Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

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

The result was No consensus. The raw ratio probably deserves a full-fledged keep decision, but a total of 5 opinions makes it hard to declare that consensus was really reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Is Loaded

[edit]

This very spare band artice was speedy deleted. A DRV consensus overturned, finding that the band claimed release on a major label, and that this exempted the article from CSD A7. The article is listed at AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - just because I think I've seen this seen this band, or maybe I have a song of theirs on a compilation tape. Yes, I know WP is not a place to list all the bands Dangherous has heard of, but I have anyway. I don't remember them being particularly good though - maybe that should sway my vote to meh. --Dangherous 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a link in the article to a BBC review of the band's performance while on tour. I think that meets the minimum for WP:BAND. The article needs work, though. -- Donald Albury 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[Miffsey note:The original article was a lot longer and more detailed but was deleted without consideration][reply]
  • Delete as is, though I could change my mind if the article was expanded. They've released a single full-length on a somewhat-notable indie label, and they have an article in a single reliable source; both of these (along with no other asserted notability) means it fails WP:BAND. The BBC article says they're on a "UK Tour", but it doesn't state if it's a national tour or just, say, a dozen shows in small clubs around Southern England. However, since the BBC article says that they've "blasted onto the music map", it's quite possible that there are other articles in reliable publications which would help the band pass WP:BAND (in which case, I'd obviously change to support). -- Kicking222 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.ableTalk 11:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Although AMG doesn't have a bio on them, it does confirm the release of "Laugh, Point & Wave" & "Raw Nerve". Caknuck 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims that one of their singles got "number 1 on the Kerrang! TV video chart". That would satisfy WP:BAND if verified. The tour probably does not count for notability — the article itself describes it as "minor". Delete, but with sources this could be an easy keep. Vectro 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Train of Thought Sketch Comedy

[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was: "I'm not sure this group is notable enough for Wikipedia." Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.ableTalk 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dakota 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tan

[edit]

Second nomination for this singer. Asserts notability in that one of his songs was selected for a compilation put together by Neil Young. Is that enough? I don't think so, but it's enough to avoid a speedy (the fate of the first nom). NawlinWiki 23:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its not clear whether the things listed under Discography are albums or just songs. If they are albums, keep.

If not, delete. Clamster5 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwe championship roll call

[edit]

listcruft, basically copies other pages about WWE championship and is pretty useless. Tony fanta 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, and I don't think transwiki to Wikibooks is appropriate -- Samir धर्म 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barberton Chicken

[edit]

Very well written article about something completely not notable. At best, this is of local importance, and even then, it's just one restaurant's rendition of fried chicken. This is way below our ordinary notability standards. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Armourae

[edit]

As it stands, the CV of an actor. Aside from a bit-part on one movie [3], I can't see how this meets WP:BIO. -Doc 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142

[edit]

Delete per the precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe in that Wikipedia is not a substitute for a game guide. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Car Brands to Australia

[edit]

Is a list of all 2 new types of cars that are being exported to Australia in 2006 a notable list or article? I think it falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. Metros232 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD-G7. --Interiot 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Nothing

[edit]

One is that it's currently empty. The second is that it looks like nonsense and/or vanity, and it's all by one author. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuZEN Luxury Audio

[edit]

Does not Meet WP:CORP. May be advertising or spam -Nv8200p talk 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus; default to keep. MCB 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of İzmir

[edit]

This article is a WP:POVFORK which was {{main}}ed out of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) without any real reason:

  • Virtually all of the article serves to show the background and result (illustrated analytically in the mother article)
  • The summary section of this article in the mother article is almost identical to the actual content of this one. The only additional content is ONE paragraph, namely Occupation of Smyrna#Occupation! (not to mention about its selective content)
  • There is no {{main}} template in the mother article (for obvious reasons), despite the fact that the original edit stated "moved from Greco-Turkish War to have its own page" [4]
  • There is hardly any academic reference to this period (Google scholar: only 12 hits- some irrelevant)
  • The contents of this article are largely applicable also to the Great Fire of Smyrna

The article should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or the title should be expanded to include Ionia; not only Smyrna

Also, the title of the article, although a military term, is largely POV, because:

  • it is anachronistic since the city was officially named "Izmir" later; should be "Smyrna"
  • it is a paradox; an army does not "occupy" a city if the majority of population is of same ethnicity; it "liberates" it.

