Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gaurav.pal (talk | contribs)
110 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claes Cronstedt}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{AfDM|page=Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 11 (2nd nomination)|date=2007 July 11|substed=yes|origtag=afdx}}
{{AfDM|page=Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 11 (2nd nomination)|date=2007 July 11|substed=yes|origtag=afdx}}

Revision as of 12:15, 11 July 2007

< July 10 July 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Weak Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 09:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Cronstedt

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

Fixing incorrect nom template. Appears to be based on WP:BIO. Housekeeping only. No opinion expressed. Evb-wiki 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • according to foreign policy Claes Cronstedt was considered the top CSR Lawyer (corporate social responsibility) in Europe, this is a current topic for the future!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugocron (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this project page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion.

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

The result was delete - all of the editors voting keep are single purpose accounts and many display and apparent conflict of interest. ck lostsword•T•C 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malware Spread Mitigation

Malware Spread Mitigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted, suspected promotional material. New author with no other meaningful contributions. A supposed infosec term that is marginally visible in Google, is defined in a remarkably vague way (Northeast Blackout of 2003, KFLOCS, chaos theory and such) - and in the end seems to be a covert ad for a proprietary and not necessarily notable technology used by this company in their products. The company itself does not seem to be particularly frequently noted either. lcamtuf 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: article author's nickname (Ishisaka) coincides with a login used on some forums by a person claiming to be Ken Steinberg, current CEO of said company (see here); this link seems to be further confirmed by later comments on this AfD page. --lcamtuf 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have been working in the computer industry for a while and have come across many terms, including "Malware Spread Mitigation," during web searches for products which stop malware in its tracks. My interest is in low-level code that can run on a variety of platforms (PC's, embedded systems, etc.). The term, which is fairly new (like "Code Access Security," a term already in Wikipedia), refers to a new concept in preventing viruses from spreading to other systems. Like many computer-related terms, this one -- which user Lcamtuf called "supposed infosec" -- can already be found in web searches both in phrase and in concept.
    The parenthetical reference to "big word" was somewhat amusing, especially since Wikipedia already has an entry for "Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements." If Lcamtuf is looking to rid the world of "big words," there are many places to look. But what grabbed my attention here was that, unlike other Wikipedia entries, I was struck by Lcamtuf's tone and rather disparaging comment about the author's lack of meaningful contributions, and his comment about "suspected promotional material." If the entry contains a line which the administrators think is promotional, the text can always be modified. I think deletion would be too extreme. And if Lcamtuf (whose real name is Michal Zalewski) wants to chide submittors for, as he calls it, "promotional material," he can start by removing the Wikipedia reference to his own book, "Silence on the Wire."
    It turns out that Mr. Zalewski (Lcamtuf) might indeed have a motivation to have the entire concept removed from our computer security vocabulary. He works for a competitor company which provides blacklisting technology. Having researched Savant Protection, both press releases and other independent sources, it seems clear that Savant Protection's approach is not only the best at preventing execution, but also the best at stopping the spread across systems. I think the emphasis on new approaches to virus and spread protection, like countless other trends in the computer industry, will spawn new terms which will become -- or are already becoming -- part of our vocabulary. goodville 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — Goodville (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a place to describe terms or ideas that "will become or are already becoming" a part of our knowledge or vocabulary. Furthermore, extraordinary claims of efficiency or notability require extraordinary (and verifiable) third-party proofs. See WP:OR. --lcamtuf 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First and foremost the entry is new and not fully baked. Second, it is a legitimate entry since this is a new computer security approach that can be added to the other approaches such as blacklisting, whitelisting etc. So is lcamtuf saying that nothing new should be added to Wiki because it is not highly ranked in Google or notable yet? lcamtuf should then remove his entries promoting his book and perhaps the AV company he works for. If whitelisting is posted, another somewhat new approach - relatively to blacklisting, then Malware Spread Mitigation should be noted. This is an accepted approach in the security community and with several of the top analyst firms. This appears to be a case of a large firm exerting itself on a changing market. My understand was that Wikipedia is a knowledge tool and that postings should be of this ilk. The posting is not promotional (I have seen much, much worse). Great care was taken to not be so. The entry should be allowed to exist and let the community contribute. Of course it could be edited to use small words if they are too complex for the reader - geesh. ishisaka 16:11 11 July 2007 (UTC)— Ishisaka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Again, as a rule, we do not describe concepts that "can be added" to common knowledge - we focus exclusively on concepts that already are included there, by reputable, verifiable third-party sources (such as peer-reviewed journals). --lcamtuf 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you would have me believe that every entry is Wikipedia can quote a third party source on the day it is entered? That would require a lot of content to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.93.173 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage by independent media" Only hit on google news archives is a press release Corpx 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All but one of the hits on a standard google search are press releases from the same company. Not discussed in any of the reliable sources that are likely to discuss something like this (e.g. securityfocus, zdnet). JulesH 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's give sometime for this article to develop before XFDing it. Thansk Taprobanus 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know ? just a question Taprobanus 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI did some checking-seems SC Magazine, Government Computing News, eWEEK and NETWORK WORLD have some very good things to say...new terms, new technologies, new knowledge - let it stand an TVJones 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)— TVJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a neologism (or more like a protologism) that gets most of its traction from one company's phrasing with regards to its product. I came up with mostly press releases in searches; notability doesn't appear to be established, and I don't think it will be any time soon. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN advertising slogan. --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search shows there are numerous sources attributed to numerous companies all providing malware spread mitigation. Cannot be a slogan if mentioned across several companies and media outlets. Research please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.93.173 (talk • contribs)
      • Can you link to some of them, please? When I performed that search I found approximately 100 press releases from Savant, and precisely one article that used the term otherwise, and not in relation to the technology described in the article. JulesH 09:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP A Google search using the terms virus or worm or bot or malware plus mitigation excluding “Savant Protection” from the results produces 1,770,000 hits! Implied in most, and explicit in many, of the references is the notion of preventing harmful computer code from propagating to other non-infected computers. Every malware related product on the market promotes and differentiates their capabilities for effectively performing this service. I believe that the term Malware Spread Mitigation, although somewhat new in terms of putting these specific words together in this way, is not new in what it represents. It is an excellent lens for focusing attention on this critical area of computer security. With the help of the Wikipedia community it can be enhanced over time to bring a much needed focal point to this specific subject area. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is all about? I also believe that there is plenty of precedent for acceptance of Malware Spread Mitigation. The term computer security incident management already exists in Wikipedia as does Anti-spam techniques (e-mail), Trusted Computing, and Computer security to name a few. I was also surprised to see McAfee VirusScan and Norton AntiVirus entries along with a number of other commercial antivirus products listed in Wikipedia. Compared to these entries I see absolutely no self-promotion by Savant Protection in this entry. In fact, I would recommend that Savant Protection create their own entry seeing that McAfee and Norton are allowed. :-) Mronayne 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)— Mronayne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Google search for virus OR worm OR bot OR malware +mitigation -“Savant Protection” is remarkably broad and predominantly returns pages unrelated to the subject of this article. --lcamtuf 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search on Computer Security = 5,250,000 hits! On Trusted Computing = 1,360,000 hits! Both are accepted Wikipedia entries. And, I believe that there are a significant number of results from my search that do pertain to the detection, isolation, and removal of malware – in essence, stopping the spread of malware – most definitely the subject of this article.
      • "With the help of the Wikipedia community it can be enhanced over time to bring a much needed focal point to this specific subject area. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is all about? Well, no, actually. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes or for "enhancing" a brand-new term that, when searched for in its entirety, has very, very minimal traction outside of a single company's marketing material. It may be that down the road there will be multiple, non-trivial reliable sources using this term, and at that point it may be right for an article. Right now, it fails attribution policy. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain entries for McAfee VirusScan and Norton AntiVirus - not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand Wikipedia better. Mronayne 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both are extremely well known, have multiple non-trivial reliable sources about them (though teh McAfee article could use some additional refs), have two million-plus Google hits, and are products, not a neologism that is thus far applied to a single product by a single company. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still curious - what is the threshold in Google hits - assuming they are reliable and 3rd party - to qualify a product (or term) as eligible for a Wikipedia entry? Is this just a judgment call or is there some rule of thumb? Mronayne 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google hits are an indication of notability, not a threshold to be met; it helps indicate the potential level of sources available for a particular topic. Here are some relevant links for this discussion: Reliable sources; attribution; notability. This phrase meets none of them, in my (and others' opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks Tony. I appreciate it.  :^) I did take a look at these but I need some further clarification. The criteria don't speak of specific thresholds so how does one know what is acceptable as a new entry and what is not? It seems very subjective. My only reason to add this entry was to start down the path. I never envisioned such a caustic response to such a small entry. If no one can clearly articulate the threshold for beginning an article then I can imagine many would get pretty frustrated with new postings. One would think that articles by third party security-focused publications would be a good thing? =]:^) No one paid them to write. I was as surprised as anyone but it appears that Google hits is the only yardstick. What does that say about the computer science press or the analysts? Who else would write about it anyways? I would think it would be far worse if all one found were whitepapers I had published. All of the articles were done by independent technologists/writers who had no reason to even look at this technology. They chose to write over the course of 3 years. We never asked.....so I am left feeling a bit pinched by all of the directness from a range of individuals, some obviously learned and senior Wiki-est and others who seem to have no direct security experience....but that is just me. I am not trying to get anyones knickers in a knot. Just trying to add a couple K of words to probably many quadrillion. A bump on a flea on an ant on a cat sitting in a wall....ishisaka 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources means just that: multiple (more than one - generally, several is best at minimum) non-trivial (feature articles, large portions of existing articles, etc.) reliable sources (publications that are established and have some modicum of editorial oversight). Press releases are not reliable sources, but make up most of the results that turn up in Google. If you can show multiple, non-trivial reliable sources that this phrase, as it stands, is a notable phrase in general use, then please provide the references. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, well then as you stated earlier with respect to McAfee and Norton, given that four independent publications (see above or Google) have made reference of Savant Protection, I should be able to do what they did and put a direct reference in. It boggles the mind that you are actually saying a direct company reference is better than letting everyone chime in on a particular subject matter but GCN/Newsweek, eWeek, Network Computing, and Secure Computing would match your definition of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. Seems a bit bass-ackwards but if that is what matches the Wiki criteria, I will retract this topic until more direct coverage is applied and write another. Do me one favor though, explain why everyone says Google hits are not the measuring stick, but everyone keeps bringing it up? Either it is the measure or it isn't.
                  If it is there is a lot of stuff on Wiki that needs to be deleted. I've seen a lot of pages about people that have little to no references. How do those get to say? A bit of a double standard, I think. right lcamtuf or is that Mike Z? ishisaka 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (deindent a bit) If Savant Protection meets the corporate guidelines, go for it. This phrase is entirely non-notable and a neologism, and that's what this discussion is about. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The nature and maturity of organizational security is still evolving; compare the field of security from 1955 to that of today. There is no comparison. Further, this field is not a finite discipline such as basic mathematics where 1+1=2. That is highly apparent by the varying opinions within this call for deletion. After all, Wikipedia is here to help derive new definitions.
    Case in point: Lookup Google in Wikipedia. You find that it is listed as a verb. However, that is probably the product-focused Wikipedia entry that you will find. As a full blown “Google-a-holic,” I do not have any problem with the entry. It’s pretty darn accurate. But if we are going to apply the standards that are called out by the DELETE crowd, then we should also get rid of that entry. For that matter, why not censor the entire site?
    The truth of the matter is I don’t want someone censoring any terms that may be perceived in different ways by different people. Unfortunately, just about every definition in the domain of organizational security is like that right now. Rather, we should be EDITING and refining the definition into something that everyone can work with and develop. This brings us all to a more educated place; a place that we can all thank WIKI for aiding us in achieving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.9.2 (talk • contribs) — 70.233.9.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete WP:SOAP, WP:NOTE and probably WP:COI. I assume good faith as a starting point, but it is obvious that this discussion is being flooded by Keeps from single-purpose accounts, which I think also makes the reasons for the creation of this article suspect. Google returns are overwhelmingly for press releases by Savant, and the ezine "article" I saw was written by the CEO and the VP of Savant. WP:NOTE can't be established until this technology is referenced more in reliable sources that aren't just self-promotion by Savant. The Wikipedia article itself touts Ken Steinberg, CEO of Savant, as "advancing the technology". Lipsticked Pig 05:32, 14 July 2007
    • Excuse me but I did advance the technology but so what. As to the ezine articles, go Google Symantec. What do you find? The same thing. Whitepapers, ezine articles and more press releases than you can read. I did NOT write this entry to promote the company (the mention of which IS part of the history) but to capture the technology and it's history. So maybe we should go remove the reference to Peter Norton from the Symantec entry or Woz from the Apple Computer entry. You cannot discount an article because of historical reference. Every entry in Computer Security has historical listing. Also note that if this was promotion, which it is not, I would have listed all of the supposed e-zines. Wiki dictates consistent use of criteria across entries. This article adheres to the same criteria used to publish other entries. This articule conforms to WP:NPOV although this discussion is becoming borderline WP:NPA as several of the people requesting deletion have not written any articles in computer security and have no basis for commenting. ishisaka 12:19, July 14 2007
      • If you're indeed Ken Steinberg - please see WP:AUTO for a discussion of reasons why authoring articles on yourself or your projects is discouraged and is likely to cause conflicts. Wikipedia employs a number of common-sense rules designed to ensure that all articles describe notable and previously established facts or concepts in a precise, factually accurate, and verifiable manner; the project specifically forbids promotion of original thought or research that did not gain a non-trivial amount of independent traction, no matter how important or unique it is - and that's pretty much the story of a plethora of AfD votes. There's no cabal. I do not know you, I do not secretly hate you or your company; and to my best knowledge, I do not work for a competitor (see WP:COI). --lcamtuf 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can get very upset when I see a delete comment on an AfD which seems malformed and ignorant of the subject matter. And in this case, I am relatively ignorant of the specific technology. However, the article did not establish notability by standards that are obvious and clear to me (the article should be able to do that regardless of my level of knowledge), Google searches returned almost exclusively non-reliable sources for "Malware Spread Mitigation", and combined with a clumsy and bad-faith attempt to game this AfD, I don't think there can be any decision but to delete. Lipsticked Pig 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was me, forgot to log in. Anyways the article wasn't about me. It wasn't self-promotion. If that had been my intent, I am sure I could have done better but it wasn't. It was the beginning of a very innocuous article that I had hoped would grow out of time. I never got a chance to work on it any more because the deletion request happened in 24 hours, There is nothing in the entry that is in any way different from any other Computer Security entry. The point everyone continues to make, even after I offered to recind, is not enough Google hits. The article itself is perfectly fine and not promotional. So calm down, go relax and let's all get some real work done. This has gone beyond ridiculous. I never imagined so many people would get so bent out of shape. Makes me wonder what the driving factors are. Seems a lot of "guilty until proven innocent" going on. I hope others who are first time contributors to Wiki get more support and less attack. Be well" ishisaka 14:00 15, July 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Empire

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

Article is NPOV POV, bloated, non-encyclopedic... the list goes on. MichiganCharms 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: My issue isn't in the articles point of view so much. The whole thing is not encyclopedic and it reads like a dissertation citing theories given by certain scholars. Wikipedia cannot have an article for every single political theory in existence. And the theory of these three types of Empire are just not worthy of being in. -MichiganCharms 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which article are you talking about? It seems to me that Overseas expansion of the United States could be expanded to include economic and military expansion post WWII, and not only mean geographic. And a renamed Current Political Theories on American Empire could address the theoretical underpinnings/meanings of said expansion. As it is, a non specialist or someone who has not thought deeply about one or the other would easily be confused. If you are going to have one article on "fact" and another on "theory" the titles of said articles should be more clear. I am not sure if this debate belongs here or somewhere else, though. XinJeisan 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and cleanup The article may be a little clouded in academia, but it just needs some trimming and reworking so it's more accessible to the layman. Overseas expansion of the United States seems to cover the history of this topic while this covers scholarly debate more... What about summarizing material from the two and other articles, maybe with some added coverage of popular opinion on the term? I can't find an article that brings all these things regarding this area together, so the need for such an article is there. Kennard2 07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator did not provide rationale for deletion, and others have not either. Interesting how this article is set up, essentially as an overview of the meaning, if any, of the phrase "American Empire." If Wikipedia is still around in 150 years or so, I'd wager that this article will look much more like the article British Empire--i.e. it will treat American Empire as an established fact and give a historical overview--with various interpretations obviously--of that empire's rise and decline. Certainly in 150 years an article with this title will exist though. The article is extremely well sourced and actually does a rather good job with NPOV. An argument could be made for changing it to Current Political Theories on American Empire or something similar, but I don't think that's necessary and it will be more interesting to see how this article evolves over time given the current title. Clean it up in places, keep it as NPOV as possible of course, but definitely keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete article is a non-encyclopedic anti-American piece of shit. Black Harry • Go Red Sox 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong words, good use of swearing. However neither "non-encyclopedic" nor "anti-American" nor "piece of shit" are valid rationales for deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This may come as a surprise to you, but I, Black Harry, hereby retire permanently from editing at Wikipedia" LOL, this was 4 days ago. What a joke. 68.90.165.161 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting claim, but then again, that's not really an argument is it? Calgary 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term is notable and widely used, article addresses it for the most part from a neutral standpoint, even if the subject of the article is POV. Could use some cleaup, but I see no grounds for deletion. Calgary 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem with the article is reflected in this debate. The concept of empire has been a part of the US political debate from at least the Federalist Papers to the war in Iraq, for example Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts. There seems to be a sense from some editors that if you support keeping this article or deleting this article that somehow you are taking some sort of vauge stance. The article, in fact, should have a section on why US political debate is hesitant to talk about Empire in an open way. There are many theories pro and anti about american empire. The article should not be about proving that the US is an empire as opposed to discussing various pro- and anti- of both the concept of American Empire and that the US is an empire at all. The article is badly flawed -- I still believe it should be renamed -- but people interested in the subject need to have a much broader view of the topic in order to make it encyclopedic. XinJeisan 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Written like an overlong essay and lots of weasel words. But the reasons in the nom are illegitimate ones for deletion. Clean-up required. Recommend users Request for Comment. Canuckle 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That this is a legitimate topic is beyond debate. Professor Niall Ferguson of Harvard University recently published a bestselling book on the subject. Golfcam 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be well researched, but definitely needs a good editing job to make it neutral and more encyclopedic in tone. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator has not stated a basis for deletion, and this screams of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CraigMonroe 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and semi-protected status. User:Ultramarine should be dissuaded from adding poorly written, off-topic POV. --MBHiii 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate concept. --MichaelLinnear 02:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... as it currently stands it's an essay, not an article. It doesn't have to go into so much analytical depth. The subject matter should be dealt with more concisely and the reader referred to references and further reading. At the moment I wonder whether it exists for the benefit of the reader or the writers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oral stimulation of nipples

