Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 25

Guide to deletion

December 25

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Rasor Elementary School

Delete. This is a non-notable elementary school in Plano, Texas. I am from Plano and can think of no reason why Rasor, or most any elementary school anywhere, is notable. The article has only been edited by two users: the creator, who just registered recently and only has 2 page edits, and an anon IP that wikified some things. -Scm83x 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Merge the small info still in this article to John Henry Rasor, per points put forth by Rebelguys2 (talk · contribs). -Scm83x 09:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If edited it too and I'm from Georgia and I have loads of edits. It's a nice article. Golfcam 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Number one, there's a category for elementary schools in Texas, and number two, I wish I had this newfangled wikipedia thing when I was a little girl, I would have written about my school. Endomion 02:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the schools in the elementary schools in Texas are K-12 schools (and are in all 3 categories elem middle and high), had a bombing/suicide occur there, or have multiple famous graduates. Please look at how much Rasor sticks out in this list at Category:Elementary schools in Texas. I see absolutely no reason why Rasor is notable. None. -Scm83x 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. I removed some non-relevant material. --Quarl 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Please don't list schools, as there is a sufficent body of voters on AfD that will vote to keep any school article. See WP:SCH. It's not notable, but there's been enough debate on AfD on the subject already.--Prosfilaes 02:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per precedent already set for all schools. Jcuk 02:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you cite the precedent? Where is it said that any article with school in it can be kept automatically? -Scm83x 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Precedent implies practice not a rule. There will probably never be a policy which says that because some users won't stand for its introduction, but school articles don't get deleted anyway. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a nice article. It just needs to be expanded. -- JJay 02:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already given. Bhoeble 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Strong Delete. Even though I'm a 1997 Rasor Elementary School alumnus myself, I absolutely cannot see any use in keeping this article. As for the content, there is very little information regarding the school itself. Most of the information is about John Henry Rasor, his family, his properties, and related developments in the history of Plano, Texas. Sure, it's a nice backstory, but it has nothing to do with the school. We don't stick all our information about Todd Beamer under an article about the post office that was named after him. We don't put Martin Luther King's information under an article about one of the many streets named in his honor. If this information is relevant, it should stand on its own in another article. With regards to relevancy to Rasor Elementary, all but the first three and last sentences should be removed.

Those voting "Keep" will then argue that the content can always be changed, but that we shouldn't delete the article itself. I've seen the massive debates about school notability, and I normally side with those who want to keep as many articles as possible. I usually hesitate to delete most school-related articles. However, it's important to note the structure of Plano's school system - there are 45, unindividual, non-notable primary schools, with more being built all the time. The secondary schools are big enough to justify an article, but this article simply does not - think 45 articles with no notable information except their location and founding date, unless you want to include the fact that, say, Mendenhall collected the most aluminum cans in such and such year.

Others want to go on "precedents" or "implied practices." The implied practice on Wikipedia is not to have a separate article on individual schools in a massive, bureaucratic school district. If you search for directories of schools on Wikipedia, the best listing you'll get is one of New York's high schools. Would we possibly want a listing of each of the hundreds and hundreds of New York City's primary schools? No! Primary schools are largely nonnotable when you single out one in a massive web of dozens or hundreds of completely standardized buildings.

Finally, when we look at the category it's listed in (primary schools in Texas), there's nothing that allows Rasor to stand out on its own. There's been no bombings or shooting, it doesn't cater towards a special group of kids, there's been no long history of tradition - it's not even unique within its own school district!

I believe that most of the school-related articles on Wikipedia should be kept. But there is a limit to me leaving a "Keep" comment when something is this nonnotable and the content is this offtopic. -Rebelguys2 06:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with all of the positive feedback above. Plano is one of the few places I know where all of the schools are named for local heroes/pioneers/etc. so it would be nice to know about the namesakes. Maybe people will write about the others as well? If a student at say George Washington High School or Martin Luther King Middle School (i.e. those who are at the New York City schools mentioned above, most of which are simply named after numbers anyway) can look up more info about his school's namesake, why can't a student at Rasor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I just looked at some of the other local school district's articles and there are several schools that have their own entries without even saying who the namesake is - simply stating BLANK is a high school in the BLANK Independent School District. The private school articles (check out Greenhill's) also don't add much. The Rasor article does say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.210.234 (talk • contribs)

I went ahead and struck out one of the two preceding "Keep"s, as they came from the same person one after another. Regardless, they were unsigned by an anonymous IP user, so the votes technically shouldn't count. I'll go ahead and respond, regardless:

Your argument fits well with my vote for deletion. You're saying that a student should be able to look up the namesake of their school, which is precisely why I forked the information to John Henry Rasor as you were writing your comment. The article about the person should stay at the person's own article - not one about a school. Why don't we create an article about "Rasor Boulevard," then, and stick his biography in there? We don't because it's irrelevant and in the wrong place.

Finally, you argue with other examples of school-related articles. Greenhill school, for example, is notable because it is "the region’s first co-educational independent school." It isn't much of an article, especially with lines like this, "Philip Kafka - Graduated in 2005 with a major in women studies and a minor in throwing parties.," but it has at least a very minor degree of notability. -Rebelguys2 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with John Henry Rasor, per arguments set forth by Rebelguys2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rasor Elementary School at this point is almost a stub as material relevant to John Henry Rasor is already at that article. Merging is tantamount to deletion. Keep and don't merge. --Quarl 09:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per arguments above. Unmerge later if, by some tragedy, this school becomes subject to major media news coverage. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:25, Dec. 25, 2005
• Keep and Merge to district if/when article created per WP:SCH. --Rob 13:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Proposing to merge an article about a school into an article about a person shows a complete disregard for the category system. CalJW 15:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see how merging this article shows a complete disregard for the category system. When this article was first put up for deletion, it mostly contained information about the person, John Henry Rasor, rather than the school. After the massive debates at WP:SCH, many contributors now automatically vote keep to school articles. I am often an inclusionist when it comes to school articles myself.

As a result, it simply comes down to the debate about whether we should delete schools - NOT a debate on how categories work in Wikipedia. WP:SCH argues for the merging of this article. I've followed many of the recent talk pages in WP:SCH and Schoolwatch, and they often agree on keeping high school articles as they are. However, the custom is to merge schools like this into the district page. You will see that many of the often knee-jerk "Keep" voters here have agreed that this article should be merged with the district article - this is all in accordance with WP:SCH and all of the customs we have seen on Wikipedia thus far. -Rebelguys2 20:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebelguys2, you may disagree with the votes of others, but you needn't insult them. Please consider being WP:CIVIL. --Rob 21:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments, and have struck out the offending line. In the heat of this debate, I let the unintentional holier-than-thou attitude in the back of my head through. ;) Again, I apologize, as I am rarely one to intend to insult people. I hope we can continue this debate civilly. -Rebelguys2 21:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with a page about the district. Raleigh, North Carolina is a good example of how to handle this. JDoorjam 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Plano, Texas under the Education section. Redirect existing page to that section.--Aleron235 16:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone wants to merge to one of the above suggestions, I'm cool with that too. JYolkowski // talk 18:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge into John Henry Rasor and smerge into Plano, Texas. I don't see anything that makes it particularly notable among the huge collection of primary schools out there. --Idont Havaname
• Keep, per precedent. Perfectly reasonable school article. I wish they all were this good. -Colin Kimbrell 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this article is good erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 10:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons established by Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Suggestions_for_next_week so it should hopefully be expanded. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with district or city per WP:SCH. Keep if expanded.Gateman1997 23:47, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was Speedy deletion as CSD A7 JoJan 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Orcs of Dominion

Seems to be a NN association of players on a certain server in a MMORPG.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for the same reason a chatroom article or blog article would get zapped. Endomion 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 05:30, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per apparent failure of WP:WEB. Move to Speedy delete, under new, shiny CSD A-7 extension to encompass unremarkable groups. I believe a fifteen member MMORPG gaming clan qualifies. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. Thesquire 08:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily as a gamer guild vanity of type A7. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:28, Dec. 25, 2005
• Speedy delete. Non-notable clan --Quarl 10:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I tagged is for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Lets see what happens. Movementarian 14:05, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was, well, I think it's a delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indianpad

Not in the top 100k sites on Alexa.. it seems to me the site is not popular; being a recently-created Digg clone is not an indication of being notable enough much to merit an article, IMO. --Mysidia (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree with what was said above, plus it appears to be advertising as the user that created the page has only one edit... and it was the Indianpad page. Deskana 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, It seems enclopedic. Luka Jačov 01:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a teensy blog with bandwidth problems. Endomion 02:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is there no Alexa data at all, but there are only 7 Google results, 3 of which are part of the site itself. --Joel7687 08:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Quarl 10:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Zookman12 19:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination -- Ganeshk 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per not notable enough VegaDark 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with many a Christmas wish. gren グレン 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - NeoJustin 05:26, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems it was deleted earlier & has been re-created. It is a blatant Spam with 13 links from 1 page. The whois shows it is registered under a fictitous non-existing address/telephone.

Whois Address is 11, Indian Street Whois Tele no is +1.1111111111 Fax: +1.1111111111 JimmyNet 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was slow and steady delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thompson Gothfraidh

vanity, not notable Ronabop 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Article admits his notability is self-proclaimed. Endomion 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Drmandrake 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google results outside of Wikipedia. --Joel7687 08:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity --Quarl 10:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 14:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity VegaDark 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Preaky 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per speedy reason number one. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:28, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was speedily deleted - the accurate way to put this is, patent nonsense :) FCYTravis 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Galaxy of Terror

The kind way to put this is original research. Endomion 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete has carried the field. Note that most objections stem from the original researchiness of the current article, or the belief that the article should not stand on its own. I see no reason why a similar list (with references) couldn't be placed in the Star Wars article if anyone feels like making the effort. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Impacts of Star Wars in films (was List of films imitating Star Wars)

