I know it does. I said that the topic fails to meet the crystal ball criterion that it should be a near certainty. I stand by that. If you want to discuss the speculations presented about the possibility of colonization, then this should be moved to "Theories of interplanetary colonization" or some such thing. It has nothing to do with the references; I don't care if you have 100 of them. The actual colonization of Mercury has not happened (and, I'd say, will never happen) and therefore this is in the wrong place. Don't worry about it - there are enough supporters here to keep the article from being deleted without you trying to have my opinion disregarded. Kafziel 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between mere random speculation, and decades worth of rigorous scientific and engineering studies on a speculative subject. - Reaverdrop 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you call yourself a skeptic. Kafziel 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Karl Popper and Carl Sagan. Science needs two engines, skepticism and wonder. Without the wonder to ask daring questions and investigate the least unlikely answers, one is reduced to a navel-gazing philosopher. - Reaverdrop 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, we've got Sagan, a science fiction writer, and Popper, who basically said that everything is valid until you can prove otherwise. My vote remains "delete", and it won't mean much in the final tally anyway. Let's just leave it at that. Kafziel 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your future reference, Sagan's single effort at science fiction weighed against his lengthy career as the chairman of the Cornell astronomy department and one of the most widely cited authorities in the scientific literature on planetary science hardly justifies labeling him a mere science fiction writer rather than a top scientist. - Reaverdrop 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My word choice was poor. My (rare) attempt at brevity won out over clarity. The mention of science fiction was only meant to illustrate the speculative nature of his overall philosophy. Two enemies (and victims) of skepticism are hardly the ones who should be allowed to redefine the term. Kafziel 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've replaced one astounding characterization with another; most people would have named Sagan as a champion of skepticism. - Reaverdrop 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, he could be skeptical when he wanted to be. Anyone can do that. People who believe in the Rapture can pull off that very same feat when it comes to evolution, but I don't think I would consider them champions of skepticism. ;) Kafziel 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapture has not happened, and will likely never happen, and yet wikipedia justifiably has an article on the subject. These articles do not describe an event past, present, or future, but rather a possible program of action, and current programs of science and exploratory engineering. There exist hundreds of sources because these are ideas in serious consideration and investigation. siafu 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wrote an article speculating about the time when the Rapture would occur, that would be a crystal ball and a good candidate for deletion. But that's not what this article is about - it is about a doctrine taught in mainline Christian churches and believed by most conservative Protestants. Any good content from this article should be merged into the Mercury article itself. BigDT 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any timelines in the article, just information about the potential advantages and disadvantages to the concept. Chadlupkes 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in this article, or in the others, is there a prediction speculating about when colonization might occur. But, you're also absolutely right that this is not the Rapture (as mentioned in your edit summary), as we actually have some reason to suggest that this (i.e., colonization) might actually happen someday. siafu 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not lower ourselves to make comparisons with religious articles. The rapture (which, as a matter of fact, some believe has already happened) is a notable topic inasmuch as the Easter Bunny is a notable topic, whereas the colonization of Mercury is not. The speculation about colonizing other planets is, and I did suggest moving this to some more appropriate title.

Religious theories never rise above speculation; that's what makes them religious theories. If they came true, they'd be science. On the other hand, "speculative science" is a nice way of saying "science fiction". We should be holding our science articles to a higher standard than that. Kafziel 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the fact that this has not happened, and may never happen is irrelevant; whether you consider a valid analogy to a religious topic "lowering ourselves" is up to you. The article is not about making predictions; it's more comparable, for example, to an article about a proposed bridge that was planned, engineered, discussed, and possibly even partially financed, but never built. Such would be an equally encyclopedic topic, and similarly not making crystal ball predictions. siafu 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more appropriate analogy would be the idea for a bridge that was discussed among a few architects and filed away for being completely impractical, without ever having professional plans drawn up or receiving any significant financing. A real-world analogy might be the myriad plans for developing a memorial for the World Trade Center. The hundreds of absurd ideas that didn't get past the discussion phase do not have their own articles here. They were impractical, they were not acted upon, so they would only be notable as part of a larger subject, or with a qualified title. Kafziel 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Summaries of research on future technologies, and summaries of speculation about topics are encyclopedic and notable. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup - New evidence affecting debate: A few other people had already signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization within minutes of its creation, constituting evidence of commitment to strengthening these articles. - Reaverdrop 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Together with the other colonizations, this article is OK. In fact, they may eventually merit mention on Wiki's homepage. Ted 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep All - and improve according to Wikipedia standards I agree that there is a need for these articles. If they must be spun off from another article then that is not in itself an argument that they should not exist - that is just a question of organisation. Planets and the moon and Titan are factual matters. Space exploration is factual. Space exploration of the solar system inevitably raises issues of the habitability of the solar system. These issues exist as a function of the relationship of human biology and terrestial life, generally, to hostile but reachable environments. These issues are real, not fictional. If the subject is denied then it is censorship of information necessary to the ongoing human exploration and settlement of new environments that took us out of the Rift Valley of Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago to the point where we are now on the verge of colonising neighbouring worlds. Anyone who suggests that this is "speculation about the future" should not bother to post on the internet, since they are speculating that someone will read what they have posted. Some assumptions about the future are well founded and reasonable while others are not. Science assumes that what holds true today will hold true tomorrow. It is speculation about the future, not scientifically verifiable, since we cannot time-travel into the future to verify our assumptions, but scientists do it all the time. In this case we are using facts about planetary objects, physics, biology etc., and the speculation is that human nature, curiosity and necessity will urge us as a species to do what we have done in the past, that is, to explore and colonise our environment. All life does it - why should it be unreasonable speculation about the future to suggest that humans will continue to do so? Rather, to suggest that we might not is highly speculative and unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of! - Elizabeth Jane (registered with Wikipedia) 6:04 AM 9/05/2006 Adelaide (C.S.T.)