Compare the existing title to Temporary liberation of Smyrna to see the contrast of the two POV's. Either a more NPOV term should be used, to bridge those two extremes, or the article should be deleted under any name. •NikoSilver• 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am quite annoyed that this article was tagged, covered in pov, then nominated for deletion within the space of an hour. I took the time to carefully research and cite the contents of this article, and i intended to return to it when time permitted. Firstly, this article is not a pov fork. There is no pov implied in the title or the article (and its content is not selective, i've tried to show the treatment of Muslims and Christians within this city), it is simply the most common term used for the Greek presence in Izmir during the Greco-Turkish war by historians. It is certainly more notable than Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922 as suggested by the nominator. Granted, Occupation of Smyrna may be even more notable, but i was prepared to rename it to this, this was not an issue for me. Secondly, as to its right to be separate from Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), that article covers the Greek campaign from the landings in Izmir, to the Greek incursion right across Anatolia. I intended this article to deal solely with the Greek presence in Izmir over the war and in due course would have expanded it from its current state. Put simply, is the title verifiable through third party sources? Yes. Is the subject worthy of an article? In my opinion I believe it is. --A.Garnet 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dispute here seems to be primarily about the section title and about the POV of the current content. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about notability or WP:V. The disputed matters can be resolved in due course. --Shirahadasha 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) On reflection, Merge with qualifications: Merge present article or Expand, and Keep and Rename a significantly-expanded article. Deletion is not required by policy, since notability and WP:V are clearly sufficient and POV problems can potentially be corrected. However, I find myself persuaded by the need to avoid a POV fork given the opposing historical and national views that still resonate from these events. The current content of this article is not much more than in the corresponding section of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which is currently entitled Greek Occupation of Smyrna. There's currently little apparent value-added from a separate article to offset the POV fork potential. If the content were significantly expanded so that the value of a separate article could be made more apparent, I would be more inclined to support a Keep vote than I am now. If the article will be expanded, it would be reasonable to allow some time for this to occur. If kept, the title of this article should be the same as the title of the corresponding section in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), so a Rename would be in order. --Shirahadasha 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article deals with a specific event, part of the 'Greco-Turkish war (1919-1920)'. In its current state (under this title and with that content) the article serves as a POV-folk. Though it is claimed to refer to events connected with the city, it talks about Alasehir and Ataturk, not to mention that through hersays and selective usage of sources it has the place of a 'turkish pov-vehicle'... Concerning the title, it expresses the clear turkish pov, talking about 'occupation'... for the greeks, it was 'liberation' (having in mind that the majority of the population were Greeks). in addition, the Greek army landed in the city under permission of an international treaty (the one of Sevres), which had been signed by the then legitimate turkish government. Apropos, a possible article named Occupation of Smyrni 9 September 1922-July 24 1923, talking about the turkish control of the city until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, would be more legitimate, since the turks of Kemal took a city with Greek majority, without being legitimised to do so under any treaty... Furthermore, the city's name was 'Smyrni' that time, not Izmir (also have in mind about this how the majority of the city's population and the world, or even the Ottoman administration called the city). I would agree with NikoSilver in the creation of an article named Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922, since: 1. this is the most NPOV title, and 2. it would talk about the whole area under Greek control (roughly corresponding to the histori region of Ionia). Hectorian 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have been here before, Greece occupied izmir a whole year before the Treaty of Sevres was signed, that is why its presence is referred to as occupation by historians. Even George Horton uses the term "Greek occupation of Smyrna". So your claim it landed under the provisions of a treaty is false. Second, invading a territory with the same ethnicity does not make it a liberation. It is still the territory of another sovereign. But all this is pointless, the title of this article is the most commonly used term for the events and it can be verified through impartial third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some weird reason though the article doesn't discuss any of this. Why?