Hopelessly POV attack list. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The Wikipedia articles of the listed films indicate they were so-and-so's answer to Star Wars. Endomion 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

imiatating is a necessarily pejorative word. If it were "Impacts of Star Wars in film" that would be encyclopedic, as the word impacts shows that the matter is not concrete- not to mention that the article talks about older movies being re-released when starwars became popular. And hey, I just changed the title, and am editing the introduction to make it clear that the article does not mean that these films were made soley to be like starwars. None of these actions is an endorsement of this article.Lotusduck 02:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Lotusduck, but you should not assume bad faith, it so happens that I've seen and love almost all of these films. I do think that being rigorously NPOV in this case actually obscures the historical phenomenon that is being brought up. Endomion 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Documents copy-cat aspect of film business. Needs a new title and better introduction. Message for nom- nothing is hopeless. -- JJay 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Nom could have left more than ten minutes to editor to work on article, or as a matter of courtesy left message on talk page. -- JJay 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say that, but having the article nominated so quickly took all the wind out of my sails and I didn't care anymore after that. The old biter bit routine I guess. Endomion 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry you were treated like that. Certain noms seem to enjoy treating everyone as vandals by tagging articles as fast as they can. They assume bad faith on the part of the editor and make no effort to explain their thinking prior to adding the AfD template. Instead of weeding out poor or borderline articles from the site, this type of approach mainly succeeds in driving potential valuable contributors away. -- JJay 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Can merge any encyclopaedic info into the main Star Wars article(s), but this article is not itself encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be original research; and if there are reputable sources for this, this absolutely does not need its own article, and should be a footnote to the main Star Wars article. Flyboy Will 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree - original 'research', per nomination. Drmandrake 04:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, and expand. There's no question that Star Wars has had an impact on film. -- MisterHand 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Parts of the title are notable enough to be on Wikipedia (as Impact of Star Wars). This article isn't. --Apostrophe 08:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research doesn't belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 08:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into main Star Wars article Jakiah 10:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lotusduck. Scoo 10:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - May be OR, and anything usable should be merged to Star Wars -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In it's current form the article merely lists science fiction movies released after Star Wars claiming that there was an impact. Whilst I agree that Star Wars had an impact on later films, it didn't start the craze per se. It could just as easily be argued that the original War of the Worlds film, or even the original radio broadcast, started the science fiction craze that spawned Star Wars, Star Trek and the like. Also the lack of credible sources on the subject may prove that the article can never be successfully recreated. Movementarian 14:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Star Wars. Article title verges on idiocy. Xoloz 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and none of the "findings" are substantiated. As a list, it's just POV, and if a film was influenced by Star Wars, or made a response to Star Wars' box office success, the influence should be mentioned on the film's page. --Pc13 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands the article provides no references or proof that these movies were in fact influenced by Star Wars at all, and thus constitutes original research. Zunaid 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User:Zunaid is correct. Preaky 23:27, 28 December 2005 (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 of the debate was speedy delete, but deleting admin forgot to close. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Rudy filippini

This article is a hoax. Delete Golfcam 01:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - hoax, the "lack of bearded clam" is the first giveaway. Endomion 01:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - bad hoax. Drmandrake 05:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete ludicrous. --MisterHand 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. --Joel7687 08:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Hoax. Are people just inserting random nonsense here to see how long it lasts? --Wingsandsword 08:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax --Quarl 10:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. There is not a provision under CSD for speedy deletion of hoaxes. Movementarian 14:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a CSD for patent nonsense however, which this clearly is. --MisterHand 15:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • CSD G1: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I don't think this qualifies as patent nonsense either, if I am interpreting CSD G1 correctly. Movementarian 15:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN JDoorjam 16:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please enter votes that make sense to others unfamiliar with your acronyms.--Aleron235 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Added wikilink to help with the confusion. Movementarian 17:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • :: ahem :: "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense" -- that is, exile it to BJAODN, the Elba of Wiki hoaxes. JDoorjam 17:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • with due respect, Aleron235, BJAODN is mentioned near the top of Wikipedia: Articles for deletion as one of the accepted options for deletion nominations. BL kiss the lizard 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--Aleron235 16:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely ridiculous.--ViolinGirl^♪ 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This must be made up... all of it... Zookman12 19:37, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was looks like a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Quoth, "Since World War II this has been a popular but unofficial addition to Jewish Talmudic Law." There is one hit for the phrase itself, and the minimal contents could very easily be merged into the Hitler article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This is a precipitous nomination that ignores my edit note: I have been having computer problems and need to reboot frequently. There are over 26,000 Google hits for the phrase as stated this way [1]. This is known by several terms including the 614th commandment, a representative sample of which will appear in the final draft. The original title is a direct quote from Emil Fackenheim, the statement's original framer. I request withdrawal of this nomination. Three sources including National Public Radio are already cited within the article. Durova 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with 613 mitzvot Endomion 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. JDoorjam 16:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE WITH MITZVOT. While this may or may not have merit, it does NOT belong there. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is accually in clear violation of one of them, the one that goes some along the lines of "thou shall not add or remove". 220.233.48.200 23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not merge this neologism with the 613 mitzvot. Fackenhein was not God. IZAK 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please at least wait for the article to be written before calling for a merge. Three of my recent new articles have been featured on "Did you know...?" I'm less than halfway through a first draft. Durova 01:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My only hassle with the article, Durova, is the long name -- no one would type that into the search box to find it. Here is my reasoning: There is an article titled The Eleventh Commandment but not one titled Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican Endomion 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • When it's completed it will have redirects from other formulations such as 614th commandment. People usually paraphrase the concept, which makes the title a challenge. Please assume good faith in the meantime. Durova 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, there you go, start the 614th commandment article, copy all your content to there, and then redirect this article to the new one. Endomion 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • As you can see from a few responses, this evokes strong reactions among the people it concerns most. To address this important subject requires caution and taste. Durova 21:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There is absolutely no such notion in Judaism as a "614 commandment". This was all purely an invention, a neologism, from the mind of Fackenheim, where it should be re-deposited. IZAK 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep Let the guy finish writing his article, and stop pestering him. Wikipedia will not collapse if you give this guy a month to write his article. Travb 02:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment that's what the sandbox is for. --אריאל יהודה
• Keep. Nice approach to obviously important subject. I wish the noms here would start following the wiki commandment- respect thy fellow editors. -- JJay 02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Durova's comments. TerraFrost 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an important and well-sourced subject. Carioca 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but as noted, it's gonna need some redirects and serious linking for anyone to ever find it. I found "Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories", "the 614th commandment is: to survive", "Thou Shalt Not Give Hitler a Posthumous Victory", "Do not grant Hitler a posthumous victory", and the fuller piece of the original text (which would make a *really* bad article title) "...we are first commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. We are commanded, second, to remember in our very guts and bones the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish. We are forbidden, thirdly, to deny or despair of God, however much we may have to contend with Him or with belief in Him lest Judaism perish. We are forbidden, finally, to despair of the world as the place which is to become the kingdom of God, lest we make it a meaningless place in which God is dead or irrelevant and everything is permitted. To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other posthumous victories"..... etc. Ronabop 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My user page links to the other articles I've created. A quick browse should allay your concerns. One step at a time: these categories and links will come after I finish editing quotes from several rabbis, a Catholic professor of theology, and a Unitarian Universalist minister. To invite readers prematurely - before the sections and quotes are balanced for NPOV - could give deep offense to people who lost family in the Holocaust. Durova 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Flyboy Will 04:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sure the most proper title for this article will be figured out down the line, so I'm not really worried about that. Durova's clearly explained himself enough with regards to the legitimacy of the aritcle and his intention to title it as properly as possible. Some of you guys are simply too trigger-happy with your AfD nominations. - Liontamer 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic. Drmandrake 05:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keepper Liontamer. Let's give the article some time to develop. Movementarian 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment First draft done. Getting some rest before the tweaks and proofreading. I welcome feedback now. Regards, Durova 10:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article seems to be underway, keep as per Flyboy & others. Scoo 11:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, extremely well-written article so far, and a work in progress.--Aleron235 16:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it can not be added to one of God's commandments. But throught the power of the Sunheadren, it could be added to the 7 Rabbincal commandments. I am willing to change my vote if this was change to reflect this. 220.233.48.200 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is one reason why the title is not 614th commandment although Rabbi Fackenheim did propose it by that name. The introduction explicitly states that this is unofficial. If you can find a reference that adds it to the 7 Rabbinical commandments I'll add a mention to the article. I welcome suggestions and contribution that would add to balance and NPOV. Would you really delete this important subject over a technical objection? Durova 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: ripped from my reply on my talk page: You misunderstand me, I was saying this couldn't be added to the 613 (thou shall not add or remove). The only thing possible would be to the 7 (I do asume you know what the Sunheadren is). And that in itself is not that possible. It can't even be called unoffical, that is a clear violation of "thou shall not add or remove." This person you call Rabbi, has not got Smicha (Rabbincal Degree). Do you call some wacko on the street doctor, just because he calls himself a doctor and use him as a doctor? Do I hear a no? Why do people make weird exception for the title Rabbi? Don't give a person a title that needs a degree that they don't have. 220.233.48.200 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm mistaken, he was a Reform Rabbi as well as a professor of philosophy. I would gladly change any relevant reference if that proves to be false. Your criticism appears thoughtful and I would like to include it in the article. Please provide a reputable source that I can cite in the text. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has articles on ideas that aren't true such as phrenology. A good Wikipedia article doesn't endorse a controversial idea. It just reports both sides fairly. That's what I've aimed to do - literally overnight - and it's unrealistic to expect perfection so soon. I hope you support this article and help to make it better. Durova 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I found four reputable sources that confirmed he was a rabbi. Please comment on article talk. Durova 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
          • He is just like that wacko on my street that calls himself a doctor, but hasn't got a doctor's degree. He has not got a valid Rabbincal degree. Please refer to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, chapters 63 - "The Prohibition of Deceiving Others with Words and Misleading Others." And look up the laws of what Smicha is in the big Shulchan Aruch. 220.233.48.200 09:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per other keepers above. Logophile 01:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Let's review what we have for a moment - it's a phrase which sums up the thesis of someone's book. Wonderful. Give the author a page, the book a page, but the phrase doesn't deserve an entry. (Heck - it's an admitted neologism for crying out loud). Secondly, the page is filled with things which are blatantly false - Some Jews regard it as an addition to Jewish Talmudic Law. - some Jews also regard Elvis as still alive, but that's not how we do things on WP. There is absolutely no normative claim under which this can be considered an addition to talmudic law. (For those of you don't know, the Talmud was written between 200-550 CE, and as such, it's a little hard for any 20th century person to be able to claim an addition). The claim that it's another mitzvah is also nothing more than a misinformed joke. People frequently like to joke about the ""1th commandment" or the "614th mitzvah", but the truth is it's just that - a joke, or a phrase used to convey the importance of something with no real fact behind it. Take the worthwhile info and merge in Emil Fackenheim, but the rest of this page is poppycock. --אריאל יהודה 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination is about the existance of concept which has been addressed. Title and content concerns can be addressed sepearately. novacatz 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT About the new title Do not give Hitler posthumous victories please don't use copy-and-paste to perform moves (correct me if I'm wrong but it looked like that. Also, it's be better if the move waits for this AFD to be closed, so there wont be dangling pointers (and this debate can still be linked) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, especially to admin I've done a move/redirect to a more NPOV title. Please double check to make sure I've done this in accordance with AfD policy. To other editors: I've added a new section about terminology to include the passage from Deuteronomy that some editors believe Fackenheim violated and I've made other edits to address this unintentional POV issue. POV is not grounds for deletion and I am responding to concerns. Durova 06:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well - I tried. Looks like someone didn't like the idea. By the time I finished composing that comment there were two pages redirecting to each other. I reverted to the last version under the old title, but as soon as this leaves AfD this will move to a new name. Regards, Durova 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm justp pointing that I think it was a copy-and-paste move, not the proper way to preserve article history for gfdl compliance, so I undid it. I'm not opposing the move per se. And as it was stated above, this debate is about the content not the title. Again, I may have been wrong thinking it was a copy and paste move, if so I'll move it back. I'd just prefer to wait until the afd closes (which determines if the content is suitable or not) and then we can use a proper move to the new title. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I wasn't sure it was done correctly. The hasty AfD nomination has made an ambitious article harder. No early draft on this topic can achieve the balance and good taste that the subject demands. User:220.233.48.200 convinced me the title was POV in a way I hadn't anticipated. Durova 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. I've heard of it before. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Emil Fackenheim in condensed form. It has not exactly started living its own life. The intro is quite POV, but that can be corrected. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per JFW. This is not an encyclopaedic topic, it's one man's opinion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per JFW. I have yet to see that this is any more than a proposed commandment. Until it is adopted by a wider body, it's better to be merged into an article discussing the person who proposed it. B.Wind 20:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge per JFW. Alternatively, if there is a wider issue to be addressed, should there be an article called (something like) "Judaism after the Holocaust"? This would be about reaction to the Holocaust by a culture/religion, rather than by Israel (which is already covered) or individual Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyR (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Both by importance and by length, this seems to be worthy of its own article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I could write a 90kb article about my cat, but that doesn't make her worthy of an article.--Sean|Black 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not funny. Unless notable, it will be properly put for deletion. OTOH, if a concept is important and the article describing it is sizable, why merge? Do we keep all articles describing concepts to the biographies of their authors? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to be funny, and you missed my point. The length of the article is not relevant, because, if you put effort into it, you can write a very long article about anything--Sean|Black 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • No, it was you who missed the point. The factor of importance was repeated several times, but you kept ignoring it and changing the subject. For shame. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Huh? "The factor of importance"- the only one mentioning importance was you, and all you said was "it's important". It is, important not disputing that, but it's not important enough for it's own article. It's good information, but it's too detailed- that can be fixed, but once you are able to condense and NPOVify, this would be small enough to merge.--Sean|Black 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per JFW.--Sean|Black 02:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - As per all the others. Daykart 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Either Keep or Merge with Emil Fackenheim, but in either case condense and NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I think this vote has been contaminated by being nominated before the article was even written. Later on, if someone wants to nominate it in its final form, that would be something else. (Just because I like the article doesn't mean it's a good one :-) )--SarekOfVulcan 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and don't merge. I'm the author and I'm finally voting to voice this: the phrase is known among people who cannot name its author. As the citations and examples show, it's a concept that has achieved a currency separate from and beyond the original meanings he attributed to it. Am I the only one who finds it distasteful to see a discussion of Hitler's legacy trivialized by comparison to a housepet? Durova 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's always a redirect. Most people who know this phrase do know about Fackenheim. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I was talking about the article, not it's subject.--Sean|Black 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Let him work some more, then worry about the name etc. For me it's not an issue of trivialization or distaste, if it's notable then it's notable and deserves an article. But, I think that a rename and merge are definitely in the article's future. --Easter Monkey 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Emil Fackenheim. IZAK 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - does not confrom with NPOV at all. Very anti-Semitic and not neutral whatsoever. It can be included in Wikipedia but only if countered with information against the statement. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • POV is not a reason for deletion. If you get this impression then I welcome your contributions to make the article better. The claim of anti-semitic bias is surprising. Could you elaborate? Durova 05:54, 31 December 2005 (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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Gnarly-skull