AfDs for this article:
Oral_stimulation_of_nipples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Breast fetishism,erotic lactation and oral sex cover this already. Creator vandalized a page with link to this article after creation of article. Wikipedia not being censored does not prove this article should be on here. In most cases the lack of censorship does not even break even.Wikipedia is not a vote or poll. This is a debate YVNP 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response If an article is about a specific action, a description of the action is not the same as being a detailed description. In addition, all information in this article that may be considered a "how-to" is both necessary for the article to make any sense, and does not go into heavy or unnecessary detail. By the same rationale you're presenting here the following excerpt, taken from Sexual intercourse, could be considered a how-to:
"To engage in coitus, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina and one or both of the partners move their hips to move the penis backward and forward inside the vagina to cause friction, typically without fully removing the penis. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other, often continuing until highly pleasurable orgasm in either or both partners is achieved."
Yes, oral stimulation of the nipples might not be as common or significant as coitus, but it's still notable enough to warrant it's own article, and that being said, given the context, there is nothing inappropriate about the material. Calgary 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kultivator

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

Tagged for notability for a month; no edits (the article is Kimutai77's only edit), no notability per WP:ORG. The Swedish article, sv:Kultivator, is a stub looking like disambig only briefly mentioning the organization in question (I removed the German interwiki link as that article didn't even mention the Swedish organization). Mats Halldin (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources have been presented for verification about this topic. If every source is self-published (ie no editorial control), then the subject cannot have an article.-Wafulz 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven day roguelike

AfDs for this article:
Seven day roguelike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Still no verification (WP:V) of notability (WP:N), after the result of the last AfD, and as the discussion page shows, there is no places besides WP to assert that this is more than a web contest held by a handful of people (and despite being a web-based contest, google only has a total of 68 hits for "seven day roguelike"). Minimaki 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the user's 2nd edit to Wikipedia.  Grue  16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. The nom is a new user, but the reasoning is correct. Nobody has ever seen fit to comment on this particular subject in reliable sources. About three months ago, I tried on the talk page to get some sort of insight on what sources might be used to establish the notability of the subject, but the upshot of the discussion was that no such sources exist. Unfortunately, that means that Wikipedia shouldn't be the first publication to comment on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As we argued in circles on the talk page, the sources do exist, they just aren't sources that are acceptable to you. The sources are RogueBasin, Roguelike the Magazine, GameSetWatch, and rec.games.roguelike.development. Capmango 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't acceptable sources in general. There are magazines largely written by the participants and USENET. Self-published sources aren't generally reliable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below contesting that these are "self published". And the reliability argument is a canard. You know well that in this case, these sources are fully reliable. They aren't saying 7DRLs cure cancer, only that they happen, and there is no question that that is true. Capmango 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The Roguelike genre of computer games definitely meets WP:N and these contests have been some of the most significant activity in the genre in the last few years. I could see this information merged into History of roguelikes is such an article existed, but until such a time I think it can stand on it's own merit, if just barely. Burzmali 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit of a fallacy; "Foo is notable, and bar related to foo, so bar is notable." The problem is, notable means "having the quality of being the subject of reliable secondary sources," and this doesn't have that quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite what I said. The correct analogy is: foo is notable to wikipedia; bar is a notable to foo; therefore bar is somewhat notable to wikipedia. I'm not engaged to the article or anything, but it is significant as far as roguelikes are concerned (it has easily resulted in the most development work related to roguelikes in the last decade). Burzmali 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So if this is notable, in what reliable sources has it been noted? Notability isn't transferable; either there are sources we can use to write a more-specific article, or there aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the purposes of this article, RogueBasin, Roguelike Magazine and usenet are reliable sources. They are sources of information, and they are reliable when it comes to information about roguelike development. They would admittedly not be reliable sources for an article about steroid use in baseball, but they are reliable for this sort of information. Capmango 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't reliable sources. They're self-published publications with no editorial control, typically written by pseudonymous authors. They don't have any of the things reliable sources need. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are reliable for this information, and you know they are. You haven't made any argument that the information provided by these sources is wrong, because the information is well-known to be correct. WP:V says "sources should be appropriate to claims made," "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," and "The appropriateness of any source depends on context". These sources are appropriate for this context. A WP:V-based argument is inappropriate for information whose verity is not being questioned. Capmango 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage by independent media" Corpx 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Burzmali might have a good idea. If not a keep, i.e. if this article's content does not seem notable on its own, then perhaps a merge (and redirect) into a History of roguelikes article would be a good solution. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we are moving a bunch of unsourced, unsourceable claims from one place to another, instead of removing them as essentially unverifiable. There's no reliable source to claim that this is an important part of roguelike history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this unsourcable? The "wiki" over at roguebasin (see http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=7DRL) hosted the last one, and all of the competitors websites confirm that they participated (ex. http://common-lisp.net/project/lifp/rouge.htm). There is a lack of articles detailing the event, but there is plenty of proof that it took place. Burzmali
    WP:V addresses information that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. There is no doubt that 7DRLs exist, and no one is questioning that the 7DRL challenges took place when they say they did. There just are not any WP:V problems with the article. The only issue is WP:N. See my comments further down for why I think this passes WP:N. Capmango 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I challenge that this is influential. I challenge the implicit claim that this is an encyclopedic subject. I challenge that this isn't a soapbox for a relatively small group of people participating in a small contest to claim that their work is important or influential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno Man, I've seen soapbox articles on wikipedia, and this isn't one of them. the article makes note of a notable phenomenon. If it were a soapbox, I would make sure the article mentioned me and/or my game explicitly, which it does not. Anyway, you are still challenging the notability, not the verity, of 7DRLs, so WP:V is still not an issue. The discussion should focus only on WP:N. Capmango 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing the sort of reliable sources we need to carry an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disclaimer #1: Although I did not create this article, I have edited it. Disclaimer #2: I was a participant in this years 7DRL challenge. That said, I think WP:SENSE argues for keeping articles about things that are highly notable within a narrow community. Reliability of sources is not an issue here; none of the statements in the article are controversial. There is a reason notability is a guideline, not a policy -- notability and newsworthiness are not synonymous. Some things get a lot more news coverage than others. Baseball players get so much news coverage that we don't count a ball player as notable until he has played in a major league game, regardless of how many independent reliable sources write about him. Conversely, there are plenty of subjects that are quite notable within a community that are not covered by the general press. Roguebasin is, in this case, an independent and reliable source, even though it is not a peer-reviewed journal or an edited news source. People will come to wikipedia searching for information about 7DRLs. We should provide them the information they are seeking. Capmango 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think we're questioning the content here, where reliable sources can come and back up assertions, but the question is about the notability of the whole article. There are plenty of shareware/freeware games out there, each with its share of fans, but I dont think they qualify as being notable unless they've received "significant coverage from independent media". Corpx 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't about a game, it's about a style of creating games. The phenomenon is notable within the world of hobbyist game development. Wikipedia has an article about cessationism, even though that gets zero current google news hits and only 2 english language hits in the archive, both from 1999. It doesn't mean that the cessationist controversy isn't notable, it means that there are some things that the news just doesn't cover. Likewise, things that are notable within this particular realm are noted in Roguebasin, or Roguelike the Magazine, or GameSetWatch, or rec.games.roguelike, but won't ever be covered by Fox News. Those other forums are our independent media, and 7DRLs do have significant coverage there. Capmango 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other note, I have to wonder if this nomination was made in good faith, given that the nom apparently created a sock puppet account specifically to nominate this (and possibly other?) articles for deletion, and says as much on the user page. Capmango 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. So what? I think the nom probably just doesn't want the AFD on their edit history. It'd be one thing if the nom wasn't making a calm and largely undisputed argument, but if an argument is civil and accurate, who cares who made it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it wasn't bad faith. I stumbled across the article and tried to find something about it with google, as I'm myself somewhat interested in roguelikes (playing nethack regularly) - but apparently there is nothing which makes me believe this is any more notable than e.g. our local brass band's monthly challenge. So, repeating what has been said, roguelikes itself are of course notable, I just contest that "7DRL" is notable even within the indy roguelikes dev scene as a whole. The two sites mentioned are [1] and [2] - both self-published, likely made by participants of 7DRL, failing WP:V. And both just mention it as a contest held by about 20 people 4 times since 2005, so nothing which would even remotely satisfy WP:N. Minimaki 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Every current publication (as mediocre as they are) that covers roguelikes, covered the 7DRL. Therefore, I maintain that "that which is notable to a notable topic is notable". For example the myriad of aircraft the Japanese developed towards the end of WWII (like the Reppu and the Rita have articles not because they where particularly notable to the world in general, or to WWII, but because they show the late-war aircraft development undertaken by the Japanese. Burzmali 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many publications covering roguelikes which do not mention 7DRL, but I think you mean something else? The "that which is notable to a notable topic is notable" just isn't WP policy, for example if there's an article Matthew Smith (games programmer) that doesn't mean one about his wife would be notable, although she certainly is notable to him. And so far, we do not even have independent sources saying that 7DRL is notable to the roguelike topic in general, and most likely, it isn't, but instead just for a small group who happen to be subscribed to this newsgroup - which for WP (with its current rules) is not enough to have an article about it. Minimaki 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Invoking WP:BIO in a discussion that doesn't directly involve people is disingenuous. That aside, precedent shows that marrying a notable person gets you halfway to WP:N. Look at all the articles that are basically, X is related to Y, and X did something stupid. Burzmali 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling these sources "self-published" because a lot of the same people are involved with RogueBasin as are involved in 7DRLs is I think a misuse of the term. It's like saying that no one who runs marathons should be allowed to write about marathons, or no one who writes about video games should be allowed to play video games. If the sources for the article were the web pages of the 7DRL entries, then you could argue self-publishing. Within the roguelike development community, Roguelike the Magazine and RogueBasin and the usenet groups provide the reliable sources for what is going on; coverage in other sources doesn't happen because it is not necessary; these are the sources we go to for information. Capmango 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's what "self-published" means. If the only people who ever wrote about marathons were the people who participated in marathons, then we wouldn't have articles on marathons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what self-published means. My discussion of The Seven Day Quest on its own home page is indeed self-published (but that is not a source of the article). The review of Seven Day Quest in Roguelike the Magazine is an independent source, regardless of whether the author of that article also happened to create a 7DRL game. And there are plenty of contributors to RogueBasin and the usenet group who have never written a 7DRL and have no intention of ever doing so, but they play them, review them and comment on them. Capmango 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Near as I can tell, Rougelike the magazine is Mario Donick's personal site, which happens to be organized in a magazine-like fashion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And it has two issues, one from the end of last March and one from the beginning of last April, each issue comprising a half-dozen or so brief articles written by Mario Donick. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have been a part of the Roguelike community for about a year now, and there is absolutely no doubt that 7DRLs are among, if not the, most important developmental force in Roguelikes over the past several years. There is very little doubt within the community that this statement is true, and you have verifiable sources from the people that hold the contests AND the participants, AND fans/onlookers- essentially everyone involved. In a nutshell, you have the single most important event over the past decade for an entire GENRE of video game, yet somehow this merits deletion. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of video games that not only have their own page FOR EACH GAME, but also somehow are worthy of articles for every major character in the game. See: Category:Deus Ex characters,Category:Castlevania characters, Category:Starter Pokémon, Category:Basic Pokémon, and Category:Halo characters for entire CATEGORIES full of pages about individual video game characters- and there are hundreds of these categories. How is this page possibly not notable if these other pages are? Until I see Bl♟ck and other members of the Wikipedia Community stand up and try to get rid of all those pages, I can't see how anyone can claim that the most important event to an entire genre of video games can fail WP:N. Even though we're not discussing WP:V, it should also be noted that most video game pages and practically all character pages are much worse in violation of WP:V than seven day roguelikes. The suicide forest 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't reduce "the roguelike community" to this one small group, I'd say there is a much larger community, outside of this subgroup, and most of them do not know about 7DRL. And I don't have to prove this, you're the one who have to point us to outside sources claiming otherwise. And we all know that there are many articles in WP which do not meet the standards, the reason for AdF discussions is to work on this problem, not using sub-standard articles as precedence to keep even more of them. --Minimaki 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I obviously can't find any WP:V material on this matter, but if you don't mind some WP:OR for the sake of debate then I'd be happy to help. Much of my experience in the roguelike community involves NetHack, so most of this will be related to NetHack communities. NetHack is generally considered far and away the most popular and well-known game of the genre. In an attempt at verifying this for this comment, "Nethack" has 1,920,000 hits on Google, "Angband" has 484,000 hits, "ancient domains of mystery" has 23,600 hits, and "Linley's dungeon crawl" has 686 hits. The NetHack forum I tend to be the most active in is the GameFAQs forum. GameFAQs is about as casual as you can possibly get with game-specific forums, yet several times the topic of 7DRLs have shown up. I'm not sure if there's anything on them there now, I couldn't find anything on a quick skim through but I didn't read through most of the topics. In addition to this, I also hang out at the alt.org forums frequently. Obviously this is a more hardcore NetHacking group then the GameFAQs board is, but 7DRLs come up on those forums all the time. The third NetHacking "forum" I go to is the USENET group, which discusses the subject from time to time as well (More often then GameFAQs, less often then Alt.org)
I would argue that if the subject is known about on NetHack boards, particularly GameFAQs then it is probably well known of in other circles. I do realize there are other Roguelike communities though. There are two non-roguelike communities in which I participate to some extent. The first of which is the Usenet Angband forum, on which the subject of 7DRLs is broached more than on the NetHack equivilant, probably about as much as on alt.org. The fifth and final forum is the chaosforge forums, which mostly revolve around DoomRL. On these forums, 7 day roguelikes are almost a fetish.
Thus, five out of five roguelike communities I at least browse at least are familiar with 7 day roguelikes. Three of these are for the most popular and influential roguelike and none of which except the two usenet groups are in any way related to any of the others. Given this, I would think that it would be safe to assume that either a majority or a very large minority of Roguelike communities in general are familiar with seven day roguelikes. The suicide forest 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Some arbitrary number of people know about it" won't help us write an article based on reliable sources, either. Notable isn't the same as popular or well-known or important. We need reliable sources to write this article, and at this point those sources don't exist. If we merge this unsourced material, we're just dumping problematic material on another article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - New(ish) solution. Trim down and Merge the first section of the article into Roguelike#Roguelike family tree, merge the second section into a new article of the history (or Timeline or whatever) of Roguelikes (see User:Burzmali/History of Roguelikes) for draft, finally, redirect page to new page on the history of roguelikes.
  • Merge - Disclaimer: I've participated in the 7DRL challenges and was added to this page at some point. I disagree with any claims that this fails WP:V. However, I agree that WP:N is very weak at best. Longer running and more influential game creation challenges, such as Ludumdare were found wanting, for example. Likewise, DKP, a much more important topic likely than either, got AFDed. Note that "These other pages must be deleted first!" isn't a practical objection - one can presume they, like this page, were created earlier in Wikipedia's history when people had hope it might become an encyclopedic reference site. Because WP:V isn't (or shouldn't be) in question, I feel the content should be trimmed (especially of non-NPOV stuff, like commenting on which games were "best") and merged into Roguelike. --JeffLait 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if roguelikes are notable then this is notable as well. There is no other way. Could be merged in the main roguelike article, but there is enough content anyway.  Grue  06:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not follow. Where is the connection between roguelikes and this contest? If I make a roguelike, do I get an article on Wikipedia? --Minimaki 09:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The (obvious) connection is that more than 50% of roguelikes in recent years are 7drls. It's also quite strange that the only purpose of this account seems to jump at everyone on this AfD. I think a CheckUser might be in order.  Grue  16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the link someone added to the article in the meantime ([3]) mentions that the rec.games.roguelikes.misc group discusses new roguelikes, and then "many of which having gotten their start as part of the 7-Day Roguelike Project". So at least there's now a mention which seems more independent, but I still don't think that makes it any notable - that newsgroup may represent part of the current roguelikes dev scene, but neither the group nor this dev scene seem very notable. (About nominating with a new account, as was said, this isn't a vote, so it should not matter.) --Minimaki 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the current roguelikes dev scene? This dev scene does not seem very notable? Did you do ANY research before nominating this article for deletion? rec.games.roguelikes IS the roguelike development scene. Practically every roguelike made in the last decade has gone through r.g.r.d. Hell, even roguelikes developed in much smaller communities or websites still are posted on r.g.r.d for advice. If you can find ANY roguelike development group that even comes CLOSE to touching r.g.r.d, I will spend my entire life savings (several thousand dollars) on thrift store hats, and post several videos on youtube of myself eating them all.
    As for the fact that you are using a new account, that does matter as it makes it awfully hard to assume good faith if the only thing an account is used for is to nominate an article for deletion, especially when the user of that account seems to know the politics of Wikipedia very well. It seems at least reasonable to think that Minimake is either a sockpuppet or (less likely) meatpuppet of someone involved in the first vote for deletion. If this is a legitimate good faith nomination, which seems entirely possible, please reveal your main account so we can end this silliness. Trying to clean up Wikipedia is not going to look bad on your account's history, even if I feel this particular attempt is misguided. Otherwise, I would second Grue's request for a user check. The suicide forest 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing about whether r.g.r.d is "the roguelike development scene" seems to be an unproductive tangent. It's not a reliable source (as it's pseudonymous and self-published). Do you have any sources that are not pseudonymous but do have editorial control that we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In the reasoning for reopening the AfD, it was claimed the article failed to provide the WP:N that was promised in the previous AfD. Not having witnessed the previous AfD and only having the logs to go by, I don't see any such promise. Indeed, users such as Lankybugger quite clearly state the only WP:V are roguebasin/rgrd. Despite this, the consensus was keep. So what new information is prompting yet another round of bickering? (One reason for my Merge request is that I see even a Keep consensus as being pointless as it will just be another 6 months before it gets AfDed once more, wasting everyone's time that could be better spent writing roguelikes (or, heaven forbid, improving Wikipedia articles rather than defending/deleting them) --JeffLait 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly , the original nomination was challenging WP:V while this one is challenging WP:N. I don't think that there was any new information, although if there was I'd certainly like to see it. I don't see a Keep consensus as pointless, as after WP:V and WP:N there's really not anything else to challenge it with. Also, if we just go around deleting or merging articles because it means we don't have to deal with bureaucracy, the entire system falls apart.
    Of course, there doesn't always have to be a new, sensible reason to put an article up for AfD. Just look at the Gay Nigger Association of America's 17 unsuccessful AfD attempts. I don't think this article is controversial enough for that to be an issue though. The suicide forest 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both WP:V and WP:N, as the initial statement says. From the beginning of WP:V "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.. When I found the article a week ago, I wasn't able to do so, despite trying (google). Only (very few for that matter) forums/newsgroups/self-published mentions are available, and there was already a box and accompanying discussion page about missing references, so I nominated it for AfD. The reference added to the article in the meantime mentioning 7DRL just means, the mere existence of 7DRL is acknowledged by an independent source now, but that doesn't really convince me that the contents of the article are now sourced. That's not saying I personally think this article is bad or 7DRL is completely insignificant to everyone - just Wikipedia currently is not the right place for it. --Minimaki 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, what about if the games produced as a result of 7DRL are both WP:V and WP:N? I think at least CastlevaniaRL could cite a few notable sources, maybe even AliensRL. --81.219.180.99 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    7DRL could be mentioned in the article of such a game, but at least CaslevaniaRL did not seem to pass the criteria. --Minimaki 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CastlevaniaRL did get some additional coverage since then, just mentioning. Anyway, I'd vote for weak keep, but don't want to sign up, nor do I feel objective enough to vote. But I strongly believe that some more WP:N/V sources will come up with the next challenge, and it would be stupid to delete the article and then recreate it again. --81.219.180.99 13:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll save Man in Black some typing and point out that being notable in the future is not an acceptable reason to keep. If you feel that to be the case, cache the page now and recreate when you feel it is notable. On that note, it would be useful if Man In Black and Minimaki could provide some guideline of a threshold which they'd considerable notable? As for WP:V, I personally reject those claims. They are based on WP:RS which is quite broken when it comes to this sort of topic. --JeffLait 19:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I made a contest about writing roguelikes in 7 days, 20-30 people agreed to submit something, here's a link to our website, wiki and forum" I think for articles like that, verifiability over WP:RS sources has to apply - why would it be exempt? Someone said previously "because it has to do with roguelikes" - but that's not really an answer. And personally, I think the threshold should be along the lines of WP:WEB for things like this, else Wikipedia would be a place for anyone to write about anything they find interesting. --Minimaki 08:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop's Stortford High School