--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Garnet: I've no idea if my answer will be pointless, but if u look in the historic facts, u will see that Smyrni, at the time of the landing of the Greek army was not territory of another sovereign... The Ottoman Empire had been defeated in WWI, and so had sovereignty nowhere... (unless someone would thing he is ready to talk about 'French occupation of Alsace and Larraine...' (again, prior to the signing of a treaty). but even if we accept that the Ottoman Empire still was sovereign, the Greece administered the area, did not conquer it.... (that's why the ottoman flags remained in their place and there was a committement for a referendum). moreover, saying that since the treaty of Serves was not yet signed, we are free to name the article occupation, i'll have to remind u that the article does not cover the period 1919-1920, but more... In addition, under this pretext i can create another article, 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni 1922-1923', where the 'Great Fire' will be also discussed (more or less it would be as povfork as this one). Hectorian 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate seriously doesn't belong here, but just for the record: Being defeated in a war does not strip a state of its sovereignty over its territory, according to early 20th century international law. Your point is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that as much legitimate it may be to call the greek administration of Smyrni as 'occupation', the same validity could apply to the territories Germany, Austia-Hungary, or anyone else's who was defeated in WWI (early 20th cent.). But it seems that the Germans are not pushing any pov concerning Gdansk or Lorraine... (ο νοών νοείτο)... Hectorian 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a Turkish pov when third party verifiable sources are using the term? --A.Garnet 10:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that you claim that Pontian Greek Genocide is Greek POV when when third party verifiable sources are using the term.--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, you have 1 third party source who mentions Pontian Greek Genocide which makes it a minority pov. Occupation of Izmir/Smyrna can be easily verified through reliable third party sources. I even got an admin to have a look at the dispute and he agreed this is the most relevant title. --A.Garnet 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:ANOT: an admin is just a normal user with a mop and a bucket, not an expert or a peer reviewer. I'm not denying that an admin is more likely to be cool-minded and neutral than the average wikijoe. I'm just saying that an admin's opinion is not in itself proof of anything. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, there are a lot more than one (as I'm sure you are well aware), and we have more sources endorsing it than denying it (makes you wonder what the minority POV really is). This article however remains a fork of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Most of the information here is a copy of what is at that article - any further information would comfortable fit into a section of that article. If it is so widely attested in the literature, why can't you even give the names of the Greek military commanders?--Tekleni 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the first to suggest a merge into the mother article, but that's not a matter of deletion and should preferably be discussed on the article talk page and not here. I'd be in favour of a merge because in principle I'm not a friend of splitting controversial topics up into a multitude of subarticles, as happens unfortunately far too often. I do not endorse the arguments made by the nominator in the second paragraph of his nomination; in my view, both "occupation" and the name "Izmir" are perfectly legitimate here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: May I remind everybody that "delete and merge" isn't a valid option, for GFDL reasons. If anything is merged, the edit history and a redirect must stay (and will do no harm).
  • Keep or Rename as "Invasion of Western Anatolia".The Christian population (not only Greeks) of İzmir was 30% and also the treaty of Serves was never ratified by the Meclisi Mebusan so nobody can call this event as the liberation of İzmir.--Hattusili 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily keep per (IMHO) misuse of AFD process. Other possible solutions (renaming, merging, keeping & expanding) should be discussed at the relevant talk page. Apart from that I'd agree with either merging with GrecoTurkish War or renaming to something that would signify the fact that Greece was legally holding Ionia for the time, such as "Greek administration of Ionia". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Merge and Redirect to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) per Richardshusr. I voted to temporarily keep so as to have the conversation take place at the talk page and not on an AfD page. It seems however that the conversation took place here anyway, so, here goes. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename or Re-write under a suitable title. The occupation zone for 2 to 3 years extended from Bursa-Gemlik-Yalova in the north, to Aydın in the south, and Kütahya in the east. İzmir was only the western end of the occupation zone. Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is one thing. The occupation was another thing. There are other examples of battles and occupations being treated under separate articles. There's enough material of international scope to develop an other editors above.
  • Merge and Redirect to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), - Agree with NikoSilver, article does not have sufficient additional content to warrant a separate article. It appears that the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir was not just a single event in the war but rather the major focal event of the war. If this is not true, I would reconsider my position. --Richard 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the name, I think Occupation of Smyrna would be more appropriate. A move request should be made on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am willing to retract this nomination if I have unwillingly abused the AfD process. Please cite the relevant policy. I was inspired by a relevant application for another article, which indeed has a lot more unique content. The article should definitely be merged, and I would like to ask the participants to move this discussion, where applicable for that merge. Waiting for answer to this comment before I withdraw nomination. •NikoSilver• 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. - Francis Tyers · 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, more specifically that would be Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. It explicitly says:
Problem with page Solution Add this tag
Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. {{mergeto¦article}}
Article duplicates information in some other article
 Cleanup or propose merge and redirect.