non-notable band, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - no citations given for notability. Endomion 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, they look to be local/regional gig band level, not yet WP:MUSIC Ronabop 04:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under new A7 guidlines. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark Lutz

Non-notable. TerraFrost 02:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Full prof., author of three books on economics + no reason given for deletion. Is this nom a joke? -- JJay 02:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not laughing. Being a full professor is hardly a reason for having a wikipedia article. None of my professors - many of whom have several books published - have wikipedia articles. Why should this one?

I mean, serriously, the most notable thing about this person is that he's the brother of someone whose notable. Being the sibling of a notable person hardly merits a wikipedia article, and neither does this person.

As for why I didn't give a reason... I thought the non-notability of this article was self-evident. I guess I was wrong.TerraFrost 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: First, I think you should write articles on your professors, because we need more articles on academics. Second, I don't know anything about Professor Lutz's brother, but I do know that Lutz's books are sold through Amazon and B&N [2]. That's good enough for me. -- JJay 03:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose every author who has a book for sale at both Amazon and B&N should have a wikipedia entry, too? Even if no articles currently link to them, as is the case with this article? TerraFrost 10:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That there are links to an article may speak in its favour, although not without exception, but the lack of such links may just mean that the area has so far been overlooked. I am sure there ar more links to any random pokemon figure than to Lutz, but that is just a result of some people's obsession with dedication and hard work on such matters, not an indication that the pokemon character in question is more important to the world at large. u p p l a n d 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If people are passionate enough about something seemingly benign to frequently edit it [3] and link to it, it seems reasonable to assume that people are going to be passionate enough about it to read it. This is not the case with this article. No edits for months on end. Until this vote for deletion.

One of the explanations I've seen thrown around for the John Seigenthaler debacle [4] is that factually inaccurate information tends to go undetected in low traffic articles, and this article, in case you haven't noticed, is a low traffic article. TerraFrost 10:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That is an obvious problem, which at some point (soon I hope) will be remedied by moving new articles, as well as hopefully old articles displaying certain characteristics, into a holding area for fact-checking and cleanup, but it is not really an argument for deletion. Seigenthaler may not be as significant as the whole scandal has made him look, but the reason the article was little edited and the murder allegations went undetected for so long was not his lack of notability. u p p l a n d 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I suppose it doesn't really, now, I believe the above does constitute cause for deletion because I believe that having no article is better than having a factually inaccurate article, and as I've already attempted to show, an article with as little traffic as this one is ammong the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information. It doesn't enrich the experience of most wikipedians (ie. it doesn't add anything), either, due to the low traffic this article garners. So, basically, I don't believe it really adds anything and I believe it actually has the potential to do harm, since it is, as I said, among the most likely of articles to have factually inaccurate information added to it (and since factually inaccurate information can, I believe, be harmful). TerraFrost 23:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should change your reason for nomination from "not notable" to "not enough people edit this article". --Quarl 01:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't "not notable" and "not enough people edit this article" pretty much the same thing? Imho, if and only if an article is notable will it be a hub of activity. This article is not a hub of activity, and thus, pursuant to the previous statement, it isn't notable. Of course, since this guy passes per the "Professor test", I suppose further discussion ought not necessarily take place here, but rather, in the talk page for the "Professor test"... TerraFrost 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, "not enough people edit this article" is very often just a result of systemic bias. I also think your argument confuses notability with current fame or celebrity status. A few weeks ago I created a stubby article on the Collège de Montaigu in Paris, a college where Erasmus of Rotterdam, John Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola were students. Nobody had created that article in the previous five years of Wikipedia's existence, and nobody has edited it after me. Would you say that an educational institution which (at least partly) educated three of the most important individuals of Early Modern European history is non-notable? In a hundred years, Erasmus, Calvin, and Ignatius of Loyola will still be considered among the most important people of European history, while many of the favourite hockey players of today and everything having to do with pokemon is likely to be long forgotten. I'm not saying Mark Lutz is another Erasmus, and I may be wrong about the pokemon, but I think you get my point. While we have a systemic bias favouring Western over non-Western topics, there is also a systemic bias disfavouring many Western classical and academic fields, except in some small areas where we have a few dedicated users. u p p l a n d 09:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

TerraFrost, since you (perhaps still) think the two are the same, but at least some of us don't, I still recommend you change the nomination to avoid the appearance of trying to mislead. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-31 00:28Z

Just add it to your watchlist. -- JJay 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. But I believe this is a stub that should be expanded & Refs cited. Drmandrake 04:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if unsourcing continues. --Apostrophe 08:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a full professor is notable (unless it is at some pretend academic institution like Bob Jones University). Lutz is also the author or editor of several books and numerous articles in academic journals. I think requiring references for every article and edit would be a good idea, but we should not start to selectively purge those articles which are really among the easiest to verify and where verification is practically as easy as nominating on AfD. u p p l a n d 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --Quarl 11:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This needs to be moved to Mark A. Lutz. There are links to a Mark Lutz (actor) and there is also a Mark Lutz who writes computer books. Mark Lutz should be a dab page. u p p l a n d 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - from content on the page - looks like notable enough to me.
• Keep. Passes the "professor test" in WP:BIO. May even qualify as an author depending on whether his books sold more than 5,000 copies. Movementarian 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. My opinion on university professors is undergoing a shift. Wikipedia keeps most porn stars. We keep every elementary school that teaches the alphabet. Why does a professor emeritus with full length published books need to fight for space? Durova 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a good article about a topic that will be interesting and useful to at least a few people. Logophile 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of publications and certainly worth keeping. Stifle 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From WP:BIO: The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. Mark Lutz is a college professor but, in my opinion, he is above average because he is a professor emeritus, so he "can and should be included." — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:32, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was Redirect. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Free kick (American football)

Should be a redirect to Safety (football). This is probably an unexpandable stub. Mwalcoff 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree it should redirect as suggested. This doesn't require a delete: just place a redirect on the page and merge any relevant info into the safety article. --Daveb 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I assume a Free Kick in American Football (about which I know next to nothing) is a different thing to a Free Kick in English Football, so on that basis, the article seems (potentially) valuable to me Jcuk 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that free kicks are rather rare and simple events; they only occur after safeties, and everything you need to know is already at the safety (football) article. (Technically, kickoffs are free kicks too, but no one calls them that.) There's really no more than a paragraph that can be written about them. Am I really allowed to replace an article with a redirect without going through AFD? -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep. It's essentially a merge and redirect decision, which is not handled centrally. If people protest, RfC is the best place. Sam Vimes 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - too narrow as described best by Mwalcoff. This is not a dictionary. Madman 22:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect not an AfD decision. Sam Vimes 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sam Vimes. Stifle 01:59, 29 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete. It's not really funny enough to be worth going to the effort of BJAODN-while-still-complying-with-GFDL. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bovasial contex driven neural response

This article appears to be a complete hoax, filled with an incomprehensible mix of technical jargon from biology. All Google entries for this "Bovasial contex driven neural response" are just copies of this hoax article on Wikipedia. I highly recommend we delete this article, and ideally, even speedying it (should that be warranted). I should also mention that I am beyond embarassed that I inadvertantly played a role in keeping this article - a user attempted to move this to WP:BJAODN, and at the time, I incorrectly interpreted this as vandalism! For those who have read this, let's make this a good reminder that we need to read the article too instead of skipping straight to vandalism control - sometimes the anons and newcomers are the smart ones and are right. HappyCamper 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as above --HappyCamper 02:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As an article that has existed on Wikipedia since 27 August 2005, I do not see that there is any need to be speedy about this. It might be fun to see how many AOL IPs show up to defend this article. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a hoax. Alas, doesn't qualify for CSD. Owen× ☎ 02:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  Alas! You're right. This article should go through the full AfD voting period :-) --HappyCamper 03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• BJADON. Seems like a WP:POINT violation/experiment by some of our enemies to test whether we were sharp enough. -- Natalinasmpf 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or BJADON per Natalinasmpf - FrancisTyers 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Daveb 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before it hurts my Cerebral_cortex (where most of the article is plagarized from.) Ronabop 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Drmandrake 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 05:21, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic delete. If anything shows up about neurology or neuroscience and you're uncertain, leave a note over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and at least I'll see it. Semiconscious 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, jibberish. --Wingsandsword 08:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & BJADON ...before we succumb to contex driven neural responses... Scoo 11:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Quarl 11:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jimbo Wales --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 13:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Bovasial contex" indeed...to add to User:Semiconscious's note, the folks at WP:MED, WP:CLINMED, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical medicine are always happy to take a look at dubious material as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless they meant the boandlukedukevasial Cortex. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The dog was from Conroe Texas and was known on the set as "Contex". --JWSchmidt 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable neurological phenominon, shows in dozens of google hits--152.163.100.135 06:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not. Please provide an example of an external site referring to this phenonemon that does not use Wikipedia as its source. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, at best OR and more likely junk. Stifle 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:32, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete, but not all that quickly. Slow & steady wins the race, eh? Remeber that CSD A1 refers to context, not content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ABQblogs.com