• Hearts - "If the subject is denied then it is censorship of information necessary to the ongoing human exploration and settlement of new environments that took us out of the Rift Valley of Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago to the point where we are now on the verge of colonising neighbouring worlds" - Awesomely put, Elizabeth Jane! - Reaverdrop 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Because the scientists who design the spacecraft that will bring colonists to Titan are going to consult Wikipedia for the latest info on the subject, and reorganizing these Wikipedia articles would doom any hope of future space exploration. That's just melodrama for its own sake. Kafziel 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're trashing Wikipedia? Wikipedia's the future, man. I think the Titan colonists will be referring to and continuing to update that very entry we are just starting. - Reaverdrop 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's trashing Wikipedia - it's an encyclopaedia, not a space travel manual. Given that No solid plans or studies have been made regarding manned missions to Titan, I fail to see how we can have an article about it. Note that I didn't list Space Colonization for deletion, just the over-specific, necessarily speculative and unencyclopaedic planet articles. Worldtraveller 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think Space Colonization is a candidate for deletion, then I think you may have misused the AfD process. It's not a mechanism for resolving disputes about whether articles should be split or merged. It's for removing content that has no place at all here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. --agr 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The information here could be merged if desired, but this page should still be deleted. There's no need to turn it into a redirect, because there's no such thing as the colonization of Mercury, so nobody is going to search for it. Reaverdrop has decided to turn this into a soapbox (and nearly dragged me in, which is why I struck my comments below), but Worldtraveller's use of AfD is entirely appropriate. Kafziel 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy on deletion of redirects: Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F.--21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me a few Billion in capital, and I'll put one out. Give anyone the capital necessary, and they'll find a way. Lacking that capital, it's not being looked at seriously by the government. That doesn't mean it won't happen. To follow the logic put forward by this deletion recommendation, anything like this would have to find a new home on the Net, and only come to Wikipedia when it has happened. How many people working on Wikipedia right now would move away because of this change of policy? Do we want them to leave? I don't. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to give you a rough estimate of how many would leave Wikipedia over this, I'd have to say... zero. But I could be a little off, so based on the comments here and the membership over at the Space Colonization project page, I'd be willing to go as high as two. Kafziel 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. I'm not "trashing" Wikipedia. I'm being realistic. Where was Wikipedia when Man circumnavigated the globe? Where was it when Man explored Antarctica? Where was it when Man went into space? Somehow, we still got the information we needed. Apollo 7 wasn't designed with Mozilla and CorelDraw. Before the world wide web, I'm sure lots of people thought their bulletin boards were the wave of the future. Back when modems screeched and every board was run out of some guy's basement. Where are they now? Don't kid yourself about the importance of our project, because that's when you start to find yourself defending absurd claims like the above.