If you can't figure out how to perform the merger, tag it and list on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.

{{merge¦article}}
Article is biased or has lots of POV
 List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{npov}} or {{POV check}}
Dispute over article content
 List on Wikipedia:Requests for comments. {{disputed}}
Therefore, I hereby withdraw nomination and I'm tagging the article with the above proposed tags by the policy. •NikoSilver• 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Occupation of İzmir (an ottoman province that was not in war before the armistice, so it qualifies as the name occupation) was a sub article of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) that explains what was happened from the first day to the last day within the PROVINCE of IZMIR. Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) covers much wider perspective. Province of Izmir was a big side of the war which some of the Greek/Turkish activities in that region wanted to be wiped out from the history. It seems this time Greeks are the ones who doing the deed. (a) The towns that is listed as UNRELATED is within the ottoman province of IZMIR. (b) The last day of war which is cowered "fire in the IZMIR" was planned to be merged to this article to make the name fire less POV and more appropriate. (c) There were multinational issues during the occupation, which is not cowered by the text. The content of the article is GREEK POV, same as fire in the IZMIR and whole article of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Turkish point of is constantly deleted and article become biased, by representing only one side of the truth. With the deletion of Occupation of İzmir, whole text (distributed in many articles) become GREEK POV.--OttomanReference 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case all of you were still wondering, we have an explicit confession by the article creator above,[5] that the article is indeed a WP:POVFORK. •NikoSilver• 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question is whether the article content is substantive enough to stand on its own or whether it should be merged back into the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article. Most of the discussion so far has been around liberation/occupation and Izmir/Smyrna. The one really substantive comment has been the idea that the occupation extended beyond the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and thus deserves its own article. This argument would be valid if there were notable events that happened during the occupation but after the end of the war. I haven't seen evidence that this is true yet. --Richard 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. To my knowledge, there weren't any events after the war. In any case, why should this article be separate until we see such evidence? •NikoSilver• 08:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, strike what I said. I misremembered what I had read. I don't think there is any claim that the occupation extended beyond the end of the war. Re-reading the above, it appears that the Turks retook Smyrna after the end of the war. In which case, the occupation COULD be part of the article on the war or it could be separate. The question remains... is there enough encyclopedic material to warrant a separate article on the occupatio alone? Based on what's in the article now as opposed to what is in the article on the war now, I think there could be but it's a judgment call. --Richard 09:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could-should-would, but definitely isn't. When it will-shall-may, we see if we make it separate. We'll have more data for bitching on what to call it too. :-) •NikoSilver• 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more clear. The article on the war has only two paragraphs on the Occupation of Smyrna. The Occupation of Izmir article has much more than that and can stand on its own as an article. If the Occupation of Izmir article were only two paragraphs, it would be a definite candidate for merging into the article on the war. However, because the Occupation of Izmir article is as big as it is, it is a judgment call whether to merge all of that info back into the article on the war, thus expanding the two paragraph section into a much larger section. I could support the merge or the keeping of the article as a stand-alone. I lean towards the keeping of the article as a stand-alone but, as I said, it's a judgment call.
If the Occupation of Izmir article is merged into the article on the war, it might be considered to be taking up a disproportionate amount of space in the article on the war. This is a good argument for pulling out the details of the occupation and having it be in a separate article.
If the Occupation of Izmir article were much larger than it is right now, there would be no question that the article should be a stand-alone.
Thus, I don't see this as being a POV fork issue at all. IMO, it's only a question of whether there is enough encyclopedic material to warrant a separate article. I think the answer is "Yes, just barely".
--Richard 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to point out what else is unique content in that article apart from the 4-5 lines of text in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation? The rest is background and results, which are again analyzed in the mother article (only in a much more NPOV way...) •NikoSilver• 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, I'm supposed to actually READ the articles in question before expressing an opinion? Since when is that a requirement of AFD?  ;^)
Seriously, I confess that I am guilty of having looked at this question too superficially. I looked at the section in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article and saw the section titled "Occupation of Smyrna" and read those two paragraphs. If I had read the whole article, I would have seen what you pointed out. To wit, most of the rest of this article is covered in that article. In my defense, that other text was not clearly identified by the section headings as relevant to Smyrna. I have added in section headings to help the reader understand the flow of the article on the war. At this point, I am sitting on the fence, leaning towards a merge of the two articles. I have changed my vote above accordingly. --Richard 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole argument that it needs merging because of the lack of content is pointless. No one is disputing its relevance or notability, only the amount of content, but this is something which can be expanded in time, and which i did intend to expand (i only rewrote and sourced it a couple of weeks ago). If it is merged, then put simply, i will recreate and expand it when i have time to do so. But it is unfair that other editors will not have the chance to expand it, and the onus will rest on me to research and expand the article to a state which will survive another merge request. --A.Garnet 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a misconception here that the occupation of Izmir and the Greco-Turkish war were one and the same thing. The Occupation of Izmir was only one stage of the war. The others include, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. --A.Garnet 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How can an army (A) "occupy" an area (B) if the majority of the population in the area is of the same ethnicity (A) and at the time of the event under a foe? If the area had been occupied earlier by an expanding, attacking force then army (A) Liberates.