Non-notable website.. --Mysidia (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't look notable/encyclopaedic to me. --Daveb 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:WEB - FrancisTyers 04:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Joel7687 09:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Quarl 11:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per non notable VegaDark 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable leaning towards advertisement --Pboyd04 00:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per CSD reason number one. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:33, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was speedy. r3m0t ^talk 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear God the Light Productions

Apparently a "company" created by a couple of college students that has done nothing notable. No google hits. Delete. Catamorphism 03:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Joel7687 09:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Jakiah 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Quarl 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Can we make this a speedy delete per the new A7 rules? Stifle 02:00, 29 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

All About All

Random wikipedia mirror, doesn't have any original content according to the article. I can't even find any mention of it on google, and allaboutall.com redirects to an advertising site. Delete. Catamorphism 03:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Two month old stub and still no external link. Endomion 06:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thesquire 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Joel7687 09:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Thryduulf 15:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom VegaDark 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia > some random mirror of wikipedia. Stifle 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:34, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was KEEP (early close). gren グレン 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian fetish

A Wikipedia article on "Asian fetish"ism? Please. Blatant racism, and does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Riscybusiness 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? I read over the article, and while it needs to be normalized and reference scholarly debate on the issue, I don't see this article as being racist. An article on this topic needs to exist, perhaps with a different name, because there is at least a widespread perception of the racist objectification of asian women. If this article is deleted, it will neccessarily be created again, and at least a portion of it is cited and well written. Keep and improve citation would be my vote at this point. I'm curious- what do you think is racist or outside of NPOV in this article?Lotusduck 03:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Move NPOV dispute withstanding this is verifiable so shouldn't be deleted. We don't delete stuff just because we don't like what it says. The title might be changed though. Suggestions? - FrancisTyers 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Excellent article. Term gets 500,000 googles. See nigger or kike for other examples. -- JJay 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I myself would be the subject of a purported "Asian fetish" but there is no such thing. A fetish refers to an inanimate object, such as clothing, that is the source of erotic feelings. By claiming that an Asian fetish exists, the author of this article is dehumanizing people from those countries. He provides a number of citations to back up his theory, but it still amounts to a neologism and original research. Endomion 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• CommentI suggest reading up some more on sexual fetishism. A "fetish" is indeed an inanimate object; however "sexual fetishism" is not a mere sum of the two parts, but has its own distinct meaning. There are plenty of sexual fetishes that are not inanimate objects. Say, there's the amputee fetish, in which people are attracted to a specific mutilated body part; an asian fetish is exactly the same, where people are attracted to specific types of body parts, i.e. those that make asians look distinct from other races. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I respect your point of view Endomion, but the term seems to be in use even among Asian writers [5] -- JJay 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Did you read that article you linked? Later Sigmund Freud appropriated the concept to describe a form of paraphilia where the object of affection is an inanimate object or a specific part of a person; see sexual fetish. - FrancisTyers 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep, comment some sources are probably overrepresented, I don't think there's been a phenomenon of distaste for the interracial relationship in Harry Potter, but you are antagonizing the issue by calling multiple editors that have overloaded this article "the author". To delete this article is to say that A. There is no sexual stereotyping of asians in American culture or media, B. There is no exploitation or harrassment of Asians because of sexual stereotypes and C. There is no controversy about perversion in men who either seek out or fantacise about Asian women. This article deals with this issue well, and if it is deleted, it will be created again- perhaps with a less careful analyzation of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 December 2005

• Keep. This is a legitimate, notable topic, and the article is well written NPOV with reputable sources. The article covers the controversial aspects of this pretty well by the way. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Riscybusiness' contributions - FrancisTyers 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, he's started his first debate. -- JJay 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Good heavens, incredibly notable, common sexual fetish, often a source of Asian pride. Xoloz 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NeoJustin 05:29, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, my wife being proof of my having same. BD2412 T 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky man :) Xoloz 19:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there are a bazillion fetishes documented on Wikipedia, and this one is pretty common. -- MisterHand 06:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Blatant racism says who? I'm asian, I find the article informative and interesting. I am not offended, just like I am not offended by others calling me "oriental". =) Kudos for caring, however! Kareeser|^Talk! 07:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, but let's have an RfC to sort everything out.--Wasabe3543 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well, I feel that the topic is real, but the scholarship of this article is dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.123.163 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 December 2005
• Keep--Aleron235 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article contains not one word about actual love and intermarriage. This is a startling omission. Such a union exists within my extended family. By characterizing all such relationships as fetishism this article perpetuates a stereotype. Durova 18:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is about fetishism, not about love and intermarriage. I don't think that the article charactarizes anything but the debate on the Asian sexual fetish. If the article cited instances as being true cultural understanding not fantasies based on some quintessential hollywood sexy Asian, if it pointed out a couple as being in love and not obsessed with how Asian women are different in bed, then it would not be neutral point of veiw. I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I've been married to a Japanese lady for 10 years now. Submissive and what again? HA, HA, HA! - no. I liked the article. I thought it was pretty much on the money.
• Strong keep. A subject generating this much controversy is definitely worth including here. It's a hotly debated topic in race relations today. --Idont Havaname 21:29, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was DELETE. There is a debate, which I have read, but it's pretty clear that noone has been persuaded at all from their original position on the article. -Splash^talk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional people known by one name

list of not closely associated fictional characters, with list poorly defined. Lotusduck 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Article previously survived AfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional people known by one name. -- JJay 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - That was more than a year ago. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why not add the exact date. -- JJay 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Some of these entries (like Buffy) are only on the list because it is the nature of fiction that using a character's first or last name alone is a way to keep readers or viewers from getting confused. Endomion 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true. I am known by my first name, say 90% of the time, and I'm sure someone you know is known by their first name most of the time too. Wednesday is almost never called Wednesday Adams, so the list should have her and almost every other character ever concieved of. By other rules, maybe this could be a list of characters that viewers never learn more than one name of. But again, that could be accomplished by adding a category tag to the end of each characters article, much as the "Fictional archaeologists" category works. -And hey, come to think of it, I have a question. Can any list be justified without supporting text, when cateogries will be far more updated and function exactly as well?

• Keep. Excellent list that can only get better (you should indicate it has previously been on AfD). Only Scrooge could nominate this. -- JJay 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused- used for what? Useful how? If it gave any information about the characters, then it would serve some higher purpose than going onto each characters' page and adding a "Category: Fictional people known by one name" to the end. everyone on it's talk page has suggested deleting this page, and although I've read through the previous article for deletion post and I still don't get how this is encyclopedic or useful. This article is not a study in naming, it's a list of unrelated characters that authors didn't bother to write last/first names for. But accusations on the article aside, what good thing is this article supposed to be?

• The list gives a short description and steers people to the corresponding pages. It enables anoms to add info, which they can not do with a category. There is no recent discussion on talk page about deleting this. -- JJay 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there are three total entries in the talk page that don't mention that this page is useless, and one of those is me. That out of about eight comments on the talk page total. Please explain how this is a valid topic, because I have no idea what you are talking about.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments are above. Please add the link to the previous AfD discussion for this page as per procedure. -- JJay 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the previous discussion for deletion: *Previous deletion debate but seriously. How is this an excellent list? Once it has every one-worded god and all of the fictional books and television shows that use that name for a character, how is that better? Your comments are above, but I don't understand them at all. What is going to make this list get better with time? Complements are fine, I just would prefer to hear some justification for a list of fictional people known by one name.Lotusduck 07:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. This is a valid topic. -- MisterHand 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why this is a valid topic, as I have no idea what you mean.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unecyclopedic and uncompleteable; another list for the sake of a list. Flyboy Will 06:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked this topic, and put a lot of work into it, and into trying to define it. I suggest supporters of this topic try and edit it, just a little. You may realize how many hairs can be split that can be used to include any character at all in this list, or how no information or enjoyment can be derived from this list. I see both of those as distinct and likely possibilities. Information can be added to lists, but it isn't. The only information added to a one-word name is the other names they are known by, aka why they shouldn't be on the list. Then we can sit down and add every villain on Stargate SG-1, every god from the show Hercules, every third character in any Shakespear play, all the miscellaneous dwarves from the beginning of The Hobbit and contemplate why anyone would want to see their names mixed together in alphabetical order. That's an impossible list even using the most stringent definitions and exclusions ever discussed in the talk page for this article. I helped nurse this baby to health, and I haven't yet heard a good reason not to kill it. I'm not making fun of supporters, I genuinely want somebody to explain it to me how this is useful, encyclopedic or even neat.Lotusduck 07:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft with no encyclopediacl value. Pavel Vozenilek 08:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Listcruft, OR -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft and hoplessly objective.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flyboy Will. Movementarian 14:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What am I missing? According to Wikipedia policy detailing what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT):

  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. “…Wikipedia articles are not: … 2 List or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons …. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.