AfDs for this article:
The Bishop's Stortford High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable school - no notable staff, no notable alumni, indeed no claims of notoriety. Not every school is notable, and this isn't one of those that are. Bigdaddy1981 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - rather than just stating that the school is notable, why not tell us here why it is. The article certainly doesn't. This isn't supposed to be a vote you know. Bigdaddy1981 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article states that an alumnus was Cecil Rhodes, for whom Rhodesia was named. Postcard Cathy 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Keep I not only read the article, I even edited out some nonencyclopedic content (you won't catch me calling it the "C"-word) and added details about awards and championships the school has received. Based on the awards, championships and recognition the school has received, all of which is backed by reliable and verifiable independent sources, notability has been established to the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but some portions would need some clean-up and some expansion (like history section).--JForget 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep over the bar, thanks to the awards--and being a well-written article helps as well. They undoubtedly have some notable alumni, and mention of them would and enough to the article to make it clearly a keep. The people using green and red marks do not impress me that their arguments are more weighty than the others.DGG (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school clearly establishes that it merits an article based on the well-written material supported by multiple reliable independent sources. -- DS1953 talk 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school). I have to say the first BT award listed is such a self-conscious reach for notability it made me lol. Eusebeus 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The events recently added in an attempt to lend notability to the article do not, as such, do so. All three of the "awards" mentioned were given to individuals not the school. If this was about the biography for those students or the teacher, it would certainly be applicable. But in my view, asserting notability through the minor achievements (none of which received significant coverage in multiple sources) of a couple individuals in a large educational institution is a laughable attempt to prop up a few individuals' extreme inclusionism when it comes to schools. VanTucky (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stop wasting people's time with frivolous AfDs. —Xezbeth 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote. "Stop wasting people's time" isn't a coherent argument for your suggestion. VanTucky (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the five seconds to give a cast-iron reason to keep this article is five seconds wasted. —Xezbeth 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok, how's this one: It's a secondary school, Keep. I would put a nifty tick image too, but they cause unnecessary load and go against the whole "AfD is not a vote" thing. —Xezbeth 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CON. Not that anyone pays the slightest bit of attention to that any more.. —Xezbeth 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where might conclusive evidence of this supposed project-wide consensus on the inherent notability of schools be found? The idea that there is general consensus on that matter is complete hogwash, as evidenced by this and every other recent AFD for a secondary school. If schools were inherently notable, they wouldn't be up for an AFD every single day. VanTucky (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The recent improvements to this article have established the school's notability. The school has a number of awards, and the statements are well backed up by appropriate references. Dahliarose 23:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per the Ofsted report that states "This is a very good school which provides very good value for money and is highly thought of in the local community. The high quality of much of the teaching enables the students to achieve very well throughout the school." and notability separately established by multiple reliable sources. TerriersFan 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 'run of the mill' school with no claim to notability that I can see in the article Jack1956 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as again, now it asserts notability, as per Dahliarose, TerriersFan, DS1953 and DGG. While not all high schools are notable, I would say that WP can presume they are notable, unless shown to be so small, a wing of another school, or so new as to warrant exclusion. Bearian 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shell-core effect

Shell-core effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

At first this article, nothing more than a single unpunctuated, unreferenced sentence, looked like a candidate for speedy deletion or a redirect to food coma, but after a little research I cannot find very much to support the current definition. There are a mere 10 Google web hits for the term [4], most of them Wikipedia mirrors, and nothing independent relating to the term as defined. Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar return mostly information related to molecular physics and polymers, and out of the two results I could find related to biology, one defines it as the process of vasoconstriction associated with hypothermia ([5]), while the other defines it as vasodilation ([6]). No idea what to do with this now, and in any case the term does not seem to be a widely-recognised one (outside of polymer physics, anyway). ~Matticus TC 08:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Webb

AfDs for this article:
Andy Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Almost a year later, still no sources. And a search on Google for "Lesser Sand Plover" "Andy Webb" shows a 2006 sighting, but nothing else besides WP mirrors. Gay Birder's doesn't have a reference to him. Fails WP:N and WP:V. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Oman (Battlefield 2)

Gulf of Oman (Battlefield 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about the map on the demo version of the Battlefield 2 computer game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Hemlock Martinis 08:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods and Goddesses in Percy Jackson

Gods and Goddesses in Percy Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some sort of character list based off of real Greek gods. The books are over at Percy Jackson. This article clearly is a hybrid of plot summaries and useless lists. Hemlock Martinis 08:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Waid

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

Non notable per WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. Doesn't show up in IMDB or in IAFD - may even be vandalism/hoax. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you provide a reliable source that confirms this? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Knoppers: the Chronicler (a summary)

Gary Knoppers: the Chronicler (a summary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems (and I say seems because I still don't quite get what the article's aiming for here) to be part Bible plot summary, part OR and part advertisement/plot summary for a non-notable book by a professor. Unsalvageable and unsightly, I urge deletion for this article. Hemlock Martinis 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm brand new to the these pages, so hope I do this correctly. I can see you puzzling over this article on Gary Knoppers' Chronicler, it is rather deep stuff, so will attempt to unpack it a little bit. Knoppers literally has had thousands of pages published on the books of Chronicles and, in the company of Sara Japhet and H. G. M. Williamson is probably one of the three or four leading scholars on Chronicles in the world today (back in May 2005 the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies granted the R. B. Y. Scott Award to Knoppers for his two-volume Anchor Bible commentary on I Chronicles). Chronicles scholarship is on the cutting edge of Old Testament work these days, though it was largely ignored for centuries. I have attempted to condense those thousands of pages down to approximately 12 pages so that Wikipedia readers who are interested in academic biblical scholarship can get an overview of some of Knoppers' primary findings. They may later attempt to read those thousands of pages, but I felt they might find an brief overview (as encyclopedia's traditionally give) helpful. Knoppers' two-volume commentary on I Chronicles totals 1045 pages, and is pretty mind blowing. Two Wikipedia articles are suggested as adequate to cover this matter: (1) Anchor Bible, which is simply a listing of book titles and gives no genuine indication of content, and (2) Gary N. Knoppers which simply describes the career of the writer and academic along with a list of titles of his published works (a rather long list), but does not really have the available space to attempt to give a brief summary of his thought and research. I have begun to attempt to link this article Gary Knoppers: the Chronicler (a summary) into relevant pages such as Books of Chronicles, Chronicler, Ancient Israel and Judah, Kingdom of Judah, Documentary Hypothesis, Priestly source and other biblical studies oriented pages so that people locating those pages can see this brief overview of Knoppers' books. I was wondering if it could be categorized under headings like "Hebrew Bible" and other categories related to Old Testament research. I hope that you can help me to save this article, as you can see I've put a bit of effort into it. Please help. Best regards, Randall Barlow [[User:Randall Barlow|Randall Barlow 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)]] 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your article does not give enough of an introduction to the topic. A few introductory sentences about who the Chronicler was, and why Knoppers' views on him are important, might help us understand why this is a notable topic. Also, the title should be changed to something like "Knoppers view of the Chronicler". Capmango 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for listening to my plea. I am happy to comply with both requests. It may take me a day or two to formulate the introductory sentences (whenever I can get a bit of spare time). I would appreciate some instructions on how to change the title as I've never done that before.

Sincere thanks, Randall Barlow Randall Barlow 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is a bit of a pain, maybe the admin can do that when closing this AfD. Capmango 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added an introduction which attempts to answer the questions which were posed. I've tried to keep it short, however if it needs to be made yet more brief then let me know and I will attempt to pare it down. As noted above the chief difficulty remaining (hopefully) is getting the new name in place. Randall Barlow 15:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a related question, what happened to the article on the Chronicler? I did not write that article, but it was there in June and now it seems to no longer exist. The Chronicler ranks right up there with the Deuteronomist and Paul the Apostle as a writer of prodigious and major biblical content, and now he's been deleted. I'm rather surprised and just curious to know what happened to his article. Randall Barlow 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one book does not deserve an article like this. PatGallacher 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — what are the grounds for deletion? The Anchor Bible is a standard in the field. Those wishing to delete this article seem to me to be flippant and dismissive of award winning scholarship from no less than the Anchor Bible series (!). Notable scholars like R.E. Friedman, B. Halpern, H. Shanks, and F.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman all have articles in that series, to the best of my knowledge. These are the "heavy weights" in the field of Biblical Scholarship. An accessible summary of their work is a precious contribution. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk • contribs) 08:04, July 20, 2007

  • Delete. Does not meet the standards of WP:BK, and is written with an enthusiastic, promotional tone, rather than neutral language. Looking around at other articles in this area, I think Books of Chronicles is pretty good, Gary N. Knoppers is weak and written like a resume. I think the scholar Gary Knoppers is probably notable and the effort to fix up his biographical article would be worthwhile. The present article, basically a 'plot summary' of his book on Chronicles, is hopeless. EdJohnston 05:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Just plain closed. This is no longer the same article as the one that was nominated; it merely has the same title. All the comments thus far are irrelevant to the new text. My head hurts. Deranged bulbasaur 09:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airvana

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

copyright issue

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Items In Pac-Man

Fruit Items In Pac-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply a list of all the fruit items in every Pac-Man game. No room for growth, and nothing to expound on. In addition, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Hemlock Martinis 07:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Force of Death

Force of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a classic example of a non-notable internet meme. It cites no sources and provides no evidence of notability. Instead, it simply goes on and on about the plot. Hemlock Martinis 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal rules on judgment execution and stays

Federal rules on judgment execution and stays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a copypasted excerpt from Florida statutes. Nothing to save, nothing to clean up. Hemlock Martinis 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Glocc

AfDs for this article:
40 Glocc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not terribly notable. References are mostly youtube, myspace, and some gossip site. SXT40 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge services

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

I believe this article represents original research that is not sufficiently supported within the larger community; the article itself says that Knowledge services can represent "virtual anything" and are "ambiguity squared", which if this is the case, makes the rest of the text here unnecessary and unhelpful Abc378 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first paragraph in the body of the article was original research, so I cut it; the balance of the article however is based on the literature cited. While the article is perhaps too obtuse, and uses too much jargon, that's not a problem requiring deletion, rather a problem requiring cleanup. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You cut the most intelligible part of the article. :) To wit:

    An average dictionary contains 10 definitions of knowledge and 20 definitions of service. Multiplying ambiguity times itself yields ambiguity squared. Consequently, the term knowledge services is used to mean virtually anything. Of the first 100 Web sites listed by Google (on April 3, 2007) containing the term “knowledge services”, 66 non-redundant organizational sites were classified into 24 subject areas in 8 subject groups, indicating highly diverse use of the term. Subject groups included business applications and information technology, followed by learning, investment, governance, networking, libraries, and specific sites. Consulting companies provided 69% of the sites, with government activities providing 15%. Virtually all sites describe or define knowledge services specifically in the context of their business or mandate.