Aristovoul0s 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't make sense, the greeks attacked and occupied Izmir which was part of Turkey, just because most of the people there were greek doesn't mean it doesn't count as an occupation. Armanalp 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot (having to deal with every day and real life stuff...). Don't worry, noone is so naive to count me twice, even if that was my aim... Hectorian 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Independent News Group

[edit]

This article is not regarding a notable subject. Johnwwatson 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsung Zeros

[edit]

Previously speedied, and I deleted after re-creation, but I have my doubts now. The band released 3 albums and was signed to a record company. They disbanded in 2004, but apparently they have a cult following. Google gives 102,000 hits. Nishkid64 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they've released three records on a notable label than I say keep. But of course, that info should go in the article itself, so this discussion doesn't happen over and over again.Natalie 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Guliani

[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page. Lisa Guliani isn't important enough for a Wikipedia article. Johnwwatson 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Thorn (patriot)

[edit]

Who is this guy and why is he important? Another vanity page. Johnwwatson 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD G11 - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPGOnline

[edit]

Page was created by User:Bizflyer, who mass linked this site in numerous articles, and is associated with EPGOnline (See User talk:Jfdwolff#External Links to EPGOnline). The site seems to be too little known to deserve its own article. A google search excluding Wikipedia and the EPG Sites returned 41 hits, the top hit being an anti-virus site McAfee. Delete because of self promo and vanity Chris 73 | Talk 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kunze