Have you seen her statement that a ride at the fair is "probably symbolic of the hermetic teaching, found in the Major Arcana of the Tarot, and also in the meaning of the phoenix of Celtic mythology"?[3] If she can force herself to be that melodramatic about a carnival ride, I suppose it's no wonder she can vomit up such glowing support for this. Kafziel 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Never mind. Kafziel 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until something more creative than deleting or keeping is decided. I might suggest a merge to Mercury (planet) or to colonozation of space or some such. This is useful information and not really original research since it is reporting other proposals and a general debate.--Nick Y. 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and as a deletionist I wasn't expecting to vote that way till I read the article in question. There is nothing wrong here. The Mercury article is verifiable, is not original research, has citations for many of its claims, and covers an interesting topic. I see no unwarranted speculation. If the other articles are not of a similar standard, then they should not be in a grouped AfD, so I will assume that they are all good enough to keep. — Haeleth Talk 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't assume that without reading them - they're no longer grouped, actually, because people complained when they were. The other six article now have their own AfD discussions going on. Worldtraveller 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The others will be getting the same treatment. The improvement in the quality of the Colonization of Mercury page has been going on since it was nominated for deletion, and has barely begun. - Reaverdrop 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Mars Raichu 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing you actually mean Mercury? siafu 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is (or could be) about research and sci-fi - not just about a possible future event. If nothing seems to be added or improved after some time, lets merge to one article and seperates for moon and mars. Lundse 00:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE all except moon+mars, because those are feasible and being considered by NASA. Rest is randomcrapcruft. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the lot. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• These are horrifically bad articles, so much so that reading them changed my mind. They should all be deleted for crystalballism and opriginal research, and hopefully someone will then create articles that actually deal with the real projects and suggested methods of colonisation that have been put forward by or within notable (preferably governmental) organisations. Vizjim 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to end debate - Not sure how this works, but I would like the vote to be tallied and a decision made. Let's move forward. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the process works. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! Lankiveil 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on all, these are all serious, legitimate technical fields of study. Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Dspserpico 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Colonization of the Moon and Colonization of Mars, given the ubiquity of their themes in science fiction AND their frequent mention as actual possibilities. I'm wobbling on Colonization of Venus, but only because older science fiction stories (here, I'm thinking up to golden-age Ray Bradbury and the like) assumed it was possible, and this article could be a corrective. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Calton - There are several articles that have appeared in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society alone that have dealt exclusively with terraforming and colonizing Venus, and Venus was the subject of the first ever scientific paper on colonizing another world. - Reaverdrop 11:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion to passing admins There are now a number of votes stating "delete this but don't delete that". The group delete proposal is obviously null and void. As such, it shoudl surely be closed and the invididual articles nominated for deleteion? Vizjim 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The invididual articles already have been nominated for deletion, as of May 8. I think its fair to say that at this point there is strong support for keeping all the articles except Titan, which most comments suggest should be merged into Colonization of the Outer Solar System.--agr 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all as per above. wikipediatrix 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all there is mountains of literature on all of these. - FrancisTyers 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There are very famous 20th century scientists who have produced many works of literature on this topic, and that is NOT original research. It continues to be thought through and attempted by many respected scientists and scholars, and that is what this page is about. I would like to add that the attempts to delete all of these pages is counter productive, and a waste of everyones time to have to defend a perfectly good subject. This is irresponsible, and makes one wonder if the people asking for this have any knowledge of the subject. Judgesurreal777 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - Normalization of Colonization of the outer solar system article begun by WP:SPACE. - Reaverdrop 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted. --InShaneee 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A joke. Still jokes are not CSD. feydey 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense BigDT 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Aplomado ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no need to wait 5 days - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about a variant of the name Mary. Inappropriate topic for encyclopedia and only "over 1000" bearers. Deprodded by anon without explanation - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a significant name. Aplomado ^talk 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mary which already lists some variants. ConDem^Talk 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have articles on all the other first names. Why not this one too? - Richardcavell 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do, on notable first names. There is no article, for example, on Betsy. Aplomado ^talk 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. TheProject 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge w/ Mary. Alex (t) 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mary. JIP | Talk 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Andy123(talk) 08:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mary and redirect. —Whouk (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep as redirect.Tyrenius 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and keep as redirect. As per Tyrenius User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to Mary. --Eivind^t@c 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect given sufficient citation.--Nick Y. 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redir per anyone else who wants to do the same M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd have to utter this variant of WP:WINAD, but here goes: Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. The only list of this type I could possibly imagine voting to keep would be a list of words for hello, which I can't find anywhere here. (Random WP observation: we might not have a list of words for hello, but we do have a List of hello world programs.) TheProject 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. Peace! Delete, WP is not a translating dictionary. Note that the list contains no more than one word in any language, so it doesn't quite hit on WINAThesaurus. I note that a transwiki has been proposed; I question whether this list is quite right for that project, but I'm not familiar enough with its policies, so I'll leave it for them to decide. Barno 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: oops, I obviously don't understand what a thesaurus is. :-) As for the transwiki part, there's not a single definition on that page that isn't already in wikt:peace#Translations, so I don't see the point of a transwiki. TheProject 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; I was only noting the transwiki proposal, not advocating it. Barno 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yeah, it's not for wikipedia. - Richardcavell 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Transwiki to Wictionary if possible; it seems like it belongs somewhere. Just not here. --Hyperbole 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per User:Hyperbole. JIP | Talk 06:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those voting transwiki: there is nothing in the article that is not already on Wiktionary. TheProject 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Andy123(talk) 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What people could do if they wanted to know different words for peace is go to Peace and click on the links in the 'in other languages' bar at the left. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:20 UTC
• I have added links to Shalom and Salaam, the only two with their own articles, to the Peace article. That's useful. The rest is dictionary entries. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cuiviénen . User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the information, plus many more languages, is on Wiktionary. --^{speak to}gadren 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cuiviénen --Nick Y. 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft (and wrong in Czech version, btw). Pavel Vozenilek 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gil Gamesh 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joke entry. No citations. Wüs is an apparent attempt at a redirect. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless someone can show it in common usage. - Richardcavell 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. If the word can be demonstrated as being in common usage then it might be a candidate for Wiktionary, but not WP.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and a joke entry. Google doesnt turn up anything relevant to this article. --Andy123(talk) 09:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Joke/hoax, nonsense, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Upon further review, likely not a hoax, but I still can't find any evidence that it's notable enough for an article. Perhaps if verifiable info can be found on it then it can be put into Wiktionary. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very possible that this is just a regional drink. ^juppiter bon giorno
• Abstain If the cruel joke User:OrphanBot is not deleted, neither should this funny joke be. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably regional dialect. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bao, you traitor! How could you give in? Weijola 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wuice is a real drink. - VenomSnake 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My grandmother introduced me to Wuice when I was 5 - it most certainly is a real drink. - Dave P. 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard wuice used in everyday context - no reason to delete - Jeremiah. 3:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very nice, Juppiter. Yeah, sorry kids, as much as I love the article, it's no good simply because I've never heard it mentioned outside of Delmar, NY. And the sources are interesting, to say the least. Weijola 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: Please check the page history for this discussion. Some comments were placed by anonymous (IP address) accounts. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Sources" listed in the article don't corroborate the story, and the existence of this drink sounds even less likely than the Spanjo. --Elkman - ^(talk) 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero Google hits. Hoax. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although a little weak. I think it might be a regional thing, but I have heard it used. Kaleks 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful! Then you'll be able to document its existence, I'm sure! User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - oh come on, it's an obvious joke article. Hoax. AnonEMouse 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "He works for the Geek Squad at Best Buy." What, this guy isn't deserving of his own encyclopedia article? Speedy delete as no notability asserted. Aplomado ^talk 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No speedy, but delete and reconsider if "is currently developing" ever becomes "has developed a very influential piece of software". TheProject 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No delete:' The software is out there, the page is just down due at the moment. The software is just in beta, so it's stated as "is currently developing". It's actually the nicest IRC gateway I've ever seen 11:13, 8 May 2006 (CDT)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.122.230 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Vanity article with slightly amusing undercurrent of megalomania. RobLinwood 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Keep I used to give this kid swirlies in highschool, he at least deserves something. Rekutyn 08:45, 8 May 2006 (PST)
• Delete. Not notable, as Jossi said. Eccomi 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Removed vandalism which turned it into an attack page. However, I don't think he meets WP:BIO so delete. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Andy123(talk) 09:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete--Nick Y. 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Any encyclopedic material which is added to this article should be added to the articles on the relevant museums etc instead. Alternatively the writer may be interested in contributing to Wikitravel. Bhoeble 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Bhoeble 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aplomado ^talk 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. RobLinwood 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikitravel. Ardric47 04:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project. If the writer wants to post there, let them do the work. Scranchuse 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it somehow incompatible with our license? Ardric47 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikitravel is a Wikimedia project, but it uses Creative Commons licensing rather than the GFDL, hence we can't transwiki there. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. It is not indescriminate and does not duplicate anything. Bhoeble, if this info was added to individual museum articles, it wouldn't be findable by someone wanted to visit museums with content for a given era. And doesn't the whole notion that this info should be added to individual museum articles contradict the notion that this info is indescriminate? Greg 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument is a straw man, Greg. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. Recommend the author check out Wikitravel. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use Wikitravel instead.--Jusjih 08:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with strong recommendation to copy/paste to Wikitravel. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is "really rather silly" a valid reason? Because it is. Carlo 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Keep - nothing is a valid concept, just like zero is a valid number. Could use a cleanup, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. - Richardcavell 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid concept (and there must be a reason it's existed since 2002 without an AfD). Anyway, I've seen essays (that were signed!) kept before; they just need cleaning up and wikification and they're not bad articles. --Rory096 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. --TM 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs cleanup but a valid topic for an article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Rory. --Chaser 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Richardcavell and User:Rory096. And not having an article on nothing would look pretty silly. JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article on the philosophical concept of nothing is valid. This needs a radical cleanup though, as it is a rather unencyclopædic mess at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We're more likely to get a good article if this roadblock to coherence is eliminated first. --- GWO
• Keep, rory just saved an article, though I agree with Gareth and aeropagitica, it definately needs some work. :) --Andy123(talk) 09:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good stuff in it. Tyrenius 11:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs a rewrite with what some philosophers/thinkers have thought of nothing (with sources). A very important concept in philosophy too. --Knucmo2 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per all above arguments. Nothing is a valid concept especially to modern and post-modern philosophers. As above, I agree that it needs a radical cleanup, and hopefully the attention it's getting with the AfD discussion here, it'll get some cleaning up. Psyphics 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep as per Psyphics Sparsefarce 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Wikipedia (oh snap) -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GWO. Such an important subject obviously needs to have an article -- but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to keep this article. I see very little here that is not either nonsense or obvious; realistically, any cleanup would basically involve starting again from scratch. — Haeleth Talk 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has gotta be worth something. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, math and philosophy term (maybe more, who knows). Could easily become a good article with valuable links to philoso-phers/phies and/or math theories on just what zero is. Lundse 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Rewrite from scratch If it isn't improved by the second time around I would vote for delete just to get a better article.--Nick Y. 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How does deleting everything we have now help make the article better? --Rory096 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the answer is that if editors are faced with trying to clear up a monstrously bad article, they may well back away, whereas everyone enjoys the clean blank space of an article that doesn't exist yet.Vizjim 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - speculative, vague, not backed up by any evidence. Have yet to see a precise and unambiguous test for detecting if a page is "in the sandbox" or not. How do you distinguish the "sandbox effect" from pages that are simply poorly optimised for search engines?. Without such tests, the debate will always tend to be highly speculative. Howard Wright 12 May 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.235.44 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2006
  • Inserting your vote at the top of the page, and voting anonymously (i.e. without logging in) are both bad form --Beachy 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be A) original research/pure speculation (depending on one's point of view) and b) questionably encyclopedic. RobLinwood 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is validly something known as the Google Sandbox Effect. Check the external links on the page. --Andy123(talk) 09:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it is real, I am not convinced that it is notable. This is the current implementation of one web search engine's algorithms, after all. I would say that wikipedia is not a webmaster resource, is not an SEO resource, either. cheers, RobLinwood 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree -- The sandbox effect is very notable for webmasters everywhere. Being in the Google Sandbox cripples a site's performance, and the web is big business. Don't underestimate the importance of this effect --Beachy 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Check out the external links on the page. Is a notable web phenomenon. --Knucmo2 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have personally seen the effects of this phenomenon and am keen to share knowledge about it. --Beachy 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Weak Keep. Those external links barely meet WP:V, however; if this is notable, someone should find a better source. -- FRCP11 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should be tagged to cite sources, not for deletion. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - speculative, rewording of other's speculation, neologism of extremely limited acceptance. Real issue unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speculative unverifiable original research. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it and improve it or move it to another site (where?), but don't delete it please: it is extremely helpful. The sandbox effect is a reality, and yes we don't know everything about it (at least I don't). My website just got "out of the sandbox" today after nearly 6 months, (see that thread where I was trying to understand what was going on). --Martin 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN (not notable, vanity, see WP:BIO). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Man, you're fast. I had tagged it, and you had it on AfD before I had a chance. Anyway, children of celebs aren't special enough to get their own articles. --Bayyoc 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 02:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Delete Definetly not notable. Bill (who is cool!) 2:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alex (t) 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being the son of someone famous and having "political ambitions" doesn't make someone notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He doesn't meet WP:BIO as a 14 year old son of a famous pop singer who supposedly wants to be president. However, Jossi could you please expand your nominations. I know that nn means not-notable but not everyone else does. Capitalistroadster 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also helps to know how you decided the topic was non-notable. In this case I would say that he is non-notable because the only thing he is known for is being the son of someone famous, with no accomplishments or fame of his own. -- Kjkolb 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable teenager. JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. DarthVader 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request could the nominator please give reasons for this nomination? Non-notable is a value judgement and not a core criterion for deletion. Vizjim 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When did it become neccesary to expand on non-notable? There is no claim to notability, thus the article fails the WP:BIO standards. There are so many vanity pages to be deleted, is it practical to give a detailed reason for every AfD nomination? Besides, the precident is well established that nn is an acceptable abbreviation for "non notable". I would have speedied the article but for the fact that that it is a celebrity's son. Otherwise, it definitely meets the criteria for deletion.--Bayyoc 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You shouldn't say "non-notable" anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research, non notable. Is it wiki to list every Player guild ever created? If so, then I will reverse my nomination. I don't think it's encyclopedic. Bayyoc 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7 and I see it has already been tagged. TheProject 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Alex (t) 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Zaxem 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete- per Brian G. Crawford, Starblind, the Project and Alex. DVD+ R/W 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Not transwikied as it is unverifiable. The three links I found on google are mirrors of wikipedia.--Ezeu 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook Bayyoc 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete, and suggest to nom that all these recipe AfDs be included together. TheProject 03:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the rest of the recipies as transwiki candidates. I MIGHT transwiki them in a couple days if the orig author doesn't do it. (That's a lot of work, though)--Bayyoc 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete Tyrenius 11:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and detete Ted 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tranwiki it. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 05:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax, a google search on "George Tjionas" returns 8 non-related results Prodego ^talk 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - definite hoax. Already been speedy deleted today and recreated by user. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 02:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect and tagged per A7 and G4. TheProject 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't fit G4, but now that the "Nobel Prize" part is gone, it should meet A7. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. NOTE: User:Salmaakbar has posted several recipie articles today. Bayyoc 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete. TheProject 03:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ditto Tyrenius 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, do not transwiki: while it looks like just a recipe, it is too unintelligible to follow, and reads like attempted machine translation. If this recipe has greater significance would cheerfully keep an encyclopedic version. Smerdis of Tlön 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, the version I based this comment on was in fact unintelligible. The current version is a transwiki candidate, even if I have no way of knowing when I have a keg of rice. Smerdis of Tlön 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a kg of rice? Hornplease