    This certainly seems relevant to this discussion also. The prior version of the article confessed that "knowledge services" was so vague as to be meaningless. It strongly implicated the presence of "consulting companies" in promoting the empty phrase. In other words, this is crypto-spam, seeking to legitimize and publicize this phrase, seeking to suborn whatever credibility Wikipedia has in order to sell these platitudes. It is likely also a conflict of interest. This paragraph may be original research; but it was also the best written and most revealing paragraph in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like marketing-speak either, but the references listed which use the term are legitimate academic sources. If the problem is that the article uses too much jargon, or is too unclear, then by all means it should be cleaned up. But that's not a problem requiring deletion. --bainer (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Thebainer, while I'd like to be sympathetic to your cause of saving this article, just because a few academic sources are referenced does not mean it's not biased; also, I've read several of those sources references and they do not explicitly deal with the challenge of defining "knowledge services". To quote from the bottom of Wikipedia's page on neologisms. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms" Abc378 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... To maintain a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) point of view, we need verifiable articles that explicitly try to define what makes up a "knowledge service" and why this service differs from all other prior services (i.e., it's not just a buzzword with knowledge added in front of services). In addition, we then need to see the word being used by multiple, non-marketing/non-consulting/non-corporate entities who do not have the possibility of an ulterior motive for the word (i.e., to create business or the illusion of authority). That's not present here and I believe the way in which this was written really makes people suspicious. As such, might I suggest, that if you really want an article on services on Wikipedia, you do not merge or cut-and-paste this convoluted text, but instead attempt to write a paragraph with a NPOV and add it under an existing article (say, Knowledge Management as a sub-section and go from there? That community will be able to see if "knowledge services" really do represent something that differs service differs from all other prior services (aside, I've not been convinced). Abc378 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on grounds that this is a neologism. Proponents of Knowledge management are going to hate me, but my view is that, this article is the thin edge of the wedge: soon there will be articles on 'Knowledge development environment', 'Knowledge oriented architecture', and 'Knowledge network integration' etc - the combinations and permutations are endless. At the end of the day, Knowledge services is just a fancy neologism for database administration used by 'Knowledge service management consultants', or should that be 'Knowledge management service consultants'? --Gavin Collins 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a term which has been used in the relevant academic literature for a number of years. Google Books search reveals the exact term appearing in a number of print sources. I don't think you can really call it a neologism. --bainer (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons I stated earlier + I do not necessarily believe that this represents a frequently cited or discussed concept within either academic or practitioner literature; I say this as someone with more than twelve years in both worlds and while I have seen "web services", I do not believe "knowledge services" represents any well-defined or agreed upon term in the literature. Abc378 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To appropriate page. If it is vaguely different, give it its own section with a few lines. Burzmali 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is too much of this unreadable, vague, and airy knowledge management cruft already. Consider the lead paragraph

    Knowledge services is an emerging concept that integrates Knowledge Management, Knowledge organizations, and Knowledge markets. Knowledge Services are programs that produce or provide content-based organizational outputs with embedded value that are intended to be used or transferred to meet external user wants or needs. Knowledge services are delivered through a service delivery spectrum that functions within knowledge markets.

    After reading this, do you really know something you didn't know before? First, this is an "emerging concept"; that in itself violates several well established rules here. More importantly, is there any substance to this "concept?" Let's look for nouns and active verbs. We have "programs" that "produce or provide" "outputs" with "value" that "meet external user wants and needs." It seems that the chief thing to know about Knowledge Services is that you could have thought it all up yourself while reading a thesaurus on a break for No. 2. This is not knowledge; it is language gone pathological. All of this bollocks needs to be gone, gone, gone, gone. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. VanTucky (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leveragig the syllogism of its core mission statement, the underlying core deliverable is empowering to the indicatations that this is one big steaming pile of unreadable crap ~ Infrangible 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Coined, I think, to market IT services.Saganaki- 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More "emerging concept" neologism garbage. Where's the 2.0? :) --- RockMFR 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butte County High School

Butte County High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure how this article has lasted so long. It's been a 1 sentence stub since it was created back in January 2006. The article has 1 sentence stating that the town the school exists in and a mostly empty infobox (so there isn't anything worth merging). No indication of notability. Lrrr IV 06:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think information about enrollment figures and perhaps mascot may be worth holding onto, but something is wrong when the infobox is ten times taller than the body of the article. Merge with Arco, Idaho (or Butte County, Idaho), by making an "Education" section, then redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under {{nocontext}}. Article is a simple rephrasing of the title. VanTucky (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary into town article. — RJH (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep High school. The above comments pretend that the information in the infobox isn';t there, but infobox as just as legitimate as a means of presenting encyclopedic information as sentences. Golfcam 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does being a school mean anything? Schools are not inherently notable. As VanTucky said, just being a school is not an argument (yet alone a good one). Schools have to pass WP:NOTE and WP:V just like any other article. If the school district for this school has an article, mention the school there (or in the town article if the school disctrict doesn't have an article). Lrrr IV 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it was before you were around, but there were endless debates on this issue, and the overwhelming consensus was that high schools are notable. It absolutely should not be necessarily to go through it all again every time someone nominates yet another high school. Golfcam 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately Golfcam, "Highschool" is not an argument (much less a valid one). Articles on high schools are not automatically notable when they have zero significant content or independent sources. VanTucky (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only assume that you are unaware of the history of discussions on this matter which took place before you had an account. Those who wished to delete high schools have always been in a minority, but they have shown unlimited willingness to disrupt wikipedia to make a point - the same point hundreds of times. It went beyond all reason or decency. Hundreds of high schools have been kept and it is long past the time for everyone to get over this issue. Nominating further high schools at this stage is disruptive. Golfcam 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless more information is provided on the school I say merge with the town's article per RJHall, basically in a list of schools in this town or area with then a redirect also to the town article.--JForget 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the new information. A sports powerhouse is notable. Let's focus on the individual school and the individual article- For those who think all schools are notable, show it in this case. For those who think they can never be, show how it isn't. Alansohn has show how this particular one is notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reason we ignore the infobox is that the infobox --as intended -- presents only directory information--if there is no more than an infobox, then the subject is unlikely to be notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been expanded beyond directory information. A preliminary search has added information regarding debate and athletic state championships documented using reliable and verifiable independent sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability. Alansohn 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability asserted: just another nn school. Eusebeus 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is heavily referenced, content is fine.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Alansohn, there are plenty of references now. Noroton 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of them are just for sports results, which you can find on almost any high school. Lrrr IV 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I believe every high school is inherently notable. Noroton 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your opinion is just that, an opinion. We use guidelines and policies in AFD debates and I hope the closing admin takes that in mind that you are basing your keep vote purely on your opinion. If I though all people named Bob was notable, would that be a valid reason to vote keep on every article about someone with the name Bob? No, for the same reason that just saying "all high schools are inherently notable" isn't a argument (yet alone a strong one). Lrrr IV 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lrrr, have you ever wondered why we never have local community articles up for deletion even though many of the small ones have no more notability than most high schools? Also, my argument is in the link, and if you're going to criticize me for it you might acknowledge that it actually exists, and maybe show that you've actually read it. And I don't have to refer to a Wikipedia policy if I don't want to, and we get to form a consensus to keep despite most Wikipedia policies under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus and WP:IAR. Say hello to Bob for me. Noroton 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because other things have articles when they shouldn't is no reason to keep this. From what I have observed, people here have started to crack down on school articles here, realizing that schools have to pass the guideline and rules just like everything else. Most schools are not notable, and this one doesn't seem to be any different. Almost every source are just for local sports results (which are common). Lrrr IV 04:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Lrrr IV, neither you nor I may be swayed by the sports results and other minor guff that Alansohn has seeded here as "verifiable sources" to "establish notability" for this school (as with many others). However, absent any consensus on school notability (and there is none), Noroton' s position is perfectly reasonable that all schools are inherently notable. Is it absurd that the result of the school's bantam football team is being used to establish encyclopedic notability? Of course, but in the case of schools, this risibly unimportant trivia is being harnessed to a wider cause - keeping school articles - which is perfectly defensible even if (in my own highly personal view) wrong-headed. Eusebeus 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Response I didn't argue that Other Stuff Exists, I argued that There Is No Precedent in deletion discussions to get rid of either high school or locality articles based on WP:N. For someone arguing so vociferously, you should do the reading of Wikipedia policy that I've directed you to, because it's something I think we should all understand (I think I should add this to my little school-protection essay). My other argument is that the consensus in deletion discussions has long been more powerful than WP:N and other guidelines except for the ones mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Did you read that? Do you understand it? If you're not looking at my arguments, we can't ever come to consensus, can we? Because I've been doing this longer than you and I and others are highly unlikely to come around to your way of thinking if you haven't shown you care about our way of thinking. Bluster gets us nowhere. Then again, maybe reasoning gets us nowhere. Noroton 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And another thing... Take a further look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Look at the bottom of that page. Click on the link "Deletion precedents" also known as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, go down to "Education." The very essay you refer me to backs me up.Noroton 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fine, you can have your opinion that all schools are notable (even though I strongly disagree) since everybody is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't change the fact though that they have to pass guidelines and policies like everything else. I should also point out that people here have started to crack down on school articles since mid-2006, with many articles on non-notable schools being deleted instead of kep just because they are schools. I also think it's ridiculous that that article was a 1 sentence stub for for 18 months and it took this AFD for it to get expanded. Lrrr IV 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established with multiple reliable secondary sources. -- DS1953 talk 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for as of now, it's well-done, as per DS1953 and Noroton. High Schools may be said to be usually or presumed to be notable. Bearian 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Wikipedia we presume nothing factually. Notability is proven through verification in reliable sources only, not assumed for anything. As such, the sources provided for this article are not in any sense of the word, reliable or significant. A general statistical source, one article in a regional newspaper, and a ton of links to the "Idaho High School Activities Assc." (which, as the state's overseer of high school athletics, is not an independent source) are not significant coverage in independent sources sufficient to establish notability. VanTucky (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all references to the Idaho High School Activities Association. As the state's in-house overseer of high school athletics, this is not in any way an independent source as per WP:V and WP:RS. VanTucky (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current form, the short article would have been fine too. AfD is a wonderful cleanup tool in circumstances like this. —Xezbeth 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .... That's why [9] --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expansions since AfD nomination indicates notability. bbx 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puri Beach

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

This is a stub about a beach in India which asserts no notability. Gilliam 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie hábleme 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funambol

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

Was nominated for speedy as spam and then I deleted it but wasnt sure. So restored and listed here. Includes claim of notability, but google search does not show much coverage beyond primary and self published sources. soum talk 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep What motivation would an open source project have for spamming? The notability is a bit tenuous, but it doesn't seem like spam to me. I've heard of it, though I know that's not considered grounds for a keep. Deranged bulbasaur 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I strongly commend Soum for his honesty and willingness to seek other opinions. A Google search for "Funambol" turns up 500,000 hits, and I've never seen an article deleted when it had that many hits. Article history shows that about ten people have edited this article for more than a year. Without knowing the subject well, I can fall back on the hope that they aren't all wrong. The article would seem less spammy if some of the many available references were incorporated. This is a cleanup job, not a deletion job. Shalom Hello 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this should be deleted. Funambol is a major Open Source project. Just becuase you don't know what it is doen't mean it should be deleted!

  • Keep. Seems valid, just provided useful encyclopaedic content to me, and Shalom is right about notoriety. Desperately needs a cleanup, but not deletion. --Avapoet 09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I come to Wikipedia to learn about things like this, that I didn't know about earlier. If you delete articles on subjects that are new to you (or to anyone), what would be left?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 05:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hyphy artists

List of hyphy artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inclusion to this list is very subjective unless the artists themselves have expressed inclusion in a genre and most of the artists listed here have no mentions of "hyphy" on their pages, so delete per WP:OR Corpx 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of mentions isn't very notable. Like many other popular culture articles: this is just an ever growing massive list. The important items should be on the Lilith article, and leave it at that. I had prodded this, but it was removed for no good reason in my opinion. RobJ1981 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme rules match

Extreme rules match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unnecessary. An "Extreme Rules match" is simply yet another one of WWE's alternate names for a hardcore match. This article covers nothing Hardcore wrestling doesn't. Gavyn Sykes 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant Calgary 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just another name for a standard hardcore match. Better yet, redirect to Hardcore wrestling. Lrrr IV 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable wrestling neologism. Article has only had one content edit which was initial creation. Article was quickly flagged for notability and citations/references concerns, none of which have been addressed in over a month. Nothing linking to article, and no wikilinks present in the article. No content worth merging to Hardcore wrestling. Not sure how popular a neologism it is within wrestling community for whether or not a redirect would be needed. Optigan13 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A redirect is appropriate, in my opinion. WWE uses this match name on ECW all the time, specifically for it's One Night Stand PPV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyn Sykes (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, there is already a redirect for Extreme Rules [11], and the editor has created this one article [12] on the 6 June 2007, and nothing since. It is full of spelling errors (Chanpionship, premeir, predeterminded, Comming) and completely odd statements like "...can be used to contest a championship match as well as a regular match" and "...can be contested under the following Matches". Darrenhusted 00:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Magazine (UK)

Fact Magazine (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unsourced. Whether sources exist is hard to judge because a Google search yields lots of different Fact Magazines, but searching for "Fact Magazine" and "Barry McGee" gives only their Website, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Huon 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Scrubs

Music in Scrubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is little more than a copy-and-paste of the 'Music' section from the main Scrubs article. The topic is covered perfectly well by that section, and doesn't (in my mind) deserve a full article. Gpollock 05:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can i just ask, what does "per nom" mean? thank you--Jac16888 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS Public Company Limited

RS Public Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It has many incoming links via the redirect page R.S. Promotion. Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quechua Wikipedia

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

This article is a substub, and google finds no references in third-party reliable sources rendering it unverifiable and incapable of fulfilling the primary criterion for website notability. I have no malicious intent in targeting this Wikipedia specifically, it's just that the last bulk nomination turned out rather badly. That said, experience tells me the first words out the gate will be "you just hate indigenous populations" or some such. Deranged bulbasaur 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Thompson controversies