[edit]

NN consultant and technology journalist. Seems best known for coining the term LAMP, though this isn't mentioned in the article. Article itself is a cleanup candidate at best, and its title should be used for the much better known Michael Kunze (writer). Electrolite 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_British_films

[edit]

Several reasons to remove this page: it's obviously listcruft; which films make the page and which don't is entirely subjective; to actually list every British film is absurd and unnecessary because this could just be a category instead. Stellis 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Lion Television

[edit]

Non notable local cable TV program produced by high school students. Not a bad article, but it is hard to see how this deserves an article. Earlier prod removed. Brianyoumans 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 06:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power paper

[edit]

Reason Jeffreynye 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I think this looks like an advertisement.[reply]

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

Michael Graeme Berman

[edit]

The result was speedy deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Because the article appears to be a hoax: it describe the career of Sebastian Coe, but puts a different name on it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petz community

[edit]

Prod'ed back in May,[10] deprod'ed without comment 21 hours after that.[11] Original concern was Non-notable online community. Does Wikipedia really need articles about online fan clubs of computer games? The article is currently linkless, probably since it was created in April, exactly 6 months ago. Reviewing the history, apparently only anonymous and very new people contributed to the article, plus some established ones tagging and doing some minor cleaning. Besides not being really encyclopedic, the article is currently a mixture of an external link repository and instruction manual. -- ReyBrujo 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nom should note that this is not actually describing an individual community, but that there is a strong community for the games in question, which appear to be notable and to have a Wikipedia article themselves. I would suggest that this be Deleted, however, and that the Petz article be expanded slightly to note the presence of its active online community. Imban 02:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not disagree with your comment. Note that in no place I stated this was describing an individual community, just informed why the article was originally prod'ed. My concern is that the topic may create a precedent for articles like Halo community, Half-life community, Digg community, etc, which are not encyclopedic unless correctly sourced and verifiable. Also, the article has been "hidden" since creation, as it has no wikilinks, no categories, no stub, etc, and has since then became a link farm. I agree with your idea of merging some information into the main article, but the current one is, apparently, unencyclopedic. -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, and I thought it odd that the Petz article didn't mention this one. Sorry if it seemed I was going after you. Imban 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no worries. Had I thought it was personal, I would have directly contacted your talk page. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Its a very slippery slope from admitting this to Fans of Southern Missouri Grammar-School Soccer.Montco 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real assertion of notability. No real verifiable sources. Every game has online communities dedicated to it. Why is this one special? Resolute 06:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does Wikipedia really need articles about online fan clubs of computer games? nope, nope, nope! This article has no real assertion of notability and seems to be of no encyclopedic importance whatsoever. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect into the main article. Just about every game has its online fans, no reason for a seperate article about it. Andrew Lenahan -Starblind 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that no one here has done any research into this community. To couple it with the article about "Petz" itself would be a sort of sin. "Petz" as it means to this community has nothing to do with the current programs by the same name. The following of these old and dead games borders on a cult, and anyone who has set foot into one of the stomping grounds of this community would know this. There are years and years of history, and plenty of sources that could be added. How about instead of deleting it, someone puts some effort into making it *accurate*? The difference between this community and the "halo community" or the like is obvious. We're united, and we're actually a community, we don't just all "play the same game". Many members of the community don't even play the games anymore. I challenge anyone who thinks the PC is on par with "a group of people who like to play Halo" to come visit us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.242.76 (talk • contribs) .
    Hello there, 70.104.242.76. Unluckily, as you can read here, the burden of evidence is in the editor who added the text, not in the ones reviewing it. We are not forced to find the "plenty of sources that could be added", they should be added by the ones adding the information in Wikipedia. Hopefully that made our position clear. -- ReyBrujo 05:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I understand. It just seems absurd to me to delete an article just because it's not instantly complete, rather than to edit it or label it as "incomplete". I'm not much familiar with wikipedia's rules and such, and I don't typically edit articles or anything, it just bothered me that the article might be deleted. Flag it is incomplete or inaccurate or whatever, that would be fine, but why delete something just because it's "under construction", so to speak? As I said, I wasn't the one to add the text, I barely even figured out how to reply here. I just didn't think it was fair to say that we didn't have any importance whatsoever, and all of the other comments here. It may be the editor's responsibility to add the sources, but it's irresponsible to make claims about the community without first doing research. My point: you don't automatically delete every article that is slightly inaccurate as soon as it is posted, do you? This article has been edited in the past month or so, and the last time I saw it, it had plenty of sources. They must have been removed somewhere along the line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.242.76 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pommy Johnson