• Transwiki per TheProject. Although the recipe isn't written very well, it would be best to place it in the Cookbook (maybe under its more common name, kabuli), and then mark it for cleanup there. --^{speak to}gadren 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. Ardric47 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tranwiki it. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Transwiki per theProject. Hornplease 08:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per theProject. Equendil 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Great power. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is Original Research. The users writing the page have been deciding according to their own debates what countries are and are not "major powers". Since "major power" is not a properly defined political science term (it's really only used colloquially), it's impossible to establish a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion from this article. There is no criterion for what qualities and in what quantity are necessary to deem a country a "major power". This article ought to be deleted and set as a redirect to Great power. —thames 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of things. Firstly, it was nice of you to give no warning or notice to the editors that have worked on this article before nominating it. Secondly, is Great power the only term that can be used for a power that is not a Superpower yet is stronger than a Middle power or Regional power. If there is any other term that defines such powers then a simple move will do I think. The majority of the content should stay, in one location or the other. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Great power, a much more specific and better-documented term, in agreement with Thames' comments. Barno 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Barno. TheProject 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per nom; OR with no definable criteria, content (such as it is) being largely redundant with Great Power. Once we've established that the relevant polisci concepts belong on other pages, all we're left with here is a bulleted list of questionable trivia. And all the list has ever produced is a flurry of counterproductive editing by people who really have no grip on the discipline, but who see dates and nations and automatically want more for their own countries and less for the other guys. (A "honeypot for national self-aggrandisement," it's been called, that attracts "more than [its] fair share of cranks.") A quick look at the talk page confirms this. Albrecht 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Or, to be really clever, rewrite to deal with the Europa Universalis concept ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and save anything worthwhile. - Richardcavell 04:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Great power, merging verified facts as required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with large merging - the whole series on powers needs looking at though. --Robdurbar 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Change to weak keep, editors of page now realise, I hope, that this page (and the whole power series) need to be sourced. Perhaps at some point in the future it may be merged with great power, perhaps there will be scope for two articles. If the page is kept and doesnt change within a couple of months, I'll renom for delete or merging myself. --Robdurbar 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom, but you don't need AfD to do that, just be bold and have this discussion on the talk page. · rodii · 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: part of the idea, I think, was to reach a consensus on the need to jettison (delete) most of the content that's there (OR). Have you seen that article's talk page? Suggesting a merge would only lead to endless clamour and bickering from people wishing, against all good sense, to keep what's there. Albrecht 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Afd proposal is not the way to force changes to an article. If you object to the contents then as a matter of courtesy you ought to bring it up with editors on the article talk page (as a matter of fact, I might be wrong but don't believe that you have made any particular contribution to the article - 1 minor edit, that seems to be all). As for the article title, 'Major power', I will take your word for it that this does not have a basis in academic political science. If this is the case then it would have been nice for you and Thames to bring this up on the talk page; I don't think that you would have found any disagreement with moving/editing this article if you had calmly and reasonably explained the situation - simply slapping OR tags on the page isn't really a meaningful contribution towards its improvement.