Fred Thompson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NPOV#POV forks. The edit summary of the page's creation appears to imply an intent covered in the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. In addition to the summary and template link in the main article, the fork is also wikilinked to various statements within Fred Thompson and Political positions of Fred Thompson in a fashion similar to this example or this example. There are obvious NPOV disputes going on within the main and positions article, and this type of "resolution" is prohibited by WP:NPOV. Crockspot 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. Although this could potentially turn into a POV fork, it is not one now. There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. This seems a useful way to keep the more bland and undisputed stuff somewhat separated from the more contentious and disputed material. The stuff in this Thompson controversy article is briefly summarized in the main Thompson article in a completely NPOV way, as required for "Summary style" articles. Whether you're for Thompson or against Thompson, this article helps to divide up the content in a manageable way, IMHO.Ferrylodge 05:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't just the required summary, there are also wikilinks to the article sprinkled throughout two other articles, making conclusionary statements in Wikipedia's voice that these items are controversial. - Crockspot 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the wikilinks, then why not discuss deleting them instead of deleting the entire article? Crockspot, the example of wikilinking you gave is here. It merely says that Thomspon's conservatism is disputed, which it is. The wikilink is to this section which seems informative and useful --- perhaps in need of improvement but not deletion. I'm a Thompson supporter, I think I've done quite a bit over the past few days to clean up the main article, and I don't want to do anything to hinder his chances. My main concern is that this material in this article will migrate back into the main article, clutter up the main article, and lead to endless bickering at the main article. By moving it to a separate page like this, the bickering is minimized at the main article, while still making the relevant facts available in a potentially NPOV manner, just like for Hillary Clinton's article. You may think you're wiping out a place for attacks against Thompson, but in fact you'll make the problem worse.Ferrylodge 05:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a cop-out. Sweeping contention under the rug of another article is not the way we reach consensus, and in fact, subverts consensus. - Crockspot 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support sweeping anything under a rug. All I'm saying is that if the most contentious controversies are explained and rebutted in the main article then the main article will be swamped with that stuff. Editing the main article will become a nightmare. That's all.Ferrylodge 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between WP:CONTENT FORKING and POV. This is a content fork. Also WP:AGF. The editor pointed out the other content fork in his/her creation.C56C 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clearly an attack article. I dont know how you can label any of these items as "controversies". I think the author defines this by "anything that might bring negative attention on Fred Thompson". The PAC incident certainly wasnt illegal and the money laundering charges in there are not proven. How is lobbying for a group considered a controversy? The cigarette incident makes him a hypocrite, but I dont see any controversy there either and so on.... Corpx 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the article cannot be improved. It has NPOV problems. But the mere existence of a controversy article is not itself an NPOV problem. The article should be fixed instead of deleted, I think.Ferrylodge 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging completely verifiable and notable "controversies" back into Fred Thompson. Having this page as a stand alone is an invitiation to add oftentimes POV mish mash, wholely unsuitable for our efforts to write an encyclopedia...we are not a tabloid.--MONGO 05:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Migrating this stuff back to the main article will cause endless bickering at the main article, and is contrary to what is done for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. If the verifiable material is good enough for the main article, it's good enough for a separate article.Ferrylodge 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forget about what's done for Giuliani and Clinton. I still say that the stuff in this Thompson controversy article is briefly summarized in the main Thompson article in a completely NPOV way, as required for "Summary style" articles. As MONGO indicates, eliminating this article will just create a stampede of edits to the main article, and I really think there's enough difficulty already keeping the main article in good shape. The best approcah would be to edit this controversy article so that, as MONGO says, it contains "completely verifiable and notable 'controversies'" presented in an NPOV way.Ferrylodge 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn't be that way, but it is. We'll see if others want to delete the article, over the next five days that this deletion request is pending. I won't stand in the way of a consensus to delete, but I also won't stand in the way of the flood of edits to the main article that will surely result.Ferrylodge 06:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can request protection or semi-protection (against IPs only) from WP:RFPP if these POV edits get out of control, and also warn the offenders with the appropriate templates. Corpx 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a similar deletion request was made here, and speedily rejected.Ferrylodge 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That AFD was speedy kept because it was nominated for a merge. There was a later AFD on that topic, which resulted in a no consensus. I think the criticism of an individual is fine within the main page of the article, but a seperate article solely to portray him/her under negative light shouldnt be something an encyclopedia should do.Corpx 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Description of a criticism/controversy, and discussion of whether that criticism/controversy has a basis in fact (or is itself controversial/criticized), need not portray anyone in a negative light. By the way, the Bush AfD that I mentioned came after the Bush AfD that you mentioned (i.e. November 2006 is after August 2006).Ferrylodge 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a POV fork now. Come back if it becomes one. --Hemlock Martinis 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. POV fork. Would need hagiographic article to balance but both violate NPOV. --Tbeatty 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Current article is a pure attack article with minimal concessions to WP:NPOV, and clearly violates WP:BLP, among other problems. Trying to fix it would was valuable editor's time. Existence of article violates well-founded and long-standing consensus about POV forks. It has to go. CWC 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced material. If not kept, then material should be placed in main article. Recurring dreams 10:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Consistent with other candidates' pages as noted above. Not a POV fork. Manages to express both sides of issues well (so far). Keeps the main article shorter and avoids edit wars there. Jdb1972 12:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies has been around for quite some time, but it is currently proposed for dismantling. There are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of these articles; I wish the WP Powers That Be would decide on this for all politician articles, rather than each one's editors having to hash it out independently. For a long time I was a proponent of seperate controversies articles, but aside from whether they violate WP:Content forking and the like, there are a some practical problems with controversies articles: they are hard to summarize fairly in the main article; a surprisingly high number of readers fail to find them, thus concluding that the main article is a "whitewash"; and they tend to accumulate a lot of minor unto trivial entries, because they aren't competing for space as they would be in the main article. Of course the great benefit of them is that you can drill down into detail on the important entries, without disrupting the overall narrative of the main article. Wasted Time R 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My views have changed on this. A year ago I would have said ,'get this minutia out of the main article'. I still think that's a good idea, but we shouldn't maintain a dump for negative (or positive) material about people. There are biographies, and pages about particular controversies where all sides can be presented in context. These Controversies about... pages remind me of Criticism of... pages, but they are about people. I think you could make a good case that such a selective collection violates our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not even a pov fork, it's opposition research. Cover the material in context at Fred Thompson, or Political positions of Fred Thompson, or in an article about the campaign. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Clearly, a POV fork. Basically, it's just a hatchet job, with only a barely minimal attempt at a neutral point of view. Turgidson 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Clearly, this article violates NPOV, but there does seem to be a precedent for "controversy" or "criticism" pages relating to politicians. If this article is edited to conform to NPOV and notability standards, then it would seem to me to be legitimate. That said, there's also the issue of WP:Notability. Some of these controversies may indeed be notable in the long run, while others are either not notable or may become entirely irrelevant.Dtoler 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge whatever legitimate controversies about Thompson could be summed up in the main article. The article as now is a conglomeration of particular things whose controversial nature has not been establishes. Is it really so “controversial” that he was smoking a Cuban cigar? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's sauce for the gander (Hillary Clinton controversy) is sauce for the goose. The controversies would be too long of a section in the main article in this case as in the Hillary case. If they were few and brief, they could be part of the main bio article and could be merged there. In the 21st century it is likely that the controversies about a major contender for US President with a long career in Washington will be numerous and well documented. It will be an ongoing task to monitor and edit out unreferenced material which opponents of a candidate may seek to add. Referenced exculpatory material can be added for balance. If a person does wrong, there is not automatically some balancing fact that must be added to keep a section "NPOV." Edison 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not a POV-fork, as it is simply about controversies, not solely about criticisms or other kinds of blatantly POV content. Controversy does not by definition need to reflect badly on the individual. But more importantly, this article needing expansion and cleanup is not a pass for deletion. If it needs fixing, just fix it. VanTucky (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think we, as an encyclopedia, should be claiming stuff to be controversies when they're just incidents that garnered media attention. Corpx 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do when the sources name them as such, try reading some of the articles. Besides, when events given wide attention in the media are controversial (as this very AFD proves) they generally called controversies. It's just common sense, which isn't trumped by your Wikilawyering. VanTucky (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Wide attention given by the media does not make a topic "controversial". Media covers lots of sporting events and I would hardly characterize them as controversial. Corpx 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just simple media coverage, it's coverage of a topic that "...is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate." (From the Controversy article). These events are certainly that, they aren't just plain reporting of an event and then leaving it alone. There was/is wide debate over the events and their implications. VanTucky (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is the intent of the green mark--to call added attention to your opinion? Bold is enough for the rest of us.DGG (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent your characterization of me as a "vandal". All I'm saying is that the article should be NEUTRAL. As written, it gives far more coverage of anti-Thompson points of view than of a pro-Thompson point of view. If you will notice, I supported KEEPING this article if it is presented fairly in a neutral manner.Dtoler 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first ever talk page edit was the citation of policy, and interest in removing a page. Asking if you edited before with another is hardly out of line. C56C 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you check out Dtoler's contribs, they do qualify as an WP:SPA. But it should also be noted, and I direct this to you all, that being a single purpose account is not equivalent to being a vandal. ever. And neither does it mean that all their comments should be ignored. What it does mean is that a complete assumption of good faith may not be in order, as they joined Wikipedia for the single purpose of influencing this article. But Eseymour does not, even in the broadest definition, qualify as an SPA, he has many significant edits to various topics. VanTucky (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, most of these are not real "controversies", they are things that are, how shall I put it, “anonymously controversial”, as in an editor (or more likely a blogger) says “lookie here”, and puts it under controversies. For example, are his relationships controversial, and if so, according to whom? For most of the entries on the article, there are only primary sources indicating facts, and no secondary sources indicating the controversial nature of the facts, and as such violate WP:SYNTH. The same with Aristide, no one has labeled his relationship with him as “controversial”. Sam with the PAC money transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs)
    • Majority? The Abortion group isn't anonymous, and he denies it. The Moore thing isn't. The Cuban remark isn't. Liberal argument isn't. If you have issue with a particular item, voting on here isn't the way to deal with a single content issue.C56C 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Cleduc 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The use of "controversy" articles is well-established practice. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Fred Thompson and/or related articles. --JForget 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as others noted above. Documented controversies in a article about that is usual, just see this entire article about Criticism of Bill O'Reilly more than a year old. Whether or not it is a sole article doesn't seem to be an issues, as noted above with WP:CONTENT FORKING. If someone this a particular issues is NPOV they should discuss that and not use that as a basis to attack the whole article. Plantocal 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge back into context at Fred Thompson. Controversies can be discussed in relevant sections of biographies, no separate "controversies section" or article are required given Fred Thompson's current short length. Italiavivi 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, if you take a look at the many examples listed above, you'll see that a "Controversy" split is one of the most common performed, especially in articles for major politicians. You give no reason for your request as such, only stating that this action "can be" taken. VanTucky (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back in. No need for splitoff as yet. Will eventually be necessary IMO. (C56C is behaving intolerably, harassing people, etc. Please stop.) -- Y not? 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the stuff worth keeping, but dump the crap about his wife being younger and anything of the same ilk. Lobbyist for abortion group but now pro-life . . . controversial. His wife is 40 years old . . . huh? · jersyko talk 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into text of main article, and not as separate "controversies" section. Same thing is proposed at Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, eliminating separate article and specious items and incorporating valid items into various main articles. Tvoz |talk 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I checked out the Clinton article and it was almost as long as the article on Clinton herself. It's probably safe to say that (assuming Thompson runs), his controversies article would be similarly long by the time election day rolls around. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to spend half of an article about an active, living politician listing controversies. Merge Thompson's controversies back in for now, and then spin them off again should the "controversies" section in his bio get too long?Dtoler 15:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clinton has several subarticles and related articles - some of the "controversies" are going to be integrated into the text and/or footnotes of the main article, but others will go into subarticles and some will be eliminated completely because they are absurd stretches. The point is that if something is controversial and notable, it should be integrated - listing items as controversies per se is what we're trying to get away from. As for Thompson, I guess we'll have to see what comes out of the woodwork if he decides to run, but I doubt any other candidate gets the kind of scrutiny and attack Clinton has gotten, so if it works in her articles (we'll see if it does), it should work for Thompson. Tvoz |talk 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's happening to the Clinton Controversies page is interesting. It seems likely that her Controversy page will be broken up and the material merged with various Clinton sub-articles. In other words, her Controversy stuff would be scattered to the wind. In contrast, the Controversy stuff for Thompson would go straight into his main article, because he doesn't have nearly so many sub-articles as Clinton. Thus, Thompson would be treated in a way that Clinton never has been --- and never will be --- treated. This seems unfair to me. There is plenty of stuff in the Thompson Controversy article to justify a separate article, and the main Thompson article is getting too long to conveniently accommodate all of that controversy stuff.Ferrylodge 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. There's also a similar article for GW Bush and many others.Ferrylodge 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Wikipedia's article on global warming has attained FA status, even though there's a separate article on the global warming controversy. There are probably other FA examples like this.Ferrylodge 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all credibly sourced and NPOV material into Fred Thompson, delete the rest.--JayJasper 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and not Merge if this information was necessary to be merged it would have been included in the Fred Thompson page already. NobutoraTakeda 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [18][reply]
  • Keep This is a notable topic and not inherently POV, so long as each area is referenced and presented in NPOV fashion, There is too much notable material to be just added Fred Thompson article without overwieghting towards the controversies. AFD not place for cleanup. Davewild 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not convinced that this article should stay in the end, but it should be discussed on the related articles' talk pages among interested editors, not in an AFD.--Gloriamarie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - AfD is not the place to argue about things like future possibilities of POV problems, I think. The editors of the main Fred Thompson article decided after long discussion to fork out the "controversy" section into a separate article. If his controversies are notable (and I thought this guy was only ever an actor!) then they should be somewhere; the eds of his page figured they should be forked, so I'll assume that Wikipedia's working the way it should. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea incense

Tea incense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Tea incense - (
)

This page is not unreasonable in any way, but it's entirely redundant to the main article at incense which includes a rather comprehensive description of the various methods of burning incense: methods no different in the case of this specific incense ingredient. It's also not clear that there are reliable sources that treat the specific use of tea as an incense. Deranged bulbasaur 04:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added tea to Incense#Plant-derived materials so it's now represented in the main article. Deranged bulbasaur 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Incense does not address tea incense in a way to make Tea incense redundant. However, there is not enough WP:RS material to write a Wikipedia article on the topic. Most of the WP:RS information is about drinking tea beverage and burning incense. There is such a thing as Green Tea Incense Sticks and there is a relevant news article from 2001 Nikkei Weekly (October 1, 2001) Japanese using green tea as stress-relieving incense. Goodle books doesn't help, however. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anies Baswedan

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

notability Wkta 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.-Wafulz 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamison Brooks

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

No sources other than IMDB, not easily verifiable, undoubtedly is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. JohnRDaily 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardtard

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

Contested prod, Wikipedia is not a dictionary Kesac 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus even after discounting Knulclunk vote. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about pianists

List of films about pianists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

With this criteria, as long as the main character is of a specific occupation, you can make a List of films about list for it. Essentially, a randomly generated collection of information. Bulldog123 04:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it is not. If the article is deleted, I am not aware of any proscription on trying it again. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail, when this current reign of terror on lists is over. Tvoz |talk 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep what is wrong with having articles that identify a common theme across films? How is it randomly generated? It's a valid compilation. Further: it appears to me that the name change here after the no consensus Afd, is an attempt to narrow the focus from "Pianos in popular culture" to specifically films about pianists, which should be more acceptable to those who find this indiscriminate and random, but that requires having a neutral viewpoint about the value of lists of things in popular culture. Please remember that there is an entire academic field of study about popular culture and it includes comparative study which lists like this facilitate.. Tvoz |talk 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have plenty of "in popular culture" articles but I hardly see the relevance of a list of films that include one element in them. What academic value is there behind seeing if a electrician is in a film or not? Since many of these films aren't "about" pianists, that is a completely legitimate comparison. Bulldog123 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the list, I think you can see that it isn't a case of a pianist happening to be in the film as an incidental point - the piano playing is central to the film. If some entries don't belong, they can be removed (which ones were you referring to, by the way?) - that's not a reason to jettison the list. I've not edited there, or its predecessor, by the way, so I'm not defending my own work. Tvoz |talk 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT, Too loosely associated. Saikokira 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is useful, non-trivial information. Regardless, WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections within articles, not to categories some might arbitrarily deem trivial. Also, although it's been referenced as a justification for deleting this list, I can find no section of WP:NOT relevant to this list. Also, I don't think the slippery slope argument cited by the nominator should be sufficient justification in itself to delete a useful category. Why not delete any inappropriate categories that a category may spawn, rather than deleting a useful category.--Osbojos 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strikes me as perfectly appropriate for a list. Those who cite WP:NOT ignore that what WP:NOT is getting at is directory-like lists (thus, the heading under which that particular cite resides "WP is not a Directory"); those citing WP:Trivia ignore that that part of the MOS addresses the stylistic use of lists within articles, as opposed to independent lists. The delete reasoning has been poor before and is poor again. No policy basis for deletion. A Musing 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What an excellent list! --Knulclunk 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visordown

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

nn web-based motorcycle club. Prod was rm'ed some time ago. External links indicate that it was purposefully written by the members, and does not meet WP:WEB - all ghits are WP, mirrors, or the original site. MSJapan 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, then redirect to The Edible Woman. Sr13 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edible Woman

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

Seems to be a non-notable band. All mentions on Google seem to be from Myspace. -WarthogDemon 04:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect with history preserved, if someone wants to add info from the original article to wherever this one redirects to. —Kurykh 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal

Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a professional wrestling match type that wasn't used too often in either WCW or WWE. Information on the match type is already located at List of professional wrestling match types, so this page really has no reason to exist. I prod'ed the article originally with the intent to redirect it there. I suggest if this page is deleted, we put in the redirect. Nikki311 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that more information could be added to it (including relevant citations) and the article should stay afloat. --SteelersFan UK06 04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, but do you think there is enough information to warrant a second article? All the relevant info could easily be covered in its entry on the List. Nikki311 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I just think that the one that they had in WWE was quite notable. there were a number of things that suggested notability - like the fact that (in theory) the wrestlers didn't (and, quite frankly, couldn't) actually know what the hell match they were going to be in until the wheel was spun. Anyone remember the TLC tag team title match that main evented RAW? This match was voted one of the best 50 events in the history of the program. I don't know very much about the WCW one, but i am presuming more of the same? --SteelersFan UK06 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply, actually the one in WCW was really bad b/c the wheel landed on the least desirable match choice (object on a pole). Nevertheless, all the information can still be mentioned in the List. Not every mention of the match type is going to be deleted from Wikipedia. It is just going to be moved from a separate article into a combined article. Nikki311 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good then, I retract my earlier vote, I now vote Merge into list, with some effort put into improving the List entry. --SteelersFan UK06 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per nom, or delete and redirect, which ever is more desirable. Darrenhusted 08:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - although nothing from here should really be merged as it's all trivial details on the specific matches generated by the wheel. No reason whatsoever why this should be a separate article. Otto4711 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect and thank you for making me have to remember Cheetum the evil midget. Wildthing61476 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Planet 3: The Revenge

Prison Planet 3: The Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Has not received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Not widely distributed and did not receive reviews. Article's only assertion of notability is a claimed cult status, but only via peer to peer file sharing. Optigan13 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [First article is first film in series, equal lack of notability assertion. Second is Non-notable actor/entertainer. Only Online 49er linked article goes beyond trivial coverage. IMDB roles as entertainer are not in notable films. ]:

Prison Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Optigan13 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tatsuro Abe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Optigan13 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Band (game)

The Band (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Zero relevant Google hits for "Coketail Software" and no mention of the game on Xbox.com or any other major gaming website. Oh, and the cover art looks like it was made in MS Paint, what with that subtle airbrush effect and all. Hoax. Nufy8 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder episode)

Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of notability, the only contents are a plot summery and a cast list. No info about critical reception, or palce in a story arc, as per WP:EPISODE. No obvious reason that the table in List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes is insufficient. DES (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. —Kurykh 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yonkers and Battle of Hope

Battle of Yonkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Battle of Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a pair of unsourced articles recapping the story of World War Z in explicit detail. I'm not sure why the fans of this middling-successful novel have spent so much time describing this novel in detail, but these two sub-articles, composed entirely of a summary of the plot of World War Z, fail WP:NOT#PLOT blatantly. They are written in in-universe style, which could be fixed if there were some references on these subjects, but there aren't. WP:FICT would counsel merging these to World War Z, but World War Z is so choked with detailed plot summary that that really isn't practical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography joke

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

Wikipedia not a jokebook. Must follow the road of Medical joke, Drummer jokes and the deleted like `'Miikka 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, the article website isn't a Reliable source. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonsfoot

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

Lacking any "significant coverage by independent sources" as required by WP:NOTE Google news archives search turns up nothing Corpx 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont think articles should be kept in hope that somebody someday might add these citations. That would defeat the whole point of WP:NOTE. I looked around to find some notability and came up empty handed and if you can find some, I'll gladly consider my position. Corpx 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think notability can be inherited to actions done by notable people. I think this article still fails WP:NOTE for lack of "significant coverage by independent sources" Corpx 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you are misreading WP:NOTE. It does not say that a subject without significant coverage in independent sources lacks notability. It only asserts the converse: Notability can be assumed if independent coverage exists. If it does not exist, then we must look to other means to determine notability. A D&D web site that includes regular posts by Gary Gygax himself is notable because Gary invented the game. Capmango 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that just because Gary Gygax posts there that it is notable. If a football coach or a player posts on a fan forum, I dont think it would give it notability. I think this also fails WP:WEB which is supposed to be a better guideline on websites. Corpx 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I guess I implied that Gary Gygax could bestow notability by his mere presence. I meant that this is one factor to take into consideration. Capmango 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe analogy that he is a football coach or player is not convincing - He created the game - Therefore it is notable that he posts on the boards of Dragonsfoot - I do question its entry, in that it should be a sub note in the main D&D section to show original AD&D is still a viable alternative to the newer dumbed down versions 86.130.66.5 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the article can always be recreated when the player reaches the major. Jaranda wat's sup 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkys Hernandez

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

This page is about a person who is merely being considered to play in the major leagues. I don't think it passes WP:N muster. The PROD was removed without comment by the article's creator. Deranged bulbasaur 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont think you can quite compare AHL to the minor leagues. There are 50 rounds in MLB draft with 30 picks in each round, plus plenty of sandwich picks and whatnot between rounds. This means more than 1500 "new blood" is put into the minor league system, taking the place of 1500 existing players (since the number of players is set). Hence, turnover is extremely high in the minors and the reason for the lack of notability Corpx 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as notability is concerned, I would have to say that a minor league baseball player at any level would probably be more notable than an AHLer. Regardless, Hernandez does fit the criteria of playing in a professional league (The GCL). - Avalanchebad 05:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as db-author. -- JLaTondre 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shming-Shmang

Don Shming-Shmang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no such person, which is why the "article" contains no references, and why Mr. "Shming-Shmang" is unmentioned in the 796 pages of Jean Strouses' Morgan: American Financier, a biography of his purported business associate. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don Shming-Shmang is not a real person."
This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, and speedy deletion is what it needs. Calgary 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "HOAX" is a criterion for deletion, not speedy deletion, which is why I didn't speedy delete it myself. It could conceivably be speedy deleted as vandalism, but I opted to allow time for its creator to provide his "sources". - Nunh-huh 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps, but when blatant vandalism evolves into a hoax...and by the way, isn't it a felony to remove a deletion tag? ~|Calgary
Again, hoaxes are not a justification for speedy deletion. Perhaps they should be, but they are not - in fact, on the page of speedy deletion criteria, hoaxes are specifically mentioned as not being a reason for speedy deletion. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, the page is blatant vandalism. When nominated for speedy deletion, the author seems to have untagged it, then added false information. This is manipulation of the system in order to give the page a longer life before deletion. And i thought Wikipedia wasn't a beaurocracy. Calgary 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were mistaken. We even appoint bureaucrats. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, which I feel is relevant in this case. The article is only being allowed to survive the standard deletion process rather than the speedy deletion process is a technicality stemming from a series of edits made at the eleventh hour after the article had been tagged for speedy deletion. Calgary 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and the reason behind that is that not all obvious hoaxes are real hoaxes. So now we would be waiting now the creator User:Psdubow to know about the whole story. For that i had already informed h/er. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Hoaxes can't be speedied, unfortunately; there's too much risk for obscure and unusual topics that an editor may not have heard of. Preferably, the speedy delete votes above will be modified to fit policy, but if not, the closing admin may interpret them as delete votes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not speedy (unless as G3), but I agree it's a hoax. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb hoax - no such man. I had to watch a two hour film on old JP Morgan as part of an induction programme when I went to work there; rather think they'd have mentioned this chap. Bigdaddy1981 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this article is an exercise in how many times one can say "Shming-Shmang" in an article while still sounding vaguely plausible. Deranged bulbasaur 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN since it's written in such a ridiculous yet serious tone. The initial content of the article is enough to make one realize that this isn't real, so it's not like this is sticking around... but how one then creates an advisor to J.P. Morgan out of it kind of makes me chuckle a little. - RPIRED 13:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or WP:BJAODN: I am the creator of the article. I created it, because I want to see how long it would take for someone to notice it. I wanted see if people would question it, or would just leave it alone because it seemed to make sense. It was my own personal test of wikipedia's fact checking, and Wikipedia seems to have done a good job and it has past my silly little test. And if nobody noticed it within a couple of days, I would have deleted the article myself anyway. And besides, the purpose of the test, it was sort of funny too, and it gave me chuckle. Sorry for any trouble or inconvenience I caused anybody. Psdubow 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of melodic death metal bands

List of melodic death metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite having nice little flags next to each entry, this list is superseded by Category:Melodic death metal bands, and has no real purpose beyond the category except edit wars. Note that the rationale for the category should be changed so that it accommodates bands that at one point in their careers played melodic death metal but no longer do. Chubbles 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It makes no sense to call a metalcore band that released one melodic death metal album a melodic death metal band, which is what would be implied by including such group in a melodic death metal groups category. That is one of of the advantages of the list over the category, such group can be added to the list and a caption can be added next to the wikilink explaining their melodic death metal status. Also, there have been very little edit wars in the list of melodic death metal bands, and even so just because an article has had edit wars does not mean it should be deleted. Deletion of an article is not the solution to edit wars or vandalism. --Leon Sword 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not about edit wars, vandalism, or the like. A self maintaining category can do much of what you just said, aside from telling the user whether they're melodic death metal now, or in the past, in which case, the articles of the bands themselves should reflect that. You can also weed out the "metalcore" bands that are put into this genre by patrolling it as well and making the corrections on the bands page. To me the list is just a duplicate of information, as I was going to add the category tag to all those bands in lieu of adding the prod. Slowly but surely, lists like this are being weeded out and deleted. -- Shatterzer0 03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already gone through and added the category to all the bands that were on the list (I always do that before nomming a list of genre bands for deletion). Chubbles 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing bands based on a genre is a very subjective task as this cannot be established unless the artists themselves have announced their inclusion into a particular genre. So, delete per WP:OR Corpx 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Corpx's fine reasoning. This is not just a genre, but a subgenre and an unusually subjective one at that. It's original research unless cited. A Traintalk 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one took a lot of thought, espcially as i used this page a few times just this week and tryed to consider it without imagining the probablity that there are other pages with simlar genre related listings. Basically i think the comments following the nomination are completely ignoring policy, but the nomination is correct in that this page is redundent with an already existent category with the same information. -- Jimmi Hugh 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You guys do realize that all the bands that are kept listed in that article are only there because their respective articles state that they are a melodic death metal band. Might as well delete all those band articles too since most of them don't have their genres cited thus they must be original research. What happened to consensus? Also, you guys do realize that the melodic death metal groups category would also count as original research according to your reasoning. Especially since all the bands that were added to the category were taken directly from the list of melodic death metal bands. Your argument is flawed it seems. --Leon Sword 03:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out here that the reasoning put forth to open the AfD is based solely on the list's being entirely redundant with the category, so long as the definition in the category is slightly modified (as I think it should be). Chubbles 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not be deleted if they are not entirely (or majority) original research. The categorization issue on the article pages should be at best addressed on the talk pages. Corpx 03:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the band articles are uncited so they would count as original research, but that's a whole different issue. I would still like an explanation as to why you guys want to delete this list for supposed original research and not the category, even though all the bands in the category where taken directly from the list. --Leon Sword 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well currently the list does nothing but list the bands. Although I didnt endorse this, a category would serve the exact same purpose, but keep the non-notable bands off this list. Still be WP:OR violation though :) Corpx 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are no non-notable bands on the list, they are removed as soon as I check my watchlist. This is actually another disadvantage of the category, new bands that are added to it won't show up on any watchlist and all the non-notable bands with articles are going to end up being added without being noticed right away. By the way do you guys also intend to delete all the other lists of whatever genre bands? Because there is a lot of them and if I'm correct, there is no policy stating a list and similar category can't co-exist. Also citations only need to be provided for stuff that is likely to be challenged according to WP:V, and a band's genre on Wikipedia is usually the result of consensus, thus it's not really original research. Providing citations for most of the bands on the list would be somewhat useless, it would be like providing a citation for the Metallica article stating that Metallica is a metal band even though it's somewhat obvious and very unlikely to be challenged. --Leon Sword 02:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Island District High School

Christmas Island District High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article seems to suffer from a lack of notability Sijo Ripa 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Outta C-Town

Fresh Outta C-Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced. The article originally stated it was "rumoured" to be the next album. I prodded it as unreferenced. An anonymous IP showed up and removed the prod. IrishGuy talk 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR TALK 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt compilations

(View AfD) All the articles essentially amount to track listings and release information. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites. As such, all of the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. 17Drew 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you provided hardly makes a case for these articles. Notice that it states they "may have sufficient notability". The section itself is controversial and is regularly disputed, and it doesn't apply nearly as much for compilations like these. The second sentence there states that there should be independent coverage, of which there is none. The next sentence states, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." Simply put, these articles are just about all they'll ever be. With a normal article, you can put information about its conception, recording, production, critical reception, style, themes, response from music critics, and chart performance. None of these will ever be in the articles since they don't apply. 17Drew 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that none of those apply, but I still see no reason for any of this stuff to be deleted. The video compilation, at least, has one source, so at least it might be good to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One source does not make an article. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that it does have doesn't even qualify since, ignoring the fact that it's a broken link since the RIAA got rid of the database a week ago, all it does is produce a search result. It doesn't provide any information about the music video save for a "G" for gold, which isn't anywhere close to "significant coverage". 17Drew 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad, didn't check to see if the link worked. I still see no reason to delete, but I can't come up with a valid keep reason, so I'm changing my vote to neutral, pending further discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's no reason for their deletion and they are informative and valuable articles. -Anthony- 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read what was above? If an article does not have significant coverage from multiple third-party sources, it needs to be deleted. Not everything "informative and valuable" belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:USEFUL). Wikipedia is not Discogs, and track listings are not articles. 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the band is notable and well known and albums were released on a major label. Boom Box and Everything In Time both got an AMG review - something that shows notability and variability. The Videos went Gold (500,000 units sold) and is verifiable through the RIAA link. I believe it is enough to justify a page. -Halo 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MUSIC hardly justifies the articles. It states that an article with little more than a track listing should be merged elsewhere. WP:NOTE states that notability is significant coverage from multiple sources. One review at AMG is not "multiple sources". A listing in an RIAA database is not "significant coverage", and it only shipped (not sold) 50,000 (not 500,000). 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also love to see the Everything in Time review. The site has it listed as three stars, but I'm only seeing a track listing and a grey link indicating that there's no review there. 17Drew 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – That’s right. let me pile on! The individual albums in of themselves are “Noteworthy”. There are articles and websites, too numerous to mention here, that are featuring and/or are devoted to either the lyrics of the individual song or the album itself. Shoessss |  Chat  22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then please show me some reliable sources with significant coverage of the albums. Since they're "too numerous to mention", it should be insultingly simple to do. 17Drew 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry are we taking this a bit too personal; http://www.metrolyrics.com/everything-in-time-los-angeles-lyrics-no-doubt.html. Shoessss |  Chat  22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sites that infringe copyright (re: almost every lyrics site) cannot be used in an article. Plus, WP:NOTE defines sources as secondary sources; the lyrics of a song are a primary source. 17Drew 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 17Drew, and yes I may get blocked for my next comments, but to be honest, I am not going to get in a pissing contest over this article. I expressed my opinion, gave you a site and now it is time to move on. Have a great day either way. Shoessss |  Chat  22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that if you're not able to show that there are numerous reliable sources about the articles, then you probably shouldn't say that they just do exist. 17Drew 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, yes, the coverage needs to be improved and expanded. I fail to see how albums released by a major band fail to meet any conceivable notability requirement. Simply needing improvement, however, isn't a valid reason to delete them. matt91486 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the nomination? It seems pretty straightforward: "There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites." Notability means significant coverage by multiple sources; if the articles don't have coverage, they're not notable. 17Drew 22:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it, but I also think that it's a guideline, not a strict rule. The album is for sale at dozens of online stores. While that's certainly not unbiased material that one can site, that is a wide enough scope to establish its notability. As for an article, here's one. http://www.channel4.com/music/music-core/album.jsp?albumId=533024 There's a review of "Everything in Time". matt91486 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My last words on this. Yes, I read the nomination, and “YES” even read the articles and my opinion still stands. You got to “LOVE” Wikipedia, I do, it is a consensus rather that a majority rule!Shoessss |  Chat  22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoessss, that comment wasn't referring to you. I'm a little confused as to why you're bringing up the fact that AfD is not a vote. The comments above yours were more votes than actual comments. Regarding the review, that's definitely a step in the right direction. But an article needs multiple sources to be considered notable. One source does not make a subject notable, much less all three. Because the albums are compilations, it's incredibly unlikely that there are sources that cover any of the major aspects of an album: recording/production, style/themes, and sales. 17Drew 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 17Drew, I’m sorry for getting pissy, you are right. The comments are not directed at me. Call it a long day – fingers typing before brain engages, or what ever. No matter the outcome, I am happy to say it does not effect my paycheck. Once again, have a great day, and "Yes" I do appreciate your efforts here at Wikipedia Shoessss |  Chat  00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it shows there are sources out there if you are willing to look. The best way to do that will be to look at archives from around the album's release. A lot of newspapers review discs that come out, and there might be magazine reviews that aren't readily available without an archival search. It's not as if coverage of the album is limited. What's missing is coverage that can be cited. Music articles are not really my cup of tea, so I don't want to get entirely too involved in actively digging up any more sources myself (sorry if that sounds lazy or callous, but I just don't have a terribly lot of Wiki-time to devote right now, and I'm trying to put it where I'm most useful), but I'm pretty confident that it can be done through searching around its release. matt91486 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, my personal thought would be to keep the Videos and Everything in Time, because those will have the most sources, and to merge Boom Box in to both the Singles and Everything in Time, because I think that won't have a ton of independent coverage. Boom Box can be easily rendered redundant, where as the others can't. I'm not terribly against keeping Boom Box as an independent article, but I am less in favor of that than the other two, which I definitely think should be kept and maintained. matt91486 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find nothing wrong with these articles. They are informative and the video album article is a must. It was even certified Gold. User:Luxurious.gaurav
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 06:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured in television commercials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. Extraordinary Machine 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Of the arguments to "keep", Martintg's fails to address this article, Suva uses the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, Alexia Death says "it's okay because it's young", Sander Sade makes a good argument, Digurwen is too busy attacking the nominator to say why it should be kept, Piotr's is just awful, Edson has a good argujment, "seems like a real phenomenon" (JIP) isn't persuasive, Darwinek says keep per Suva and accuses people of bad faith, then a run of "keep per aboves" which add nothing to the discussion, and nothing else really adding anything other than weight of numbers. Unfrotunately, weight of numbers is insufficient; the arguments for deletion (WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, neologism, the fact Russian-Estonian relations already exists) are far more persusuive and rooted in actual Wikipedia policy. So, delete. Neil ╦ 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estophobia