  (I've only quoted the specific words related to this list. Underline and red are my emphasis.) Though I've found it interesting to see names that have been contributed, it seems that this list is precisely described in WP:NOT. — ERcheck @ 16:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• You don't think Mr. Bean or Spock are known by one name? -- JJay 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes they are. But how closely associated are they? Any work of fiction whatsoever will have a character whose name is suucint and easy to remember. You could write an article about the significance of such eponymous characters as you think are obviously important, but the issue of contention is that Mr.Spock and Anubis and Gimli contributed in some significant way together to naming conventions, and even that would be better served by an article. I understand that there are characters known by one name, I don't understand how this isn't exactly what Wikipedia is not.Lotusduck 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Spock and Bean are fictional characters known by one name. They are therefore on this list. Beyond that, there is nothing to debate. Your views are clear since you nominated the list for deletion. It will be deleted. -- JJay 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, ideally the majority vote would be a kind of consensus. We have, as I understand it, four days before votes are counted and opinions considered. If you are done debating, I do hope any other people that don't want this article deleted try to discuss reasons for doing so here.Lotusduck 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Incedentally, Mr. Bean is not on the list. He was removed by persons not me, under the assumption that he was not known without the "Mr."- A minor character in Enders game named Bean is, setting some precident that all minor characters from fiction with unrecallable full names belong on this list. If you want to reverse that precident and fix the article to be somewhat more completable, then perhaps if it survives AfD you should. Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as valid as any other list on Wiki. Comment Seems odd to me that in the main its the folk that vote Keep that get challenged to explain their vote. Jcuk 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • Ah, the "Special Olympics" defense. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What the blazes does that mean?? Jcuk 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask that myself. But maybe he means that he thinks you're only supporting this list because you've seen lists that were more useless. I'm curious, what is this list valid for?Lotusduck 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • For finding characters that are known by only one name! Does exactly what it says on the tin. As a wheelchair user who watches the paralympics avidly, I strongly resent the insinuation that they are "more useless" than the other games. Jcuk 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You've looked at the list. Isn't it also "useful" for finding characters known by their full names, like "James T. Kirk" and others? Not only that, but it can't be edited or fixed because there are no sources with any information on what qualifies as a significant one named character. As such, the article is Original Research, not taken from valid sources but made up to gratify people who edit it like you and me. Wikipedia: No original research Lotusduck 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment - I think that's mainly when the Keep recommentdation seems incompatible with policy and/or guidelines. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking people to support their keep reccomendation just because I want to have a dialogue about it. The people who say delete have quoted policy and guidelines, so of course people who say keep have some other interpretation of those guidelines. Also, I think I've laid out pretty well how this list really is incompletable, since every theater production and space opera ever made has several eponymous one-word named character. Given that I think I've justified my vote, I feel I can ask people if they can justify theirs.Lotusduck 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Lists are great and all but when we start creating them based on fairly arbitrary criteria, we are getting silly. It's about as useful as creating a list of fictional people who hate the colour blue or a list of world leaders who like tea. Arkyan 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

At least people who hate the color blue is specific. This is similar to a "list of fictional people known by their full name" which is probably a little more doable.Lotusduck 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete useless lists of vaguely related items. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful list, already survived Vfd.  Grue  17:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to challange the validity of anyone's opinion, but since this is meant to be a debate, what's your take on the guideline "Wikipedia is not a list repository of loosely related topics"? If this article could be a list of actually closely related topics, then the best way for you to defend it is to edit the article so that it somehow is not a collection of barely related persons.Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Arkyan. Observation: so far no-one seems to have responded to Lotusduck's request for a reasonable explanation as to why they are voting "keep", in terms of the policies and guidelines. Is this perhaps because there isn't one? Zunaid 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 'useful list, already survived Vfd.' Seems like a reasonable explanation of a vote.....why should Keep voters have to justify themselves any more than delete voters? As for policies and guidelines, I personally have found if I try to justify my vote according to them, someone else comes along and says "Ah but what about this totally contradictory policy" so I dont bother. Jcuk 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything. I just want a discussion, because I don't understand what you mean by useful. I've read the previous VfD, and all anyone ever said was that it wasn't the least useful list or that it was useful. Now, delete voters have agreed other deleters that have quoted policy and generally explained, or maybe in my case ranted away exactly what we mean by useless and incompletable. I'm glad that people can be bold, but I'm not ridiculing people by asking them to have some sort of discussion here. What is this list useful for? If you think that the "what this list isn't" section narrows the category enough to make it completable, I have to say that I wrote that section in it's entirety, and I don't think it makes the list completable at all.Lotusduck 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is ever complete. -- JJay 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but most good articles on wikipedia have at least a possibility of becoming nearly comprehensive in their topic. When I see that most fictional swearwords start with an F, I have some reasonable expectation that this is based on a popular sample of fictional swear-words taken from reputable sources. When I get a sample from "List of fictional people known by one name" I can be sure that it is based on original research that is not verifiable or referencable by outside sources. You and I may agree that Scrooge, Mr. Bean and Spock are fictional characters known by one name, but when someone removed Mr. Bean, there was no criteria, no outside source to verify that he did belong on the list. The only applicable rules are the fairly arbitrary ones I created that allow for honorifics like Mr. That is why Wikipedia is not for original research. Can you cite a source that verifies whether Sideshow Bob is a one named character or a two named one? You could prove it by the ruberic at the beginning of the page that defines one name as literally one word- but that's not a trustworthy source- that's a un-reveiwed unedited tirade by me. So if anyone can site a newspaper or other real source to prove whether acronyms like ALF are really one word names or if The Cat is a one word name or two, then that will certainly make me re-think a few things. If this list could be something other than original research then someone should change it to that to save it, because right now it's original research, which will probably lead to it's deletion, I think.Lotusduck 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Everyone knows that ALF stands for alien life form, but in print is just called ALF. -- JJay 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On the talk page, people have suggested that ALF does not belong on "List of fictional people known by one name" on the basis that ALF is an acronym, and that this means that it is more than one name in and of itself. What can we reference to determine the validity of Alf or names with "the" in them? Currently, even Sideshow Bob is on the list, (I think that's two names as much as Peter Parker is two names.) what source can we cite to settle whether or not he should be? We could come to a consensus, but that still amounts to original research, which is what wikipedia is not. To be legitimate we must be able to cite a source that comments on the one-named-ness of given characters. Wikipedia:No original research Lotusduck 03:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What you need to do is define the criteria, like you have done, and then use footnotes for those troublesome cases like Sideshow Bob, drawing on the abundance of good sources like newspapers. We need careful documentation of fictional characters' first names. This is the type of question that always comes up, and given the level of misinformation out there, we need to set people straight. Personally, I think the list should have two parts: 1) fictional characters that have no documented second name, such as Spock; 2) fictional characters that have two names but are most commonly known by just one, such as Scrooge. -- JJay 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But the topic of the article "fictional people known by one name" itself does not have a source to be cited. There are sources that can tell us that there is a Simpsons' character named sideshow bob, but the actual topic of the article is purely original research. List of fictional Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender people can have an actual source citing the importance of certain characters being on the list, even going into the obscure. For fictional people known by one name, we might be able to find someone, somewhere writing an article on Spock's ubiquity as it relates to the show not using his last name. We're just as likely not to find such an article, even given the widespread discussion of his popularity. So while characters first names and last names can be carefully sourced to ensure accuracy, can the significance of a characters' only having one name be sourced? Can the significance of all of these characters only having one name be sourced?Lotusduck 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Questions/Comments: Even within the article there are conflicting/ambiguous descriptions of what qualifies for the list. In the lead to the article, it says the fictional character is to be "known unambigously by one of the following ... first or last name, one word nickname, only known name." Then under the description of what the list is not: "Characters that are usually called by one name but their full name is easily recalled, like Wednesday Adams, are not included in this list...One example of this would be Radar from M*A*S*H, who has a real full name comprised of several words, but that name is very obscure information within the show... This is not a list of people with a one-word nickname, or a one word name that they are often called. Only characters with a one word nickname and an unknown or very obscure full name or other names. So Superman is not on the list because all of his names total three: Superman, Clark and Kent."

— These descriptions are ambiguous. If a character has a title, e.g. "Mr." or "Captain", do they still qualify? Spock or Mr. Spock? Captain Kirk or Kirk? In the case of Radar from M*A*S*H, he is well-known as Radar O'Reilly. Frank Burns most commonly called him "Corporal O'Reilly", so how does he qualify? How does "Holmes", aka Sherlock Holmes, qualify? The "Fonz" — Mr. & Mrs. Cunningham always called him Arthur (his given name). "Neo" from the Matrix — Mr. Smith was always calling him "Mr. Anderson". I'm not an avid fan of any of the shows, but I knew these off the top of my head. — ERcheck @ 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Kirk= James Kirk. -- JJay 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree - this is my point. What really qualifies? If Radar qualifies, then Capt Kirk does because he is known unambigously as Capt. Kirk (like "Mr. Spock", the title doesn't seem to count). In the case of the others, there are multiple names that they are well-known by, not all being one word.:

- Kirk = Captain Kirk = James T. Kirk = Jim

- Radar = Radar O'Reilly = Corporal O'Reilly = Walter O'Reilly

- The Fonz = Fonzie = Arthur = Arthur Fonzarelli

- Holmes = Sherlock Holmes (name best known by)

- Neo = Mr. Anderson = Thomas Anderson

— ERcheck @ 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• ERcheck, I am tending away from arguing that this is a sprawling, unrelated article, and trying to explain that this article is original thought, not a documentation of a real reported phenomenon. But you are right: The names currently on the list set a precedent that all names of all characters ever concieved of should be on this list-

However, if there were some pressing need for a list of fictional people known by one name, it still would need to be a documented concern in newspapers, books or scholarly journals. For instance- there is, I think, a pressing need for a documentation of movies with a dream-self discovery theme, like The Wizard of Oz and The Labrynth- but if I can't find a source that ties these films together as important besides the movies themselves, I should not make such an article, even if I think the connection is clear, sure and important. Because wikipedia is not a lazy persons' publisher. If we say that names with honorifics can be included on this list based on my opinion that is baseless gratification of me, that is me pushing my ideas onto wikipedia with no base in verifiable sources, and that is wrong.Lotusduck 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• This still amounts to original research, so while my rubric dictates some of what qualifies, my rubric is not a real source. If I were some really strange kind of reporter, and the beginning description about what should and shouldn't apply to a list of fictional people was an article in a real newspaper, and then said article became really popular for no reason and someone thought to make a wiki article on it, then this would all be legitimate. But wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Lotusduck 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Seriously bad listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. Stifle 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm going off on too many tangents of the discussion on this page, but what does listcruft stand for? I searched wikipedia for "listcruft" and while I undertand very generally what you mean, I'm still curious. Maybe a definition of listcruft would help people know why they should vote delete, maybe I'm cluttering this article with chatter. Well, time will tell.Lotusduck 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Short answer: "listcruft" = "an indiscriminate collection of information", which in this case happens to be a list. The same goes for gamecruft, forumcruft, or any other cruft. Zunaid 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial. -Sean Curtin 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, listcruft --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thought this was closed. Delete per nom. - SoM 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I have learnt my lesson, not to close AFDs in most cases but let the admins do it. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm regarding XxBassPlayerxX and the anon as the same person, (which is more than I have to do: I could just ignore the anon who blanked the whole thing). There's minimal support for doing anything other than deleting the pair of these. -Splash^talk 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not My Year and Suicide City