Xdamr, you, I think, are missing the point. We have before us a purely OR article; discussing "changes" or plastering its content on another page won't solve anything. It simply needs to go. Also, your talk of "forcing changes," I find, is disingenuous—"Major power" is not a scientific term and so cannot be "defined" in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles. I think this AfD nomination is legitimate and its goal is simple and very clear: delete the current OR article and replace it with a redirect to Great Power, where the general concepts, provided they are encyclopaedic and verifiable, can be developed. I am glad you noticed that I never substantially contributed to what I have openly identified as OR; why would I add to the problem? I see no contradiction. In brief: do you dispute that the article is original research? If not, let's get this behind us and turn our discussions to something called Political science. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, for those with the relevant academic background, is there or is there not a term for 2nd tier powers, powers such as the UK, France, and Russia?

Xdamr 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going about this backwards (that's how this mess was started in the first place). One does not create ad hoc polisci terms to fit arbitrary groups of states; one classifies countries according to existing categories and principles. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. ISTM (as a non-expert) that most of the content is indeed original research, so there may not be much to merge. — Haeleth Talk 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can't vote in this matter, but I would like to defend the claimed OR in the article. GB, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, and India are widely talked about as Major Powers in the world. Other countries also deserve mention such as Italy, but because they are not "documented" as a major power are not included. Whats ironic about this is that Major Power is the older article of the two. Anyway, if this is merged, all content should be merged. Anyway, the content currently presented, is only there after a LOT of discussion. Slowly but surely, these articles are becoming NPOV, with the current group of dedicated editors, namely Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle but several others as well. 12.220.94.199 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being "widely talked about" doesn't mark them down as legitimate. If these countries were expressly classified as "Major Powers" in social science texts and peer reviewed journals, you'd have grounds for an article. They aren't, and you don't. Like it or not, Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle, whatever their other qualities, are not the arbiters of polisci taxonomy, and their discussion, however much of it there was, is no justification for an encyclopaedia article. Albrecht 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A point I have made several times on the talk pages of these articles (Superpower etc, which this one derives a lot of its OR from).Guinnog 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term major power perhaps. But major power is simply a term describing the usage in the media. Take this link that took me five seconds to look up for example. [4] While the article is purely speculative, it does make the important point of the major powers in the world. It lists off China and the U.S.(obviously) as the main powers, with the spoilers being India and Russia and the signficant allies being Europe for the U.S.(speculative) and Japan for China(highly speculative). Nonetheless despite the large amounts of speculation, it does show who are the signficant powers in the modern world. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that there is scope for an article on major power/great power etc. Whether they should all be redirects to one article, or could even deserve their own, I'm not sure. However, this current version appears to be almost entirely an invention of someone's mind. Delete it, redirect, and then hopefully in a few months it can be recreated with decent conetent. --Robdurbar 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article is largely unsourced. We were going to pursue that in time and already cut down on much OR in the UK and Russia sections. But firstly and most importantly, rather than going on about your 'no political term' talk can you just tell me what political science students would call powers such as the UK, Russia, China, India etc. that are NOT Superpowers. Just tell me that so that we can move the information to the related page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to keep the article then vote keep; as it stand its being redirected but there's nothing to stop you changing that by voting against it. This isn't really a place to discuss the article's content; hell, you have three or four days - go, find sources, improve it, and people might even alter their votes. --Robdurbar 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research, or provide sources for the term. Vizjim 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, or come up with proper sources. As well as being OR this is also a highly charged political topic and thus draws away editors' energy from more worthwhile work they could be doing. Guinnog 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, but appears to be original research through and through. Was tagged for sources on April 25 and I see no attempt by anyone to add any. Other articles such as Hyperpower, etc. should be investigated as well (I have not done so). There would be a need for a non-OR NPOV article on great powers listing some of the factors outlining some of the issues in these classifications, but this is not it and the gentle prod of the sourcing tag seems to have had no impact - I suspect (but cannot be sure) that this is exactly because it is OR/interesting intellectual speculation. Martinp 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, not Delete The only "power" weaker than a major power is a minor power. Xaxafrad 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the political science / geopolitics journals don't really do peer review per se, but all of Hyperpower, Superpower, Major power, Regional power and Regional superpower are in moderately common colliqual use in those communities. They may not precisely define them, but they do use them. If they're terms in use, Wikipedia can and should report on that. Georgewilliamherbert 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not mince words: Since when is Wikipedia a repository of terms that are in "moderately common colloquial use?" Which guideline sanctions; whose authority supports, the creation of Wikipedia articles that are venues for personal opinions developed through the editors' own research? Our mandate here is not, I would think, to pick up scraps of what the media blurt out and to try to cobble articles out of them. Another expression used fairly commonly in the media, for instance, is "major player," i.e. "the Republic of Foo is now a major player in Southeast Fooian affairs." Should I then go ahead and create Major player (international relations) and define it arbitrarily? Albrecht 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately common colliqual use within the political science / geopolitics journals. I don't care what comes up in popular press reports; this is in use within the professional journals and publications of the political science / geopolitics research and policy communities. Georgewilliamherbert 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further that: Geopolitics/Political science book title, College course title, Ppaer by geopolitics researcher at policy center, paper by former US secretary of state. These primary sources are from the first page of googling the term, not even starting back through my library at home of books or back issues of Foreign Affairs or other journals.

The claim that this isn't in sufficiently common use to document in wikipedia is ill-informed. This is Clearly NOT WP:OR and the AfD premise is faulty. Please DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George, I've done enough homework to know that the Major power article is OR in all its bearings, that this AfD premise is sound, and that your own "sources" (such as they are) confirm this. Your third link, in particular, bears out the problem with its flippant talk of "major Eastern actor," "major and active players," "major geostrategic player," etc. These are all off-handed, rhetorical expressions with no strictly defined application in the field of international relations. Even its use of "major power" is shaky and suggests a morphous definition:

• "Japan is clearly a major power in world affairs..."
• "Great Britain, to be sure, still remains important to America. It continues to wield some degree of global influence through the Commonwealth, but it is neither a restless major power..."

Nowhere have you illustrated a common usage subject to verifiable criteria. If the term "major power" were a staple in the political science discipline, as you seem to suggest, there would be no need to clarify its meaning with a phrase like "in world affairs." And all this, of course, does not even address the plain and obvious OR nature of the article's content. Albrecht 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat beyond me how you can state that there's no common usage subject to verifyable criteria. I just pulled up a bunch of sources with 30 sec on Google, and from having studied the field for a decade on and off I can tell you that any semi-competent library search in a Poli Sci / Geopolitics section will find loads more. The word is

1. in common use in the field
2. clearly enough defined that people in the field don't argue about it all the time

The specific country entries are highly problematic; they don't say anything I know to be false about the state of geopolitical analysis / publication, but it's very opinionated and many of them approach or pass OR on content summarization. A shorter list of nations which are labeled Major power in the literature would be far superior, without the problematic longer expansion. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just pulled up a bunch of sources that use the term frivolously and arbitrarily along with a handful of others ("major player," etc.) that ought not to have articles. Good effort, but not good enough. ("common usage," by the way, means that the sense (meaning) of the word shouldn't vary substantially. It does.) And if you think the term is "clearly enough defined that people don't argue about it all the time," then you ought to conduct that semi-competent library search you've been talking about and find a definition. The onus is on you. (Oh, and I recommend you take a look at the article's talk page, for instance the section titled "ITALY, WHY YOU DON'T YOU EVEN MENTION ITALY?" Not exactly encouraging.)