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

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way. `'Miikka 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN: unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position, said position being that estophobia/anti-Estonianism is a notable phenomenon/problem. Taken item-by-item, this is a mere list of newspaper clippings about a bunch of different events. The only thing holding them together is the page author's (not the sources') contention that they're examples of the phenomenon he posits to exist. "Estophobia" has no GBooks hits. [20] Similar arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal also apply here. cab 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somehow you fail to mention it has Google Scholar hits [21], which are far more important then Google Books hits. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Google scholar gives one paper mirrored in two locations which judging from the title "Citizenship and borders: Legacies of Soviet empire in Estonia" is not primarily about the topic of "Estophobia". Compare this to prejudices like Anti-Japanese sentiment [22] or [23] Islamophobia which have whole books written about them. cab 08:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japan and Islam generally represents a much, much larger field of research that is more likely to yeild specific books on their respective phobias, however that does not make anti-Estonian sentiment any less real. In fact there is a book published that cites "Baltophobia" (hatred of both Latvians and Estonians by their colonial masters) as an age old phenomenon [24]. Martintg 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair request. I find the following statements in the article being POV-pushing, as long as there's no reference given for the statements:
  1. accusations, most of them baseless
  2. for reasons such as a desire for sensationalism
  3. false rumours
  4. about the rumours, some of them traceable to the Night Watch pressure group
Also, I find the paragraph ...a poll conducted in April 2007, has found that 59% of Russia's residents agree with the statement "Estonian authorities discriminate against Russophones in Estonia and deliberately provoke conflicts with Russia". irrelevant in the article Estophobia. Condemning actions by governments of other countries doesn't qualify as a phobia. --BeautifulFlying 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall deal with the first two. The exact manner is yet uncertain; if I won't find suitable sources within a reasonable timeframe, I'll just take them out. The second one, in particular, comes from Chomsky's theory of institutional media bias, and it might indeed be that nobody notable has yet made the connection between that and Russian media. The third one is a factual claim: the rumours presented are indeed factually false. The fourth can be backed up with news reports and news analyses from recent months. Consequently, I do not see WP:POV in them, and if you disagree with their factuality, or at least that they can be treated as issues of fact, I ask that you elaborate.
Wtih all my respect to Chomsky, if you link whatever he said in his research with the articles in today's Russian press to come to a conclusion that the Russian press acts with a desire of sensationalism, this will qualify as a classic WP:SYN (which is usually utilized to advance someone's position, = POV). Regarding the 3 and 4, if the rumours are proved to be rumours and false ones, and if the rumours are proved to be tracable to such and such groups, then references to prooves must be present in an encyclopedic article. That's all I'm asking for. --BeautifulFlying 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the rumours - Wikipedia should not be a collection of rumours, but if the fact of such and such rumours circulation is important, a reference is needed that explains why these rumours are notable to be included in the article. --BeautifulFlying 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your fifth claim is more interesting. I would tend to disagree, but this would probably grow into a longer discussion better suited for Talk:Estophobia than for this AFD here. As of now, the reference is in the section Estophobia#Accusations of discrimination of minorities and as such, illustrates such accusations' effectiveness and wide field of acceptance; however, if you insist, I can move the reference to the talk page until the discussion is held. Digwuren 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this (afd) page is not the right place for this discussion. Let's move this over to the article talk page. --BeautifulFlying 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when did we use AfD to solve content disputes? There is atleast one scholarly paper published on the "Estophobia" phenomenon [25]. Note the originator of this AfD also started a similar action against Nashism with similar arguments Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nashism. After Nashism was deleted, he subsequently recreated it with new content. If content is the issue, then tag the article appropriately and edit it, don't abuse the AfD process. Martintg 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FUI, AfD discussed exactly content of articles, not their title, editors, AfD nominators, etc., according to wikipedia rules. You are not novices here and must know the rules already. Writing essays is the basic forbidden things. Starting from reputable sources that define the notion is the best way staaying out of trouble. Wikipedia rules specifically say that articles may be recreated in a way consistent with rules. And I recreated it after waiting, like, two weeks during which the passionate defenders did nothing. And I don't want to tag it, I want to delete it, exactly because IMO its content has no place neither in wikipedia, nor in its edit history, which is visible to everyone. `'Miikka 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original article Nashism was a five line stub, with a reference to a peer reviewed journal. So there wouldn't have been much of a history. Only you had an issue with the source not being reputable, even though most British university libraries seem to to think it reputable enough for their collections. Stubs, as I recall, are intended to be placeholders of notable topics with an implict invitation to all to expand the article. Your main argument for deletion was that it is a newly-coined neologism. So two weeks after deletion you decide that is no longer a newly-coined neologism and decide to re-create it? Martintg 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. I didn't re-create it. You still fail to see the difference between the article title and article topic. The deleted article's topic was uneducated speculations of a thoroughly nonnotable person published in an obscure magazine. `'Miikka 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The whole article corresponds to WP:SYNTH. It is like reading the titles of all 22 first refs and come out w/ Estophobia. Most of the titles mean just that there are frictions instead of a concerted campaign. Some of the contents can be merged w/ Foreign relations of Estonia or have something like [Russian-Estonian relations]. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the first 22 sources refer to the phenomenon, and most mention a concerted campaign. Anyway, what kind of reference do you believe would satisfy your concerns? I could try and find one. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a cursory examination of a random selection of th articles associated with WikiProject Discrimination suggests that most of them are the worst kind of unsourced and/or OR POV bilge. I'd be glad to see others - including many of the articles you mention above - brought here for AfD. Bigdaddy1981 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have a point in regard to Australia. But when nation of 140 million armed to the teeth and vast natural resources thinks a tiny neighbouring country of 1.4 million as one of its greatest enemies [28], [29], that is irrational by any standard, hence the validity of an article like Anti-Estonian sentiment Martintg 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember Australia the state engaged in the grave-digging excercise either. Question of WWII is extremely touchy-feely topic for Russians and emotions had been running pretty high during Bronze Soldier row. I'd say that accusation of "imperialism" and "estophobia", liberally sprinkled here by the members of Korps! Estonia are much more prominent examples of racial hatred than speedily-removed sign on single restaurant in provincial city, erected and removed in the heat of spat.RJ CG 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather ironic that Russians are so sensitive to moving one single Red Army memorial to a cemetary 60 years after the war, when the Red Army destroyed every single memorial to the Estonian War of Independance in the late 1940's, every single one, with explosives no less! Compared with Estonians showing respect by reinterring the remains from a grave located next to a bustop to a peaceful military cemetary, with Russians destroying hundreds of memorials across Estonia in the 1940's indicates a clear example of Estophobia. Martintg 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Excellent idea! I didn't even know about WP:WPDISC, but if Bigdaddy's assertion is correct, and if they are perpetuating this kind of stuff, they should better be MfDed. As for your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, we're trying to get rid of those, one by one. Anti-Greek, Bosniaks, Croatian and Hungarian, all conceived in the same manner as this one, WP:SYN collection of historical facts, factoids and sore grapes. Serbophobia and Anti-Romanian sentiment did survive in this turn. Oh, yes, and Delete, by this reasoning. Duja► 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really a wonder you didn't know it. Somebody has categorised this AfD under Science and technology, and it seems likely that's how you got here. The topic, obviously, is about humanities instead, and it is to be expected that a hard sciences' geek would be unfamiliar with humanities. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is classified so because it belongs to social sciences. The AfD classification is necessarily relatively coarse and sometimes may be not very intuitive. Mukadderat 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To satisfy your curiosity, I got aware about it from another Estonian-Russian sour grapes thread at WP:AN/I, and, given my previous involvement with similar articles (check the other Anti-XXXism AfDs linked above), I felt inclined to comment here as well. Not that it matters to anything. Duja► 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep they even teach this in school here. It has been researched, and indeed is official word. The article is expanding, and so there are some unrelated refs and some refs missing. This is normal with a new stub article. About notability. If one little pacifist country has been declared "Russian biggest enemy" by several polls and researches in last several years, it's definitely notable. If this is deleted I request the deletion of Russophobia aswell. The latter is clearly synthesized: collection of articles where someone says "russians suck". Suva 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a) its way to young of an article to condemn yet. b) It is an article a about a valid phenomenon. To those saying its POV, It is an article about a particular POV, Estophobia. If POV can be decribed more neutraly then please improve the article.--Alexia Death 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought up the term POV earlier, to emphasize that synthesis is used to push a certain POV in the article. But I admit that generally WP:SYN is a much bigger (and more relevant) issue here. At the same time I don't mind at all to give some time (as I mentioned above) to the authors to improve the article (that in its current shape definitely deserves to be deleted). --BeautifulFlying 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noteworthily, Mikkalai issued the AFD less than a day after the article's creation, while it had the "Under construction" tag on it. It isn't surprising that it wasn't in the best of shapes at that time. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I find it fair to give you (as the main contributor) a reasonable time to improve the article, and clean it up from OR, SYN & POV. Good luck with that. --BeautifulFlying 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Suva. This AfD is an obvious attempt to censor Wikipedia by wiki-lawyering. As mikkalai is a long-time contributor to Russofobia and has not wanted to delete that article, then I cannot see this in any other way except as a bad-faith nomination. Article has barely been started, but has good and strong references, describing a well-known phenomenon. Word is not a neologism, it is used in scientific articles [30] and news, as can seen by references. Cannot be called WP:OR, as it is well-referenced and no examples of WP:SYNTH has been given, so that can be discarded as well. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable neologism. Another trollish attempt at original research aimed at making a point Molobo-Bonaparte-style. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search on "anti estonian sentiment" brings plenty of hits [31] Martintg 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, Google tests don't mean anything. And there's also one thing that bother's me... Not to be rude, Ghirla, but I'm wondering about something. Why do you seem to use the word "troll" so much? It's a good idea to keep WP:COOL and assume good faith. I'm sure the writers of the article aren't trolls, so it could be considered a personal attack. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not neologism. It's less used in english language, more in estonian and russian (for obvious reasons), but it is correctly formed phobia name also accepted. But one thing can noone deny. That the problem discussed in the article is true, and definitely needs some notion in wikipedia. Can anyone argue? Suva 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That very well might be the case, but the fact that the subject of discussion is interesting does not override essential WP policies such as WP:OR. When the subject is notable, but the term is not, the article being about the term, that article constitutes original research. IgorSF 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism; Google search results are a pretty good indication of the degree of use of this term. Appears to be a clear application of WP:SYNTH, as per all citing above. To respond to those mentioning a comparison with Russophobia, the latter term is actually known on its own (i.e., outside of Wikipedia), and I have personally heard it, whereas the subject of this AfD I have not.IgorSF 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a neologism, used in scholarly articles, see [32]. Has been shown before, seems that previous three contributors did not read the discussion and should therefore change their votes. Sander Säde 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that google returns more results of Russophobia than Estophobia doesn't really prove the word being neologism. It only proves that there is more people who hate russians. Which is also obvious because there is much more russians and more reasons to hate them than estonians. Also estophobia has become widely popular just lately, so the popularity of this word will grow. Suva 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hate talk ("there is more people who hate russians", etc) is cheap and illustrates that your group views Wikipedia as a soapbox for making highly tendentious, divisive edits. I assume it is aimed at those who are not aware about such charming pages of Estonian history as the Klooga concentration camp and like to picture it as a peaceful, harmless little country. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Ghirla, even I would not have expected you to go as low as this. So, Nazis created Klooga concentration camp, therefore there is no Estophobia? Great logic! Demonstrates very clearly that estophobia exists and is present here in Wikipedia as well, therefore the article is valid and needed. Sander Säde 08:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to demonstrate that there was any German personnel involved in the maintenance of the Estonian concentration camps. Estonia was the only country of Europe where the Holocaust concentration camps were more or less voluntarily run by the native population. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just plain lie and hate speech. Estonian personnel were not "volunteers", nor did they run the camps. See that nice article you linked, "The Vaivara camp complex was commanded by German officers (Hans Aumeier, Otto Brennais, and Franz von Bodman) /.../" As for volunteers... if you have a choice, be a camp guard or get shot, that is definitely volunteering. Involvement of Estonians was no more prominent then the involvement of locals in Ukraine or Latvia. Your accusations are purely racist. And, like Suva said, enough of this here. You've clearly shown your estophobia and reason for supporting deletion, I don't think you can add anything else more supportive for keeping the article in question. Sander Säde 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever heard of shared responsibilities? Yes, the Nazis are primarily responsible for the extermination of 99% Jews in Estonia. However, to the degree that nationals from subject nations participated and the lack of duress involved, these subject people are jointly responsible. And Estonians according to all accounts, absolutely stood out as far as numbers and unsollicited enthousiasm was concerned. You have just demonstrated why people are right to be worried about the inability of Estonians to face up to their past. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, such inability as prime minister apologizing for actions of those Estonians involved in Holocaust, opening of the Holocaust memorial and prime minister & president opening of the synagogue? Gee, what horrible things to do! I must have missed when Putin apologized for Soviet crimes in Estonia... Sander Säde 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And opening a monument to the Waffen SS on the very next day... --Ghirla-трёп- 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to bring down your little fantasy world, but there are no monuments for Waffen-SS in Estonia. Sander Säde 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most publications dealing with Monument of Lihula did agree that it honours veterans of Waffen SS among others. So may be there are no monument, but there were. RJ CG 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should remember that good part of article you translated as best proof that Monument contained no Nazi symbols had been devoted to whitewashing of Estonian participation in Nazi military units. All discussion was about symbology, as explicit Nazi symbols on statue would be crime according to Estonian law. But nobody denied connection as a whole, especially taking into account absence of anti-communist military units not associated with German authorities at 1942-1945. So you sir caught red-handed with your baseless politically-motivated accusations. This isn't the first time. RJ CG 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD page is not a good place for content dispute as such. So I recommend you to stop discussing different theories of Estonian history here and concentrate on the article instead. Suva 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nazism, btw, is not a definition of nationality, but one of views. All nations big enough have some small group of people, that the rest are deeply ashamed for, that are Nazis by views. Even Your nation has them. Condemning a whole nation for the actions of a few is a sign of phobia against that nation. Also, nationality is not a matter of choice, views are. --Alexia Death 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was Soviet blood that destroyed 80 percent of the German army, a remarkable feat that the current "Western Alliance" in its more disingenuous moments conveniently forgets. Estonia for its own part was such an enthusiastic member of the Third Reich that Hitler allowed it to form its own Waffen SS regiment, the Narwa, under Reichs-Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler. Contrary to historical revisionists, this regiment was not formed of conscripts. It was called "Freiwilligen" because it was formed of volunteers. The war crimes of the Waffen SS are well documented. In 2002, the "compassionate" Estonian government, claiming insufficient evidence, refused to prosecute Estonian veterans accused of crimes against humanity by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In 2005, Estonians attempted to put up a statue to their soldiers who fought under Germany. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*I'd have some words about this but they have all been told before and you have not heard, so theres really no point. You are blind to any other POV than yours and incapable of understanding the struggles of small nations. I guess thats just who you are. We will continue this where it is APPROPRIATE. I have let you troll me long enough.--Alexia Death 12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate talk? I am sorry, but it was not intended as such. It is clear fact that there are more people who hate russians than those who hate Estonians. Why? Because there are more russians than estonians, russia is definitely more well known. Would be saying "More people hate Microsoft Windows than SkyOS?" hate talk aswell? More reasons to hate? Russia has been and is involved in several wars. Even if they were for good cause, war always "steps on someones toes". Estonian current military activity is connected solely with peace missions (which also unfortunately sometimes step on someones toes, but clearly on smaller scale). Suva 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fayssal and others, and as per my standards expressed in similar cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No keeps sufficiently refute the allegation of OR. GizzaDiscuss © 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not DaGizza, but as for my part, it would require a scholarly book or multiple peer-reviewed articles which investigate the phenomenon throughout the history, as presented. Without scholarly research, it's just sour grapes in violation of WP:SYN. Duja► 12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nomination is in bad faith, and the article is still young. (Even now, it hasn't reached its first 24 hours!) Ghirlandajo's remarks attest to the reality of the phenomenon, and various content improvements are already being worked towards. Digwuren 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I was the first to point that out, above, but I won't (and can't) claim copyright. As for the "bad faith nom", even if it were one (which I don't presume), it's completely irrelevant as to its merit, based on policies. Duja► 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement doesn't address any of the issues raised about this article. The issue is not whether "Estophobia" exists. The issue is whether it is the topic of scholarly discourse anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the first: I unfortunately don't read a word of Estonian. But it sure doesn't look like a scholarly text. What is it? -- about the second: that's a text that mentions, in passing, that some people were hostile against Estonians at some point in time. That doesn't make "Estophobia" an academic field of study. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since Piotrus worked hard to save the anti-Polonism series of articles/categories from deletion, I think it was only natural for him to vote the way he did. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This phobia series require massive cleanup. Hostilities between nations are all over the history. Some of them very notable and long established, especially against colonial empires, and the articles have right to be. But they must be heavily cleaned. For example Francophobia which I looked for comparison with the discussed one, is a horrible collection of orangles and apples. Of all, Estophobia is the worst one, evidently dictated by the recent events liberally collecting each and every stupid thing published in Russian newspapers and rumors (!). Everyone knows that newspapers are not source of wisdom. Sensationalism arises not from ethnic hatred, but from desire to make money. The article vigorously denies various "accusations" while the reasonably NPOV article History of Russians in Estonia ssay that there are solid reasons under these accusations. The article twists facts and misquotes sources (out of good faith, I may assume this was the problem of translation). In summary, the authors of the article have heavy conflict of interest and incapable to present the history in neutral manner. At the same time, I may point out the possible way to salvage some material from this text: the article Estonian-Russian relations may be a good place to provide a balanced POV. Mukadderat 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. Practically all contents of this article are related to Russo-Estonian relations; I guess that was the point of the exercise. This is a legitimate topic, and seems to have been studied fairly extensively. GBooks GScholar, here. I'm ready to change my mind if the article is renamed and refactored along those lines, and POV issues sorted out. I admit that any article name in the form of Foophobia or Anti-Foo sentiment causes a knee-jerk reaction by myself. Maybe a wider Russo-Baltic relations are called for, if the issues in all three Baltic countries are similar (which is my superficial impression) Duja► 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't descent on Digwuren's level and respond to his childish accusations and personal attacks. I would not suggest what to do with this article, although I consider it (1)frivolous and (2) good illustration for "Rusophobia" page (when every critical comment from Russian media met with "hate speech" accusations and even mere act of watching Russian TV is viewed by Estonian governmental think tank as anti-Estonian[1]). I would just comment that we are still dialing with Korps!Estonia. Again, content dispute involving any of Korps! members (Digwuren, Suva, Alexia Death, Sander Säde, Marting associated member) attracts immediate attention of others. And again Korps' members are only ones who support POV. Just one vote to Keep from wikipedian not associated with Korps! and numerous votes to delete from unrelated wikipedians (although I can suspect some of them were attracted to this page through edit logs of Korps! members). RJ CG 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research & synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Nice to see yet another article that, instead of dealing with how a certain phenomenon is analyzed in serious publications, jumps directly to give examples collected by the article's writers of "how much those mean people hate us" :-) Please, keep nominating all the "X-phobias". - Ev 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that each "phobia" must be judged by its own merits. What these articles need is massive cleanup, similar to the current campaign against "trivia" garbage sections in articles. Mere collections of facts must be mercilessly deleted unless these facts are quoted in reputable sources in support of the subject. Otherwise it is OR and POV pushing. Mukadderat 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course. The problem is that a cleanup of these articles under normal circumstances has proven difficult and time-consuming, not to mention the constant baby-sitting they require afterwards. A nomination for deletion can force a drastic change: compare "Serbophobia" before and after its June 2007 nomination (although since then, after over a dozen reverts, the old stuff is creeping back into the text). - Regards, Ev 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. VanTucky (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Anti-Estonianism or other merely descriptive term, because the present title fails as a neologism and the references are not about it per se. I looked at a number of the references and did not find the term in them. The article, as is, is poorly written, and a series of "TBA" headings would be better kept in the creator of the article's sandbox until he/she finds acceptable sources satisfying WP:A to use in writing them. The references do make the case that there are people who do not like Estonia and Estonians, and that there is and has been oppression and harrassment. This is hardly surprising, as there are people who do not like and who harrass, attack or kill Israelis, Arabs, Mexicans, people from the United States, the French, the Irish, the British, Asians, Jews, Christians, Moslems, Gypsies, Germans, Russians, Pakistanis, Indians, (and Indians of various castes), Native Americans, African Americans, African Africans who are White, African Africans who are Black, and many other definable racial/ethnic/national/religious groups. Wikipedia is not paper, so if there are multiple reliable and independent sources (such as presented for this article) with substantial coverage to show a history of hatred, discrimination, harrassment and prejudice against any such group, then it is not original research or synthesis to write an article based on those sources. Edison 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hideous POV-pushing mass of WP:OR#SYN. A neologism to boot. If someone wants to write Estonian-Russian relations from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective, that might work. But this article needs to be scrapped. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you - or someone else - finally show where the article is POV or WP:OR#SYN? So far there has been no examples of those, just accusations - which seem to be actually estophobia... Sander Säde 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you - or someone else - show that any of the sources cited in the article talk about anti-Estonian discrimination as a generalized phenomenon? So far, the sources look like they're talking about individual incidents. Since "estophobia" appears to be a neologism, I doubt anyone's written about something of this name, but I'm happy to reconsider if sources can be brought forward. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Estophobia seems like a real phenomenon, we just have to avoid this becoming a flamewar. I would fill in the Finland subsection if I had more experience of anti-Estonian attitudes in Finland. Anti-Swedish and anti-Russian attitudes are commonplace, but I haven't experienced anti-Estonian attitudes. JIP | Talk 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, and please don't start articles "under construction" in article space, Digwuren. Work on it in a text editor or your userspace until it's fit to be moved to mainspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that readers are supposed to be able to look up a concept and read about it without having to make allowances for the article being "young". (How're they supposed to know it is, anyway? Readers don't click on History tabs.) Wikipedia pages may be undeveloped stubs, that's quite aceptable, but an (in conception) long article full of empty sections isn't something we show readers. Nor is a word with 22 footnotes after it! If I'd come upon this article without it being already on AfD, I would have deleted those section headings at the least. So, what's the "Under construction" template for, then? It's for what it says: "Expansion" or "major re-vamping" of an already existing article. Please use it for that purpose only. While I personally doubt that an article on this concept is capable of becoming encyclopedic, why not give Digwuren a chance to show it can be? Digwuren, I suggest that working on a user subpage is probably preferable to a text editor in this case, as it's then possible to put on an explicit invitation for others to help, in case they're too polite to edit in your space. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This proposal has merit. I will support this. However, for sake of clarity, it was me who tagged the page as under construction, as RJ CG (talk · contribs) started actively to edit the article while it was obvious that Digwuren was working on it. I thought it to be easiest way to allow him to work in peace even for a little while - especially since I was sure that our estophobes will nominate the article for deletion as soon as they notice it - and, as you can see, it happened. Sander Säde 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's a safe bet that the vast majority of folks voting delete on this article are not "estophobes." Those kinds of implications don't help the case here at all... Myself, for example, I voted "weak delete," and to be honest I don't know anything about Estonia (except that it was a former Soviet republic), I know nothing about its history or culture, I could not recognize an Estonian person on the street.. hell, it'd probably take me ten minutes just to find Estonia on a map. So I cannot possibly be an "estophobe." I voted delete because I don't think this article meets Wikipedia policies, not because I hate Estonians. Heh, I wouldn't even know how to insult Estonians even if I wanted too! heh... --Jaysweet 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposal by Bishonen to move this article to Digwuren's user space is very reasonable. Fundamentally, a good-quality article about Estophobia can be created, but in the present shape the article can't be left in the main article space. --BeautifulFlying 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your rant above is a classic case of Estophobia. I don't know where you get the "one third" from, only 9% of people residing in Estonia lack citizenship, and that figure is decreasing every year. The remainder are either Russian or Estonian citizens. Those who naturalised and became Estonian citizens pledged alligence to the Estonian constitution, with the full knowledge that it proclaims the Estonian language as the one and only official language. Of those who gained Russian citizenship, I don't know any country that allows foreign citizens to vote in national elections. So I really don't know what your problem is with Estonia is. Martintg 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it does come down to And you are lynching Negroes after all? And, as you know by reading those articles, they can participate in local elections. Estonian government and non-profit organizations are continuously helping Russophones to get citizenship - such as making language exams easier, free language courses, summer camps for both Russophones and Estonian children and much more. But, well, you may take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink... Sander Säde 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, such WP:POINT as this superior example of estophobia? Sander Säde 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well one can always move keep it in his userspace. We have seen worse, a LOT worse entries in userspaces. --Kuban Cossack 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We might, but I most certainly have never seen worse racism then [[Estonians|FASCIST PIGS]] in userspace, as it was in your page. Sander Säde 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate what aspect of "nationalist pride" has been wounded? The only "wounded nationalist pride" I see here is wounded Russian pride over removal of a statue to a military cemetery. Martintg 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not it. The wounded nationalist pride playing rôle at this AFD is about somebody being worshipful enough while writing about Mother Russia. As for the article; the only way of interpreting what it is now, or what it has been within the few last days, as that, is — as much as I can figure — psychological projection. Digwuren 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. There is a trove of sources, but the article itself is stubbish and does a poor job of sourcing any of its claims (all of the sources are for just one sentence). A summary of the Bronze Soldier controversy makes up the bulk of the article, but we already have an article for it. I'm reserving judgement because of the "under construction" sign. If someone manages to write a coherent, filled-out article with good use of sources, my vote will be "keep". Esn 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article seems to be well-researched and has enough credible sources to merit at least the right to exist. The first picture in the article is a very eloquent reason why this topic has a merit. An attempt to destroy and delete it shows more of a personal attitude rather than an attempt to treat the subject fairly. --Hillock65 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Anti-Estonian sentiment. I see no reason for deleting an article about existing fenomenon. Oth 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Rename to Anti-Estonian sentiment. --Yakudza 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above. This phenomenon objectively exists, so we should pay enough attention, despite strong opposition to it here --Fire.Tree 22:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral In principle, I'd support deletion of all OR, POV and propaganda articles to make WP a cooperative project rather that a playground of ethnic conflicts. But we have to apply the same standards to all articles like this. So, I invite everybody who supported the deletion of this article to vote also here.--Mbuk 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that Anti-Estonian sentiments is a better title, I agree that in the current state the article is incomplete, but I don't agree with those claiming that the subject is not valid. It is as valid as Rusophobia taking into account the size of Estonia and Russia. I can see anti-estonian sentiments being mentioned in the J of Political Science and Politics back in 1991, and repeatedly mentioned in the recent articles in the J of Baltic Studies.[40]. While the very recent outbreak of Estophobia (due to the removal of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn) didn't find its way into academic sources, the sufficiently reliable Russian media sources (TV, newspapers) have been specifically showing anti-estonian sentiments across Russia. The single facts (boycott of Estonian goods, renaming initiatives, protests near estonian diplomatic missions) were deliberately shown by the media as an illustration of the response of Russians to the monument removal.--Novelbank 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a patological hatred, as the proposed term implies. It is a regular reaction upon an action considered a national insult. Regardless occopation/liberation dispute, a simple Russian soldier with his blood drowned the Nazis. It was not a monument to Stalin. It was not a grave of a Communsit boss. This grave digging was an act of hatred towards a simple Russian person persished during cleansing of Europe from brown infestation. A very nice twist: an example of Russophobia is turned into Estophobia. Anyway, the problem is not nonexistence of the phenomenon. the problem is nonencycloedic treatment. A bunch of examples when some bozos call other people names does not make it article. `'Míkka 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting and actual subject, Wikipedia deserves an article on it. For those who want to userfy this article... Don't the "under construction" tags exist for a reason? I would recomment waiting a bit until this article is cleaned up before deciding on whether to delete it or not, but this subject has notability. Wikipedia shouldn't try keeping a narrow scope of subjects. After all, this is an encyclopedia and it should cover every subject the readers are interested in. Since some readers are also writers, I'm sure a lot of people will improve the article in the next few days. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Yakudza & Hillock65.--Ahonc (Talk) 11:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Estophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--SefringleTalk 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russofobia? I think you voted for the wrong article? Sander Säde 06:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It remarks when it discusses a false accusation. Surely you don't mean to imply that accusations' falsity should be the default option, and it should be pointed out when some turns out to be true? Digwuren 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I didn't quite get you. I wrote that in order to call an accusation false you have to have a proof of it. Furthermore the very existence of some of the accusations and their connection with Estophobia are not sourced. Alæxis¿question? 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Western world, it's generally accepted that in matters of accusation, the burden of proof is on the accuser. (Remember also the Scottish verdict.) Even so, the falsity of some of these accusations has been proven.
As these accusations are now unreferenced I don't know who made them and, consequently, what kind of standards should be applied to them. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your notion regarding the connection not being solidly sourced at some cases appears to have merit, though, and is certainly an area of further development. Digwuren 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I see no way of proving this connexion by legitimate sources in the near future (especially considering that no such term as Estophobia is used now in scholarly sources :)). That's why I've voted for deletion. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the article: yes, there is definitely plenty of hate to go around. Hate for and by Estonians is a notable topic. In fact, at times the whole nations seems to be acting like a hate group. This hate has however nothing to do with discrimination or racism, but originates from animosity between Soviet Estonians in the Estonian SSR and the Estonian exile community and the Estonian Government in Exile. The fact that this hatred boils over to Wikipedia in the form of this article, its AfD nomination (this page), and even to a revert war on the nomination's talk page, is proof only of the fact that Estonians have so far been unable to reach a national consensus between those loyal to to Soviet Estonia and those waging the Cold War in the exile community (and often accused of collaboration with the Nazis).
If this article is to stay (under a different name), it should also present the factual (and nonfactual) basis for the anti-Estonian sentiment. In fact, we may need to repeat every word of Soviet propaganda against the Estonian exile community. (I do not think this is what the articles creator had in mind.)
Now, if I may, I will pour some more gasoline on this flamefest.
  1. A story I only heard a few weeks ago: The Baltic exile community in Sweden has been very successful. Many Balts own large apartments on Stockholm's prestige neighborhood of Östermalm. It seems to be a widely held belief in Sweden, that these apartments were financed by gold carried by the refugees over the Baltic Sea at the bottom of their suitcases. Naturally, the story goes, this gold consisted mainly of gold teeth extracted from Jewish Holocaust victims, executed by Estonian Nazi collaborators. (I think I may have traced the factual origins of the story, but more on that later.)
  2. Many leaders of the Estonian exile community were Nazi collaborators, many were even key figures in organizing the Holocaust in Estonia. One notable example is Ain-Ervin Mere, founder of the Eesti Vabadusliit (Estonian Liberation Movement?) During Nazi rule he was personally responsible for selekting German and Czechoslovakian Jews for immediate gold-teeth extraction, or for rape in orgies arranged by his henchmen (and delayed execution).
Not all Estonian exiles were Nazis. The problem is, that unlike other European nations, the Estonian exile community has never gone through denazification. I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were (uncivil comment removed). -- Petri Krohn 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author of the above comments himself admits that he is pouring gasoline on a fire here, and so is obviously trolling, I would urge all editors to think carefully before responding. Reading Wikipedia:What is a troll may be useful. Balcer 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trolling, but you are right, I would not appreciate yet another trollfest started by my comment. The reason I have included the inflammatory material, is to point out what kind of stuff needs to be included if this "article" is to stay. If you cannot handle this, then DELETE. -- Petri Krohn 01:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As to why I am presenting my possible contribution to the article here, and not in the article itself? The creator of the article has been systematically reverting my every Estonia related contribution since he "joined" Wikipedia in the wake of the Bronze Soldier controversy. I do not expect to be able to edit the article, unless he is banned from Wikipedia. I do not think our Russian editors have much of a change either. In its present state, the article is irreparably damaged by ownership. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know Petri, your support of Ghirla's classification of votes along ethnic lines [41], and your latest outburst above, demonstrates to all here what you really are, no matter how much you attempt to spin it afterwards in some desperate damage control effort. Why do you harbour such strong hate towards Estonians? You seem to believe there is world wide conspiracy of emigre Estonians lurking in Wikipedia. What next, a claim there exists a Protocol of the Elders of Estonian Exiles guiding their activities? Smells like Estophobia. Martintg 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not feed the troll. Small lies, big lies, statistics and Petri Krohn. Sander Säde 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a neologism, if not an outright protologism. First, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Second, the discussion, such as it could be would focus on historical currents. Since this is a brand new coinage with fewer citations that Slartybartfast, there isn't much that is possible there. Instead, we can have, and do have, a nice bit of WP:BATTLEFIELD going on. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores, for illuminating the world about the ultimate reality of "those people," or fixing the world. It's an encyclopedia, and this article cannot be encyclopedic and must not be lexical. Geogre 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably every nation and country in the world has experienced prejudice and hostility at some point, and the trend towards creating articles about each instance of this seems to be almost inevitable on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the increasing number of entries in Template:Discrimination sidebar. Still, so far we do not have an article devoted to discrimination against every country or nation, in fact of the 200 or so countries on the planet, only about 15% have a "Hatred of ..." article, in other words 85% don't. So, it seems to me that at least at this point in time it has to be shown convincingly why this article is notable enough to exist. Less than 50 Google hits total for "estophobia" does not inspire confidence about its notability. If the situation changes in the future, the article may be created again. Balcer 05:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now because it appears to be a well-documented phenomenon, but with the proviso that it undergoes substantial improvement in the next couple of months and that the main editors seriously consider a rename to "Anti-Estonian sentiment". If the article shows little progress by then, I may reconsider, but for now, let's not delete evidence of what does appear a noteworthy subject. Biruitorul 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I am limited by the fact that I can read neither Estonian nor Russian, those are weaknesses that most of the potential readers of the article will have. I can't check the references and, even if I could, I would have no basis on which to assess the credibility of any one source from any other. I can tell you that, in English, the only "Estophobia" of which I have ever heard is in this article, in its talk page and on this AfD page. The more I read the article, -and yes, it has been re-writtten, but my comments still stand- the more it feels like someone (or ones) needs to make this collection of disparate idiocies into a single, big thing, a serious sociological phenomenon, though to what purpose, I am not sure. Does it make what may be legitimate grievances more believable to group them under a silly neologism, and one that almost no one will understand without a gloss? I am suspicious of all opinion polls, and even more so when nothing of the pollsters, their methods or the purpose of the poll is explained for the average reader. Newspaper articles, even from the most highly respected journalists, are also suspect until time has passed, and many other "eyes and ears" have assessed the reports. There is a definite "in crowd" feeling in the article, in the references and in all those heated discussions. Certainly, no one is trying to make the information accessible to the English readers of Wikipedia or to make the argument appear to be anything more than name-calling. (I am not being chavinistic here. You will note that I consider it a weakness that I have only one language, but it is the language in which this article purports to present itself as an explanation of a phenomemon, the name of which, at the very least, an Anglophone interested in Estonia, for example, should recognize.) I am sorry to say but it reads like a rant, a soap-box listing of indignities, real or imagined, designed to inflame but not to explain. It seems that a lot of the countries, willingly or unwillingly once a part of the USSR, have serious cultural, social, historical, legal, and every other kind of difficulty imaginable in reconnecting with their own histroy and in relating to today's Russia; the reverse is also true, it would appear. Perhaps that is the phenonmenon that someone, somewhere may write about and Wikipedia may then report upon. For the moment, this is a collection of "did not" "did so", though more elegantly phrased, that does not make a topic for an article. Bielle 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

It's nice to know you're here

AfDs for this article:
It's nice to know you're here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

{{{text}}}bibliotheque (Talk) 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ International Centre for Defence Studies: [tt_news=4&tx_ttnews[backPid]=71&cHash=f1a5f211bc Russia’s Involvement in the Tallinn Disturbances]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_11&oldid=143949895"