This article is very nn. Only about 276 relevant results on Google. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've just added Suicide City, the NN band behind the NN record. Delete both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not noteworthy Drmandrake 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both per nomination. Flyboy Will 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable. article creator removed afd tag. --Quarl 11:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but definitely merge the two articles together. Suicide City is listed at Amazon [6], but not at AllMusic. One band member (Jennifer Arroyo) claims to be formerly associated with the band Kittie, however she is not listed in the group's AllMusic page [7]. If proven they would qualify under WP:MUSIC They may not merit inclusion, but it is definitely on the fringe. Movementarian 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• After researching this, comparing it to the standards in WP:MUSIC, and the actions of the author and anon user I have decided to change my vote to redirect. WP:MUSIC sets a standard of notability for bands and allows bands featuring former members of "extremely notable bands" to gain inclusion. It also states that non-notable projects should be redirected. So once again, my new vote is Redirect to Jennifer Arroyo. If this article survives AfD, which does not look likely, I will perform the redirect myself. Movementarian 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, as the author of the page, of course i am going to say to keep it. Jennifer Arroyo was most definately the main bassist for the band Kittie. she recently left due to issues concerning the label and her want to participate in Suicide City full time. i have sent her an email requesting her to update the page with the information that i did not know. if you want proof of her affiliation with kittie, check out http://www.forums.kittierocks.com and ask anyone who has been there while she was. you could also search around or ask her via myspace. i also posted a link where members of her official website (http://forums.jenniferarroyo.com) can edit the page to help make it full. I know that with a little time, this page will be full of crditable information, i am just not completely up to the task. Suicide City just finished touring with the notable band Mindless Self Indulgence. XxBassPlayerxX 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - XxBassPlayerxX (talk · contribs) is the originator and sole contributor to Not My Year and Suicide City, has no edits prior to December 24, and removed the music-importance and afd tags from the Suicide City article. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 04:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kittie#Former_members for proof of Jennifer J. Arroyo being in the band Kittie. Suicide City can be found at www.cdbaby.com/suicidecity , www.purevolume.com/suicidecity , and www.myspace.com/suicidecity , www.digitech.com/artistpgs/suicidecity.htm , www.thegauntlet.com/bio/1239/Suicide-City.htm , http://www.portlandmusicians.com/cm/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=101 , www.loudmerch.com/suicidecity - The band has sold over 4,000 copies of Not My Year themselves so I would rate that as being a legit and very relevant band.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.136.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Above comment moved from top, where it was used to replace comments blanked the same user. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This subpage on the site of Kittie's label Artemis Records lists Ms. Arroyo as a member of the band at the time of their last release, so that claim at least is verifiable. No opinion on the proposed deletion, since this isn't my forte. -Colin Kimbrell 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--nixie 05:55, 31 December 2005 (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 of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP, unfortunately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

War on Christmas

• Delete nonsense. paranoid delusions from the circus of right-wing extremism. --Revolución (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - They're extreme right-wing paranoid delusions, I agree. But they're notable extreme right-wing paranoid delusions. FCYTravis 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The article is encyclopedic and well supported by citations. [removed user box as it was interfering with keep border - JOG] Endomion 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep NPOV disputes aren't a basis for deletion. - FrancisTyers 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be modified to be more NPOV but it is an issue that has come to a head in 2005. Supported by citations, provides useful info for those doing research on this. Happy holidays, everyone! Drmandrake 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep The argument is very common these days, and there can be plenty room for both sides in the article. To use reductio ad absurdum, there's an article on holocaust denial and the wikipedia is not actually denying the holocaust. (I'm not stating the view that the two are equivalent; I am just making the point that the subject is very relevant, and it's existence does not imply the support of the belief that Christmas is under attack.)
• The article is a morass of POV garbage - it's initial creation was someone making a point. Nevertheless, it is decidedly notable, so Speedy keep it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep* The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:23, 31 December 2005 (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 of the debate was speedy deleted by Oberiko. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Sabarese

Delete. Non-notable, vanity page. No Guru 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete on the principle that you're not supposed to write autobiographies on WP. Endomion 04:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. Drmandrake 04:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nn-bio -- MisterHand 06:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy {{nn-bio}} Delete Scoo 11:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. nn-bio --Quarl 11:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 14:49, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete, and a plea for people to listen to Uncle G's complaints about people throwing around "Wiktionary" without checking. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ostentatious

This page seems mostly to bee a dictionary-type page with a couple of quotes, which is what Wikitionary is for. Delete. Scottmso 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a candidate for the Wiktionary. Endomion 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. Uncle G 04:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Scottmso and Endomion about this being a candidate for the Wiktionary unless it is already there. NeoJustin 05:26, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki — (is this an option?) The article is average at best. Should be moved to Wiktionary unless a better definition already exists (most likely). See Ostentatious on Wiktionary. Kareeser|^Talk! 07:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary already has an entry, and this is copied straight out of the 1913 Webster's Dictionary. The Howe quote can be transwiki'd to Wikiquote if they want it (the Addison quote is already there). —Caesura^(t) 17:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per everybody Lotusduck 06:36, 30 December 2005 (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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Aaron Schwebel. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete and, apparently, sheesh (?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Speed 3

Meme about hypothetical sequel to Speed that has been joked about on two television shows. Not notable. tregoweth 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to say speedy delete to be funny, but I think weak Keep is more appropriate. Endomion 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to be a notable joke, based on the article as well. I can probably find a Family Guy reference on half a million other pop culture items, and most of them don't deserve an article. Flyboy Will 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 05:18, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable pop culture reference. Re-create if an actual movie goes into filming. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above VegaDark 10:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete weak one Andrzej18 17:43, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was ehhh, we'll call it a keep. If any of y'all want to merge it now, there's nothing stopping you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kell Tainer

Star Wars Expanded Universe "character". I highly suspect this is pure fan-fic, but I cannot say for certain that nothing is mergeable, so I bring it here for more eyes to see. Xoloz 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Pilot in Wraith Squadron. Not a fan-fic character, major focus of one Star Wars: X-wing (series) book, main character of another two X-Wing books, and relatively major character in two New Jedi Order books. However, the article is a Fate-damned mess. Redirect to Wraith Squadron, what we need to know about the character is already there. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article is tidied up by a more diligent Wraith fan than I, and in the process the shine of an encyclopedic article that far outstrips the content in the Wraith Squadron article is revealed, consider my vote to be changed to a full Keep. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wraith Squadron. Flyboy Will 05:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment And I'm vehemently opposed to a Kell Tainer ever getting his own article. Fictional characters on the magnitude of Shylock or Raskolnikov deserve their own pages; characters from niche books with minor circulation deserve no more than a section in a list. The only people who ever want information on this are the people who already know everything on them. Most importantly, this all falls under the Original Research label. I don't suppose there have been any legitimate literary studies of Kell Tainer as a character. I know the precedent so far has been in favor of Pokemon characters and video game weapons keeping their articles, and I couldn't disagree with that more. Flyboy Will 05:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment needs to be broken into digestible paragraphs, have linkage and citations from a published work. Endomion 05:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A notable Expanded Universe character. The article needs definite cleanup and wikification, but the basic subject of the article is appropriate. Possibly consider Merge contents into List of minor Rebel characters in Star Wars --Wingsandsword 09:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Wraith Squadron would be a better merge target; the basic info's already there. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Wingsandsword VegaDark 10:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• I appear to be the diligent fan I was waiting for. There's some decent info here, and there's no way we can tamp it down to fit into Wraith Squadron or any other article. Changing vote to full Keep. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article could be skimmed down, retaining relevant information, and merged back into Wraith Squadron. Take the Profile section: it could easily be edited down to "Kell Tainer, a large, handsome pilot…" And, given the fact that Kell Tainer is a relatively minor character in the grand scheme of Star Wars, his history could easily be skimmed down to a few important details as well. – Mipadi 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair call. I just took the mess and made it easy to read. I'd support a merge and redirect back into Wraith Squadron as a second option, if it helps establish consensus. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wraith Squadron. He's a real character and already had information posted on the Wraith Squadron page. I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, but I'm against giving every "major" character in the Star Wars universe his own page. I agree with Flyboy Will: a character such as Princess Leia or Luke Skywalker deserves his or her own article because that character is not only important in the Star Wars universe, but is well-known by non-Star Wars fans as well. Kell Tainer, while important in some books (most notably the Wraith Squadron and New Jedi Order novels), is not notable or important enough to warrant a separate article. – Mipadi 04:43, 29 December 2005 (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 of the debate was alright, delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WireTracks

Company article that doesn't make a claim of notability and reads like an ad. Xoloz 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Jakiah 10:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:54, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was keep. Interesting issue, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Earl Bates