Then feel free to try and get reputable cites for the criteria the article is based on, and the content written around them. The main reason it fails is its all-OR nature. Change that and I might change my vote. Guinnog 18:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put those references into the article. The basic definition there, and its usage re: the validity of the term, should be established sufficiently by now.

The question of whether the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings, are appropriate is a completely different question. Shrinking those to a much more compact list, and clarifying that there is no universally accepted list but that these nations have been labeled as such (and preferably, working to reference each nation's labeling) are good things. But that's article improvement work, not deletion justification. I will poke around and work on that, but I can't do it all today. It does need to happen over time, though. Georgewilliamherbert 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort. The trouble is, as it stands, beyond the dicdef, the entire article consists of "the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings". I don't think anybody doubts the possibility of a viable article with this title in the future, though it is harder to justify when there an adequate article exists on Great Powers, a term with a much better academic pedigree which seems to include this article's subject. Guinnog 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Powers are distinct from Major powers; conflating the two is a mistake.

In terms of fixing this article; articles which need major repair are specifically listed as a reason not to AfD in the AfD criteria. This needs to get tagged with cleanup and related tags (and fixed...), not deleted. The "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against stated WP policy, though it's something people commonly want to do. Georgewilliamherbert 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is the former is well-defined and solidly entrenched behind history while the latter remains redundant and unsubstantiated (look at the list of Great Powers and spot those without a "downfall" date—they correspond exactly to your ad hoc list of "Major" powers!). As "Great Power" falls out of fashion, other terms like "major power" (or "major geostrategic player," as per your links above) are popping up to express basically the same concept. Or am I missing some Earth-shattering difference between states "that have substantial influence on other states" and those "whose opinions must be taken into account by other nations before effecting initiatives"?

Uh... the only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is that a Great Power status is a historical recognition and that a Major Power is a current status designation. A country was a Great Power, or is arguably a Major Power. This is not just a minor semantics point... Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation when we're talking about an unencyclopaedic term defined only by a smattering of OR: There's nothing to nuke, and very little to recreate that can't be added to Great Power or Power in international relations. Moreover, your calling into question the politics of this AfD does not constitute a defence for the article. Defending the article would involve backing up the substance, structure, and assumptions of its content with the proper sources, and so far, you simply haven't done this. Albrecht 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is at the very least a major overlap between the two terms, and if you deleted the OR bits, there wouldn't be anything left. Sorry, but FWIW I am not convinced. I speak as someone who has tried hard to improve the current article over the past months. Guinnog 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If criticising all the efforts to improve the articles is improvement then pardon my ignorance. See Talk:Superpower to see what I'm talking about. Firstly, we've got the criteria sourced by a reputable organization, what more do you want? Secondly, your work on this article has comprised of very few edits. I didn't want to make this personal, but as a guy who's accepted as a frequent editor of the Power in international relations articles, you've got on my nerve with your criticism and lack of helping the action. Anyway, no hard feelings. It seems we've got a Political Science dispute here, which should have been sorted on the talk page before nominating for deletion. I'm voting keep until you PS students can come to a conclusion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me criteria sourced by reputable organizations and I'll change my vote to "keep" in a heartbeat. So far, the citations in the opening paragraph lead to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. Also, (and I hope I don't "get on your nerves" by saying this), my conviction is that a "delete" vote on this gangrenous wreck of an article is the single best "helping action" one can offer here. Albrecht 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An organization by the name of Global CPR was used and is used to source the criteria. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would question though whether this one reference (interesting though it is) is notable enough to base an entire article on.

I would note too that their criteria (which are unreferenced) are subtly different from the ones in the article, and that the conclusions they draw are slightly different from those in the article. There remains the nagging doubt in my mind too about whether this article may be based on an earlier version of this Wiki article, leading to a circular situation! Best case scenario, we establish that this article is based on (plagiarised from?) the OR of one website, moderated and modified by the original research of several Wiki editors.

While it is an interesting debate, whether such-and-such a power is a "Major Power" or an "Emerging Superpower" etc, I don't think it belongs on an encyclopedia as it is too arbitrary. Really, who are we to decide whether Russia (say) is a Major Power?

If this article is allowed to stay on Wiki in anything like its present form, we could have next an article on Possible Superpowers of the 22nd century, or one on Countries which will probably never amount to much, or one on Countries which could have been Superpower contenders but blew it. Synthesise some OR criteria and make a list of countries, then let the arguments begin. Entertaining though this might be (up to a point), it doesn't seem apppropriate for an encyclopedia.

I appreciate the work you have put in to try and improve this article, and understand how galling it must be to see the work seemingly deprecated; be assured this is nothing personal (as I mentioned in your talk page), but just a recognition that there is no way to save this from being OR. Guinnog 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR, Wikipedia is not a Repository of Terms in Moderately Common Colloquial Use. See discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_9#What_the_heck Hornplease 07:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge verifiable content with Great power. I've decided to put my vote for something worthwile as the Keep vote just won't work. Unfortunately, these aren't the best days for me to actually edit these articles and I don't get too much time on Wikipedia. So I'm not going to do rapid changes to the articles as I did for another political science deletion a couple of months ago. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep.

• Redirect and merge verifiable content. I would urge to extend this same discussion to thr following articles : Emerging superpowers: India, Emerging superpowers: Europe and Emerging superpowers: China. Same problems, such as original research and colloquial knowledge and citations, happen there in an intensive way. Cloretti2 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India's an FA, the guys involved with that don't want the content in the Emerging Superpowers India article. :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Barno and merge per WP:V. --Slgrandson 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rehash of Emerging Superpowers—India and similar crystall ball articles. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP the page The only thing that must be done is expanding the sources, which exist and include one or more countries that have this status but you don't mention them becuase you think there is proofs or documentation of their Major Power status, which is the case with Italy. There are enough books about this, there are also internet sources and if you want more sources you can contact some persons which where in Italian government, specially in foreign affairs and defence that can provide reliable sources too you.And in the end there are many italian books regarding this theme. One major writer of italian geopolitics is Mr. Lelio Lagorio, a military that was defence minister in the early 80's.

If you decid not to keep the page, I think you shouldn't delete it, simply merge all its conyents plus the expanded ones with the page Great Power and complement the two pages, but I think this is a wrong idea. ACamposPinho 1:40 10 May 2006

• KEEP I've been away for the fast few days and have been unable to follow or contribute to the discussion, however I see that there have been developments.

From my reading of the Afd proposal there are two main points of contention: firstly, the concept of 'Major Power' is OR and secondly the listing of nations within the article is OR. To my mind only the first is a valid AfD criticism; debates over OR in the article content are properly dealt with on the article talk page - the fact that an article is poorly written is not a reason for its deletion, it is a reason to improve it. As Georgewilliamherbert says above, 'the "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against standard WP policy'.

Either you have not thoroughly read the discussion or you are deliberately obstructing the issues involved. No one wants to delete the article because it's "poorly written." What we have here is an indefinable term built on foundations of bickering and sloppy OR. The grounds for deletion, as previously stated, are that the term is redundant, OR, and, not being a polisci term, "cannot be 'defined' in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles."

The question of whether 'Major power' is a term of political science is one for political scientists to debate. Personally, I accept in good faith Albrecht's assertion that it is not. However I do not consider that this alone makes the article OR. We see above, and now in the article, that 'Major power' is a term in colloquial usage amongst those involved in the area; it can no longer be seriously asserted that this is 'OR/interesting intellectual speculation' (per Martinp above). Whether it is a strict term of political science is not the point; it has been shown to be a term of art, this makes it worthy of remaining.

If colloquial usage warrants an article then I expect your full support when I create Major player (international relations), Geostrategic player, and Restless Power.

The term is now sourced. The content of the article may remain open to debate, but the grounds for a legitimate Afd have surely now gone. Informed discussion as to content should now take place on the talk page.

The term, as I said above, is sourced to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. The AfD, if anything, is more valid now than when it began since we now know that none of the article's main contributors have shown any serious interest in finding a legitimate basis for the term or demonstrating that it can stand on other foundations than OR (the poor job with sources confirms this). Why not channel our energies toward something productive?

I question whether the votes above can now legitimately stand; now that the term is sourced it is no longer OR. Those who voted above based their conclusions on a superceded version of the article. Either way it would have been much better to have thrashed this out on the talk page before bringing it to Afd. Albrecht said '[I] have never substantially contributed to [an article] I have openly identified as OR'. No-one expects you to contribute to such an article but I would ask whether this precluded you from raising your concerns on the talk page?

Xdamr 13:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to dismiss the process out of hand. And if you want to thrash things out on the talk page go right ahead; I invite you to debate ACamposPinho's Italian case and his assertion that "there are many italian books regarding this theme. One major writer of italian geopolitics is Mr. Lelio Lagorio, a military that was defence minister in the early 80's." Good luck. Albrecht 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not necessary luck, only money tobuy the books, go at www.internetbookshop.it(ibs.it) and search for Lelio Lagorio, there you can buy his books.There are many others from other sources,including anglo-saxon schoolars and researchers of these theme. ACamposPinho 3:48, 12 May 2006

That's just quoting an example of a one-off. It doesn't happen very often that someone comes and says that they want different nations in the Major power article. In case you haven't noticed, the same nations have been on the article since it's creation. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of you saying that it doesn't happens very often,is alreadymentioning thatit happens.

I talked to people in wikipedia and they say that I could edit the page, according to the facts that I showed. Neverthless, I talked in the discussion page,because I want things to be done fairly. I'mnotasking to includ my country or other minor powers. Its Italy.I already showed more facts than all thefacts that areon that page for all the countries, and I showed only for one, because I know what I'm talking about. Even if GDP, military, industry know-how and self-knowledge to construct their own things besides geopolits aren't enough, look at Italy cultural and historical impirtance since Roman epoch untill nowadays. 50% of the worldpatrimony is there. I can provide facts and facts, people doesn't wan't to see them because they prefer a forgotten and more fragile Italy.But the reality is very different. I reed above someone saying that Japan is Major Power, while UK is also a Major Power, usefull to USA but a restless power. Its wrong. Besides UK GDP, financial markets strenghtit has the second most active personel on "peacekeeping" actions in the world, its a major EU member, member of Nato with nuclear power, has a UN Permanent Seat on Security Council besides being the chief country of the British Commonwealth. As you said,one must take into account the powerof the region itself and the power that the coutry has in the region to determinate its power in the world stage. Japan is a Major economical power, but can't influence all Asian continent byitself, altough itsan importantcountry in world stage, its more a regional power of East Asia, not even Asia at allits dimension. Japan cannot deploy its armed forces for war purposes, only in peacekeeping or if it where attacked.In that it's more a puppet of USA than UK. The fact the page has the same nations since the begging is a very poor argument.Everything evolves and develops. The Wikipedia project is always in development, look at the newarticles, pages, expanded articles it has compared with the beggining of that project. The english page is evolving every day. The fact that you don't want the page to be developed is that it was created according to your views or its you that have some prejudices against the thruth. Since you have a personal aproach to these geopolitics,you say that are the others that have this sentiment. Nobody its ownerof the thruth, people could only know more of this or moreof that and someone knows more of this and the other knows more of that. You are not owner of the thruth and not even of Wikipedia, you should listen, or reed what someone knows better than you. I've been studying Italian Geopolitics,culture, politics, military,...,for a very long time. What I want is that the Major Power page shows more fairness and the Great Power pages shows historical accuracy, things I don't see on them now. ACamposPinho 2:18, 13 May 2006

OK, you don't need to get touchy about it. And this isn't the place to discuss it anyway. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I dislike the antagonistic approach to deletion; I had thought to persuade the article's editors of the validity of my concern. If their consensus is against me I will annul my vote and leave the rest to their judgment. But I'm not touching that article again. Albrecht 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Strong Keep as per my notes. The crusade has begun, and must be stopped. For this article, I'd have to agree it'd be better served being in Great Powers. However, if this is the start of another crusade against any article with the word "power" in it, then Strong Keep as all the others are well-known, well thought out political articles that tally with public knowlege and the media. It'd be a Wikipedian failure to the public not to include these kinds of articles. However, for this particular article, I fail to see need for a differentiation between Major Power and Great Power Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would invite all people here discussing this subject to extend this treatment to the Emerging superpowers (China, EU, and India and Russia...and blablabla). All sourced points there can be used in their appropriate articles (India..or China..etc). All of them contain original research and NPOV. I know that many fragments are sourced, but to draw a global conclusion based on several facts (very recent ones, still needed to be analized in an historic context) is a little complicated. Anybody here remembers about Japan in the 80's? When the Japanese Royal palace used to worth more than California??? Well, that's my point. Even with sourced facts, a great deal of crystal balling still remains. 200.171.168.91 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Emerging Superpowers and Major powers aren't related enough to be dicussed in the one AfD. Secondly, the Emerging Superpowers articles already survived AfD. Thirdly, fragments aren't sourced, everything (at least in India and China ones) is sourced, the India one uses inotes because it was way to messy with 130-odd sources lying everywhere. Fourthly, there are also a number of links used that directly link India's, China's, EU's power with a rise to Superpower status so that isn't OR. Fifthly, the Russia one and a couple of other made by patriotic editors need to be speedily removed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be foolish to begin this again. It'll only lead to an edit war. You know full well that these articles need to stay for the good of Wikipedia's political section. I will not tolerate this tiny majority inviting people who know little of the subject matter to swing deletion votes. The majority of people who worked on these articles want the articles to stay. Never mind if you manage to whip up enough support from faceless editors in an AfD, you will be defeated by the majority. You were warned. Wikipedians please note the contributions of 200.171.168.91 and their counterpart 201.1.154.57 - nothing other than these articles for deletion. Yet they seem strangely knowlegeable of the Wikipedian workings. Sockpuppets if I ever saw one.Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. All random faceless editors who've had their say on this, please note all the media sources appearing on this article. Whoops. As these articles are all OR by us, someone really out to ring the media up and tell them to stop lying! Shocking, eh? Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. Excellent article, very valid topic. Maybe a bit long, but should NOT be deleted. Theonlyedge 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was de-prodded a week ago; the prod read "No indication of meeting WP:BIO." I quite agree. TheProject 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Less than 20 unique GHits that actually refer to him, mainly forums and Wikipedia. I have removed him from List of philosophers. Fan1967 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No proof that he isn't actually what people say he is. For all we know, he could simply be featured in local news papers and such that aren't featured online. User:ModernGeek 22:47, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