Delete This is about as boring as a death penalty case could ever hope to be. No sex, children, or race involved. No novel legal issues. If this one doesn't deserve deletion then we may as well add being executed in the United States after 1976 to WP:BIO since I can't image a less notable murderer than Joseph Earl Bates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - If this was about an execution in China (30,000 executions a year) then maybe you'd be right. Endomion 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I object to the notion that executions are notable or non-notable depending on where they're performed. That smacks of Western bias. Durova 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The relevant difference is only that China, Saudi Arabia, etc., are relatively secretive, making WP:V information about the executed hard to obtain; also, relatedly, there is less domestic public debate over execution in those nations, given speech restrictions. Otherwise, they would be cataloged fully, as with the US.
• Keep Boring executed murderers are still executed murderers. I think there is more here than the stub suggests, but the stub is useful on its own. Death penalty is simply too controversial in the US to delete any executed Americans. Xoloz 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not really. He confessed to the crime and killed the victim because he thought he had something to do with his house being shot up. The sole point of notability he has is that he was executed in the U.S. after 1976, so this is the perfect test case for whether that is sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't submitting something as a "test-case" qualify as Disrupting WP to make a point ? Endomion 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. He's not illustrating anything. He's testing the ground. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a thousand times better than the only alternative, that is nominating every single related article in a giant bulk. Flyboy Will 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't WP:POINT. Every executed individual in the US receives ample nationwide press in the US. We don't need to rewrite WP:BIO, since every executed inmate already qualifies on that account. Xoloz 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If he were to list every article about someone who was executed in the United States, that would be a violation of WP:POINT, but just testing the waters isn't a problem. Oh, and keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 18:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Request for info: I know there have been a few executed criminal articles on AfD lately, and there are arguments for and against deletion. Could someone direct me to a discussion on this topic, if it exists? Thank you. --Fang Aili 05:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a person whose only notability is being executed belongs in a list of executions, and does not deserve his own article. Flyboy Will 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If he has any sort of notability beyond being executed, then this article will be recreated with no problem. Alas, it seems he does not. --Apostrophe 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Death penalty is never boring. Jakiah 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. 400 google hits for "Joseph Earl Bates". media coverage. --Quarl 11:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable, nothing to distinguish this case from other executions. He's already on the List of individuals executed in North Carolina (why do editors think they need to start a separate article for every name on a list?) -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. If editors feel the need to address the death penalty in the United States, then I suggest creating more articles on death row inmates and populating the new category. Durova 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand -- you support articles for the thousands on death row, but not for the thousand actually executed in 28 years? Curious position, I feel. Xoloz 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that Durova is arguing that if the notability of a person derives from being subjected to the death penalty in the United States, then in that sense, those that have been setenced to death but not had that sentence carried out are as notable as those who have reached the end of the appeals process without having the sentence reduced. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with him. We should have articles for every person on death row + their victims. Every one of those cases is important, just like this case, for the political ramifications. -- JJay 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, when we begin talking about every person on death row, my only objection is a number problem. Plenty of folks spend only a little time there, before being commuted, retried, or killed in prison. The advantage to sticking only to the executed is that those cases have proved enduring and compelling enough for the state to go forward with the sentence of death. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
        • What ramifications? Guy kills person, gets killed himself. If you're talking about the controversy over capital punishment, the article does a fine job of showing that without need for articles on every person executed. --Apostrophe 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I've never really heard of a lengthy capital murder conviction that hasn't had ample state-wide press (at least), prompted commentary on crime and criminal justice from public figures, and motivated legal response through attempted reform. Despite the effort of the nom. to classify Bates as boring, I don't see it here either. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
            • You seem to be arguing that everything that makes the news should end up in Wikipedia and that therefore we had no reason to split off Wikinews. Other than providing an occasion for the pro-DP and anti-DP activists to make their commentary, I find zero evidence of any lasting impact here and this case is far less noteworthy than the December 2005 South Carolina ice storm which does not appear to have an article, nor should it, despite receiving far more press coverage and causing the deaths of more people. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
              • The difference between a Wikinews only topic and a Wikipedia topic is one of depth, scope, and importance of the topic. Personally, I'd argue that "Sam, the world's ugliest dog" is why Wikinews exists separately -- that is "news of the day"-type story. As it happens, I think Sam is in WP too. Sigh. In any event, serious affairs of law and state (which every US execution is) are exactly why encyclopedias were made in the first place, and they still form the very heart of what I call encyclopedic. Xoloz 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Sam is an edge case, and I certainly wouldn't complain if his article were merged into the World's Ugliest Dog Contest article. That said, I would definitely consider Sam to be more notable than Mr. Bates who also falls into that "news of the day" category you mentioned. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Well then, I think we have reached an honest, very deep, impasse of meaning. To me, if an encyclopedia exists for anything, it exists for to cover significant topics of philosophy and history, of which state executions (and those so executed) are a chapter. Sincerely, I cannot see how an ugly dog meets notability requirements, where state executed fail. Xoloz 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Comment The execution of condemned criminals is encyclopedic. With rare exceptions, the story of each person executed is not encyclopedic. Questions of philosophy and history are best addressed in general articles, not in articles about individuals that do not provide any point on which to hang a unique argument that could not be repeated in every other article about an executed individual. (this seems to be from Dalbury)
                      • There, I also disagree. Each executed individual is a worthy subject of criminological (or, if they are wrongly executed, sociological) study. Researchers who study crime do not develop generalized patterns simply from the Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of the world. Even the simple facts of their childhood are of scholarly (and, often, macabre popular) interest. Additionally, each capital murder is certain notably to affect its community, region, or state, as discussed above. Xoloz 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                        • Perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of all human knowledge. The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise crystalization of the details and pointers to where the detailed information of limited interest can be found for those seeking greater knowledge about a narrow topic. A pointer to the minutiae of Mr. Bates' case in the List of individuals executed in North Carolina article would more than satisfy that requirement. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
                          • I don't oppose that idea in theory, but I would wish to see it applied consistently across the 'pedia. As I'm sure you'll agree it isn't, and my concern is that I don't want the executed given less extensive treatment solely on the basis of their "evil". I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should cover the best and worst of human deeds in equal measure. Xoloz 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about the political ramifications for the people & States involved. -- JJay 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
        • To clarify my position, I have seen editors contend that executions in the United States are more notable than executions in the Third World. I reject that argument as inherently biased. It is neither possible nor wise to catalog all capital criminals everywhere. If Wikipedia repeats an error about a school, little real harm is done. If we insert the wrong name or remain unaware when a conviction is overturned, then anyone in the world with an Internet connection may read false and damaging information about an innocent person. Even posthumous vindications matter for the sake of the surviving relatives. I find more potential encyclopedic value in death row inmates than in executed prisoners. To judge by the comments of some editors, it appears some people's time would be better spent writing for Amnesty International than for Wikipedia. Durova 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd appreciate it, Durova, if you'd address my comments regarding the reasons US executions are more appropriate for WP, immediately below your original vote. No bias exists in such a selection, only honest, regrettable, WP:V and notability concerns. Xoloz 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jcuk 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flyboy Will and Dalbury. Zunaid 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Executed convicts in the United States are notable simply because they were executed. There are only a little over 1,000 persons that fit this category in the last 30 years. These individuals are notable as part of the debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States. Nolamgm 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Then the purpose could be served equally well by a list of executions iwth brief summaries, and fully fledged articles only for those who achieved notoriety in some or other way. Zunaid 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an area of American society that is currently part of a heated debate. Detailed, accurate, and neutral articles about each case can only serve to help this debate and thus the public in general. I am failing to see what is the concern over a full article on each case. Nolamgm 15:51, 28 December 2005 (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 category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\^talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cruelization

Internet music competition with only 196 Ghits, including mirrors. NN, possibly moribund. Xoloz 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not-notable -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting again to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. VegaDark 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Samuel J. Howard 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-noteworthy. Ifnord 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 18:55, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

DELETE. Johntex\^talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anticurro

Neologism, six-bored-teenagers stuff. "Anticurro" yields nine actual google hits, only one of which might be related to this article. Klaw ¡digame! 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is a prime example of why we shouldn't have to send foreign languages pages to WP:PNT before considering them for deletion. The page started in Spanish, and has now been translated into English (by User:Keithlaw and myself), yet it is just unencyclopedic vanity. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. And a tip of the hat to Metropolitan90 for finishing the translation job. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --Quarl 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if "things made up in school one day" were a CSD, wouldn't it? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:56, 31 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wyllding

Short dicdef. Xoloz 05:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - No third-party citations given. Endomion 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, and a misspelled one at that. BD2412 T 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Jakiah 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not transwiki. --Quarl 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - FrancisTyers 16:43, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: A second AFD debate, recorded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination), resulted in a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John_Bambenek

This seems to be a vanity page. The subject of the article has edited the page several times, and there's been several instances of unverfiable information, such as a gubernatorial run, inserted. perardi 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well known security expert. Article edited by numerous editors, but not by nom. Maybe the nom can explain why google gives 70,000 hits?. -- JJay 05:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change to Abstain for now per below. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Of which 152 are unique. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's pretty funny- Love for John. -- JJay 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change back to keep. First vote was correct, particularly given the allegations of bad faith below. -- JJay 20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Quite a polymath, my only problem is the category for "politician" at the bottom of the article. Endomion 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after removing all the vanity. --Quarl 11:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn. The Google hits I checked all seemed to be resumes or profiles on interactive sites. If someone can find any media coverage on him, please point me to it. In any case, a high Google count does not necessarily establish notability (I have about 5000 hits on Google, myself). -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Is it possible that this is just taken from the preface of one of his books or something? It reads that way with a strong introductory narrative feel rather than something for an encylopedia article. Because of that reason I would suggest deletion to avoid further troubles but the publications might be noteworthy to keep somewhere. So I think it should be kept for that kind of resource as long as there is no copy vios. Keep--Ari89 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is this the same guy? Security expert in the news around 9-10 December related a problem with Firefox. http://www.playfuls.com/news_0368_Mozilla_Firefox_15_Exploit_Much_Ado_About_Nothing.html

--Ari89 10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There is an exploratory committee that does meet weekly on Thursdays. Also, yes, it is the same person in that firefox article, and you can find several others if you have Lexis. Also, this nominator was involved with this vandalism [8] in the same article. -- 12.203.38.138 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would not call what User:Perardi did vandalism. He removed a section he believed did not belong in the article, and gave his reasons in the edit summary. I may not agree with the way he did it, but I will not call it vandalism. And someone at the IP address you are using added John Bambenek to the non-existant Category:Jedi Masters -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply' I wasn't talking about the paragraph, check the link, I was talking about the brutal anal raping by a priest and crackwhore sister vandalism. That IP was used by him at that time frame and was confirmed by linking his contributions at other forums and the IP used there. -- 12.203.38.138 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Due to the seriousness of this charge, I have asked an administrator to look into it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 26, 2005
• Keep. As for media mentions, here are a few. [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. There is a published paper [here]. The article mentioned above by Ari89 is the same person also. A copyvio'd book is available online at [[12]] if you'd like to see that he in fact wrote on of those books. As an aside, Chris Perardi, the person who nominated this, is a new user who's first order of business when joining wikipedia was hitting John Bambenek's page and it seems to be his only contribution aside of his user page. Someone mentioned above he was involved in vandalism. He is an undergrad at the same University at which Bambenek works and has had several problems with him and campus conservatives in general. (John Bambenek is a columnist for a local paper also). He has in the past threatened violence against such people and has been warned for doing it. You can read his [blog post] here that, among other things, ripped on Bambenek. It's clear that this nomination was done in bad faith based on a personal grudge. -- 130.126.146.94 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article requires a rewrite (I will volunteer), but subject is noteworthy. Given that the article was not written by the subject and that the subject is indeed noteworthy is not vanity. Given that the nominator is also associated with UIUC, I fear this may in fact be a bad faith nomination. TheChief (PowWow) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears very likely that it was written by the subject. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? -Willmcw 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, I am personally familiar with Mr. Bambenek and he did not write the article. In fact when the article was first created, I was the one to point it out to him.
• Comment. Why does it have a link to category: Roman Catholics. Putting that in kind of gives the feel that its a vanity page by including personal stuff as only a category. I still think the other things on it maybe useful to people so im still with keeping it.--Ari89 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) my stupidness
• Keep. He is a columnist, a blogger, and is part of the faculty of a well known educational institution. His article belongs here. Although I do believe we can cut off some of the fat of the article, and maybe add a little bit more known facts later. We have a source where it seems Mr. Perardi published an email, cleverly quoting another, but nevertheless using this email to possibly smear the subject:

* John Bambenek, ultra-conservative columnist for the Daily

Illini and OBO member, is going to try to publicize the

event in his column next Friday. Not sure what can be done

about that... They're also going to chalk the Quad in

preparation for the event -- and they're brainstorming for

things to write, so we should have our heads up for that [13]

We know that the nominator clearly has a relationship with the subject, based upon the information we have been given [14], whether it is a legitimate, and positive relationship is for the rest of you to decide, based upon the quotes and statements Mr. Perardi has made regarding Mr. Bambenek. Very High Risk of bad faith, and personal conflicts, that should not be displayed in an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни 23:51, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Matt Harding

Vanity about a guy's quest for Internet fame. Let's not encourage this sort of thing. tregoweth 05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The man was on four television talk shows and almost bagged a fifth if it weren't for Hurricane Kat. Endomion 05:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The 15 minutes are up. Flyboy Will 06:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this guy was on Ellen, which is more than I can see for featured article subject KaDee Strickland. -- MisterHand 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? The proverbial Kadee Strickland, goddamn her for being a featured article, received star billing in the crappy Anacondas sequel, and had a bunch of visible supporting parts in A-list movies such as Fever Pitch and Woody Allen's Anything Else. But if Ellen is your criteria, then KaDee was on The Tony Danza Show. Flyboy Will 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and get KaDee a page too Jakiah 10:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Matt Harding per nomination. (Not only does KaDee Strickland have a page already, it was a featured article.) --Metropolitan90 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Temporary celebrities are not notable in an encyclopedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even temporary celebrities are appropriate for an encyclopedia as long as they are verifiable, which this one appears to be. JYolkowski // talk 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would question whether this guy is a "celebrity", temporary or not. Madman 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per JYolkowski Jcuk 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do you seriously want an encyclopaedia article on a man who performed a Jed Clampett impersonation as a one off on a series of Tv shows?--Porturology 01:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Vanity. Do we want to clutter up this encyclopedia with articles on folks like this?? Madman