• Comment. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on verifiability. In order for an article to be in Wikipedia it must be provably true. "It might be true" won't cut it. Fan1967 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. mgekelly 04:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This person may have some interesting political ideas, but would only be notable if they've somehow gained significant attention. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Zaxem 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, possibly a vanity page by User:ModernGeek.--TM 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Part soapbox, part vanity, a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not verifiable per Fan1967. Kevin 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal Ball syndrome. Film is only rumor and fan conjecture at the moment. Provided link for "source" is nearly three years old. TheRealFennShysa 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yeah. - Richardcavell 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the lack of an IMDB entry suggests that this project was canceled before it got off the ground at some point in the last three years. --Hyperbole 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't deserve a page right now. (Whether it will one day remains to be seen). Zaxem 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until this project is green-lit by a major studio & a press release issued, the page is not required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 3 rumours and a dodgy link doesn't cut it for verifiability. Kevin 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to say "Keep" on the grounds that the article could be changed to say that the movie's proposed existence is a rumor, but when absolutely nothing official has been released, there's no point in keeping it. Jared W 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic topic; description is worthless, nothing more than a vanity chat room rant.

• Delete; this "Eternal newbie" article is not encyclopedic; besides which, it's so badly written as to be worthless even if the topic were encyclopedic. - Reaverdrop 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopædic in scope, tone & content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Reaverdrop. JIP | Talk 06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't understand how this differs from the definitions of "eternal" and "newbie" combined. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You've got to be kidding me! (Metropolitan90 makes a good point, too.) Jared W
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eternal damnation to... WIKIHELL!!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Metropolitan90's argument. Vizjim 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- vanity, non-notable. This is kid's work, as noted by this revision [5] where Chris Paddock was listed as being born in 1990. Fabricationary 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy a7, but it has nothing to do with him being a child, it has to do with him being non notable. --Rory096 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Can't find any Google links which link both Chris Paddock and Paddock Productions together. Quite possibly nonsense. Zaxem 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for reasons above. DVD+ R/W 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and the article has already been tagged. TheProject 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable company and biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Borderline neologism.  RasputinAXP  c 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. History shows article was originally proposed for deletion on 21 Feb, tag was subsequently removed, and article was erroneously proposed for deletion again on 21 April. RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with RobertG -- Simon Cursitor 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ipod or expand. --Several Times 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, neologism verified by cnet and others. — AKADriver ☎ 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's important enough to take seriously. I have no idea why there are two 'no votes' here. What precisely is that supposed to achieve? - Richardcavell 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RobertG just brought it here to be decided since it was prodded twice by other users. I don't know what Simon Cursitor meant, though. I would guess that he meant delete, since that is the default position for those nominating articles for deletion. I would either ask him or discard his vote, if I was the one closing the nomination. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - 364 unique Ghits makes it a bit borderline. I have a feeling this neologism will be dead and buried in five years, but for now it seems to have acheived some notability. --Hyperbole 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ipod until the term comes into more general usage. Kevin 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Kevin. Or delete. But not a separate article, thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kjkolb and Isotope23. --Amalas =^_^= 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ipod Real issue, unnotable neologism. or Delete--Nick Y. 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO RobLinwood 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ipod. Vizjim 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and wikify. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedied, but is not a speedy candidate; restoring for a proper AfD. Seems like something that can be improved, NPOV'd and kept, if notability can be shown based on influence, citations to the work, sales volume, etc. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - what's wrong with it? It had a distribution over 500,000. - Richardcavell 04:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveat - the article says so, but can that be confirmed? BD2412 T 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Verify, NPOV and Keep. --- GWO
• Delete unless that number can be proven. I doubt that a book that has sold that many copies would get only about 30 unique Google results, some from far right websites and most of the others from bookstores. -- Kjkolb 09:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was published in 1949, and is still available on Amazon. WP:BIO says we should keep authors who has an audience of 5000 or more. There's probably more copies than that in libraries (my own unverified POV). Kevin 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kevin. However, it could use some wikifying. --^{speak to}gadren 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, wikify, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find about 220 google hits[6] so I think that an article on this subject might just about meet WPN:NN. However, this article is not it: unsourced, with some of the claims appearing hard to verify, and written in a very POV style. I think that there is a much stronger case for an article on John T. Flynn himself, who appears to have been a prolific writer on these matters for decades, from a perspective which is notable. Such an article could discuss the book as well as his other writings and broadcasting, and more readily accommodate a balanced account of the man's work. --BrownHairedGirl 08:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be best to write such an article and merge this into it as a section. BD2412 T 12:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep iff distribution can be proven. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the Closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. This is a place to ascertain the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

• Keep - Its a webcomic, not very big but more popular than many that have their own entries. Although the article needs to stress more on the webcomic, not on the forum. -Noob User 06:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be nothing more than promoting a non-notable website/forum, advertisement, vanity WilliamThweatt 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom - looks like they're mostly just an attack group of some sort.Tony Fox 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a page about a webcomic & the history behind it. No vandalism or attacks, potential for growth. Zombie Dave 05:33, 8 May 2006

Note:this user appears to have been created purely to vote in this AFD (the above entry is their only ever edit), and so is probably the article creator. mgekelly 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Vanity. mgekelly 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. --MaNeMeBasat 05:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be especially notable. Zaxem 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable website/forum. Alexa rank of 2,724,297, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable web forum, vanity. JIP | Talk 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This (still in early writing stages) article is about a legitimate fledgling webcomic based off of the life and times of the forum go-ers and the conversations within the threads in said forum. Drawingfreak 02:59, 8 May 2006 (EST)

^{to closing admin: this is this users first and second edit}

• Delete non notable website, advertising.--Dakota ~ 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WilliamThweatt. DarthVader 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep - I ran across this webcomic while researching webcomics for a project. I believe this comic is more valuable then many others that have thier own wikipedia page. I do believe their entry could be cleaned up and expanded but I do not feel it should be deleted. GHGoddess 11:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]