Don't Delete. This guy is pretty cool. Obviously someone thought he was interesting enough to write about in the first place. If you actually visit his site, it's interesting and somewhat educational in a very casual since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.171.84 (talk • contribs)

• Delete If being on morning shows was criteria for notability then wikipedia would have more talk show fairing zookeepers. Lotusduck 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jack Hanna -- MisterHand 16:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Obviously, he was famous for being on more than four talk shows, and I think he may have done a couple of other things. Lotusduck 20:14, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Social Engine

Non-notable "literary writing" [sic], with zero Google results [15]. The one included "source" is a link to a copy of "The Social Engine", showing it to be a total of four paragraphs in length. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia should not include original research per Wikipedia:No original research. Unless the said reference has been peer reviewed /reported in well respected source, the article should be deleted. --Hurricane111 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is some kind of unpublished new-agey self-help thing. Endomion 06:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Or an English class essay (although it doesn't follow the five-paragraph pattern) -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced implies unsourcable. People do need to be careful inorder to not get deleted.Lotusduck 07:15, 30 December 2005 (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 of the debate was speedy delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:12, Dec. 25, 2005

Charlie Mansfield

Self-promotion - created by a user with the same name. rossb 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Thou shalt not commit self-aggrandizement. Endomion 06:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like Userfy to me. -- JJay 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Looks like a borderline notable author, with a few published works hiding in that mess. Flyboy Will 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep — User doesn't have a good sense of wiki-style, nor does this person seem to know how to write in wikicode. Could be made into an acceptable article if enough interest is generated, but otherwise, I am uncertain as to whether this person is notable enough to be on wikipedia!

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. Despite a late charge towards deletion, I don't see that we've got any agreement to delete here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sassan Sanei

Appears to be a vanity article. — TheKMan^talk 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support I don't think so. He is very well known in Canada for his extensive work on the BlackBerry wireless communication system and solutions that he developed in collaboration with independent software vendors, universities, and carriers. I would like to see mention of new technical standards as well, if an authoritative source can be found for this information, but I do not have this. I fixed some grammar and added mention of the publication of the developer journal to the article, though this may be less significant.216.9.243.104 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Virtually every google hit is some comment by this guy on other people's blogs. A Proquest literature search, including the ABI/INFORM database, returns 0 hits. Uucp 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support I wrote the original article. I disagree with using the number of google or proquest hits as a basis for notability for this subject. Four reasons: 1. The fine details of much engineering work is not published on the web because of companies' tight control over trade secrets and patents, so most google hits return pages dealing with his personal views and not professional work. Perhaps others can provide more data in this area. 2. Some third-party publications, such as development of technical standards for wireless communication through the IEC (international engineering consortium) to which he is known to have contributed, is published in conference proceedings but not picked up by proquest. I'm pretty sure I have print copies of these proceedings and if I can find them will cite them in an edit to the article. 3. Nor are the contents of print publications, such as Resource magazine and the blackberry developer journal, picked up by google. I am omitted references to these articles until I could find a suitable source for citation. I did however use google as a search for the quotations. 4. Where he has been employed by RIM since 1996 when it was a tiny company means that he was an early and influential player in wireless data communication, as they did not even release the blackberry until 1999, now there are around 4 million users of this device and the historical significance of the subject in this area alone should qualify this as a worthy article, certainly not vanity. This was my first draft of this article and I was hoping other contributors could fill in more information. - Frank R.Fragnal 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The subject could very well be notable, but the article in its current form does not prove the importance of the subject. The subject may be connected to the BlackBerry device, but the article fails to explain how. Yes, I agree that Google isn't always the best place to look to prove notability, but the article has no other references or publications posted, so it is my only source. I don't want to imply anything by this but I think it should be mentioned that the only editors to the article were Fragnal and 216.9.243.104, who both posted within 12 hours of each other.[16] I have not voted yet, but plan to when I have made my decision. — TheKMan^talk 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I understand what you are suggesting and no offence taken as I have already let several people know that I wrote this article in the hopes that they could add content. Only one person so far though. So I have added some external links that I could find including one on cnn.com from 2001 as well as a J2ME reference to better show HOW the subject is connected to the blackberry as you suggested. I do appreciate your suggestions but take it easy on me as this is my first article and I want to do it right. Thanks. :) - Frank R. Fragnal 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Great, I think I'll give the article some time to develop. — TheKMan^talk 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support I have worked in the wireless industry in Canada for several years, and in landline communication before that, and can affirm the importance of Sassan Sanei's contributions to wireless data communication standards including the BlackBerry system. 65.93.23.84 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. Reasons For: While many of Sassan Sanei's Google hits refer to his blog, he is mentioned in a CNN article from 2001 [17], another article from 2001 [18], and there is a short description of him on a technology conference page [19]. The article is well writen, and might have some importance. Reasons Against: The few significant references to Sanei are from archived/old internet news articles from 2001. The only page linking to the article in question is the University of Waterloo, and the addition was made by the anonymous contributor to this article. I think I should also note that there is a possibility of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. May the "let several people know" comment by Fragnal be noted. This in itself is not a criteria for deletion, but may influence the decision by the administrator to keep or delete (see Sockpuppets are bad). In Closing: I do believe the article was created in good faith, but on a relatively obsure person. If this article is kept, I would recommend only keeping the "BlackBerry" quotation only. I'll leave the final decision to the deciding administrator. — TheKMan^talk 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Duh. - David Gerard 16:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. If I find more references I will add them to the article. I included the quotations which came up on various Google searches to give some insight into Sassan Sanei's views on things that have to do with more than just blackberry (personality insight). I have no objections if others want to edit or remove the others as TheKMan suggested and I can see that 65.93.23.84 already deleted one as "irrelevant" which I thought was actually an interesting one but I will not argue over it. Have we reached a consensus on whether to keep or delete?Fragnal 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to December 25, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:19, Dec. 25, 2005

• Keep. I've seen this guy's name around, and I'm not Canadian and I've never even touched a blackberry. Flyboy Will 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately. WP:V needs to be shown.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 11:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see notability established. Posting to blogs and commenting on Web articles doesn't do it for me. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dalbury. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:01, Dec. 26, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I was wavering over whether to relist or just close as delete, then I actually read the article. It's a blatant hoax, and even includes some old-time not-very-funny jokes presented as fact. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kasper Amundsen Tuvnes

Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank.--Dakota ^{? e} 06:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. non notable, 1 is no googles, 1 4-4 alexa.--Dakota ^{? e} 06:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Probably not true. Punkmorten 16:31, 25 December 2005 (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 of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the Future Part IV

This article is completely speculative; the links point to articles which clearly show that the idea of a Back to the Future IV is mocked by anyone who is asked about it, including Michael J. Fox — the bit about him "coming back to play Doc" is obviously Fox joking about how he is too old to play his old character now. Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for articles about movies which have no verifable reason for us to believe will ever exist. —Cleared as filed. 06:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't want to see a Titanic II article either. Endomion 07:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - You don't need a time machine to see that BTTF4 will never happen. --Dynamite Eleven 07:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - We can all write an infinite series of movies that could be made. BTW: Have you been watching movies lately? Hollywood is treading water, hacking out every remake and series continuation they can. Oh they'll make it with new actors, I don't doubt that, and it will suck, quite badly.Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Great Scott, 1.21 jigawatts??!?! WP:NOT a crystal ball.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, or as a second choice merge to Back to the Future trilogy. --Metropolitan90 19:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RasputinAXP --Pc13 22:16, 26 December 2005 (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 of the debate was since all recent votes are deletes and it's time to be done with 2005, I'm closing this as a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scott Janzen

A Google search for "Scott Janzen" and Green Party produces 37 hits. Future candidate for a small district. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - He can get his article if and when he is elected. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Green Party candidates, 39th Canadian federal election in accordance with existing practice. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Add profile. In reference to Dalbury's comment, there are currently 0 elected Green Party members of Parliament. Unfair to remove a Green Party candidate just because he is not elected.
  • Comment Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive, which is a guideline, states that biographies on political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature and major local political figures who receive significant press coverage are approrpiate for Wikipedia. My interpretation of that is that candidates who have not been elected to at least statewide/provincewide office, and have not received significant press coverage (i.e., more than the usual campaign coverage) should be covered in the articles for their parties, instead of in their own articles. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The policy of excluding candidates for political office that have not previously held an elected position is biased only to the incumbent in any particular election race. The intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election. Irrespective of their past or current fame, all candidates should have the opportunity provide their information to the web audience through wikipedia in addition to their politcal parties website. 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.214.195 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Please point me to where it says that the intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election. Wikipedia is not a news organization, it is an encyclopedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. There is as yet no Wikipedia policy on the inclusion of nonincumbent candidates for office. A proposal is under discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. I think it would be best to move all discussion there. -- Mwalcoff 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That is wrong. For a long time, consensus has been that candidates for office must already satisfy the WP:BIO criteria in some way. Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The discussions regarding this issue have been going on for a month now, and no one has mentioned that there was a preexisting policy on the matter. If you believe there should be a policy on candidates for office, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates.
            • The discussion was started in an attempt to change the consensus, which has existed for a long time now. Uncle G 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I have never seen such a policy, and as I said, no one has mentioned one in the month or so the discussion has been going on. -- Mwalcoff 12:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Then not only have you not read Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates (Hint: Read what you wrote above and then actually read the talk page.) you have not even read Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, where it is clearly explained that the discussion is an attempt to change the consensus. Uncle G 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Pardon me, but I wrote Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. There was no policy on candidates before I proposed one on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). WP:BIO does not claim to be a list of all the types of articles who are eligible for articles ("This list is not all-inclusive"). After AFD battles over some people, I felt it would be a good idea to propose a policy on what candidates should be included. After some disagreement on the WP:BIO talk page, we agreed to create a centralized discussion, which is where this exchange should be taking place. -- Mwalcoff 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a free wiki host for the posting of candidates' summaries. The "bias" (which is non-political in nature) is towards candidates that have already satisfied the criteria for inclusion, no more and no less. It is not a bias "towards the incumbent", as our articles on Screaming Lord Sutch and Ross Perot (who were never incumbents, but who satisfy the WP:BIO criteria nonetheless) attest. Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability cited beyond being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. (As a comment: The article reads like a campaign promo and not a bio.) --GrantNeufeld
• To help out other admins closing AFDs, delete. Being a mere candidate for public office, unless major publicity is attracted, just doesn't make the cut for notability, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's a damn good reason not to. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:51, Jan. 9, 2006

Note: I've redacted it and formatted it so it should be a (more) neutral articel. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per previous delete arguments. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)