[edit]

Only claim to notability is Maruie Awards comedian of the year 2002, if that counts for anything? A google search suggests that most of very few references to it are people saying they've won some flavour of it. Anyway, over to you. Ben Aveling 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaxy

[edit]

I could throw the book at it: violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NEO for starters. Prod removed and doesn't seem to qualify as patent nonsense for a speedy. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear timeline

[edit]

Redundant and irreconcilably in-universe original research. This is an original synthesis, taking bits and pieces of a fictional story and arranging them into a timeline, with no clear criteria for inclusion or omission. Additionally, none of this can be referenced save to direct observation of the games in question, and each of the games already has its own article (as well as a series of sub-articles and an umbrella series article) to describe its story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure we've seen this before... Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the separate "Metal Gear timeline compared to reality", which coexisted along with this article. This article only lists facts mentioned in the games themselves, whereas the old timeline was full of speculation and analysis. This timeline isn't encyclopedic, but it's not nearly as bad as the other one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Combination 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kids have too much spare time in school these days. The Kinslayer 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or transwiki if there's a suitable destination. --Alan Au 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... although there really is no point voting anymore since I'm clearly outnumbered. But at least let me clear up a misconception about this article: most of the information in this timeline is not in-universe or original research. Most of the information are in fact taken from game manuals and supplemental documents that were supplied with the games. In particular, the manual for Metal Gear Solid 3 contains a detailed timeline from 1939 to 1964, while the manual for Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake contains a detailed timeline from 1986 to 1999. Other information was taken from the Previous Story sections of Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid 2, the Briefing section of Metal Gear Solid, and from the script in the Document of Metal Gear Solid 2. It's not necessary for this article to be deleted but it just requires a clean-up. All it needs is for us to remove most of the information that are "in-universe" and only keep the information that is found in manuals and supplemental documents. Jagged 85 08:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But in that case, WP:NOT a dumping ground for instruction manual material, or a plot summary.. The Kinslayer 08:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:NOT, Wiki-articles should "not include instructions or advice" from an instruction manual, but it can include "descriptions of people, places, and things" from an instruction manual. This article is not meant to be a plot summary, but just a collection of "descriptions of people, places, and things" taken from instruction manuals and various documents. That is why I am suggesting we clean-up this article rather than deleting it. Jagged 85 08:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's original research because it arranges bits and pieces of plot summary in an idiosyncratic way. It's plot summary because all of these are story or backstory points. It's in-universe because it describes the fictional universe as though it were a real universe, with no reference to the one in which you and I live. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not original research if the information is copied directly from manuals and documents giving specific years and timelines. It's not plot summary if it doesn't summarize the plot from the games themselves. As for the in-universe aspect, that could be eliminated with a clean-up, by describing each event from an out-of-universe perspective. For example, instead of simply saying "Person A was born in place B in the year C", we could instead say "The manual of game X reveals that the fictional character A was born in place B in the year C". Jagged 85 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's idiosyncratic arrangement of those plot details: the process of deciding which details from the primary sources to include and exclude is original research. It's plot summary by definition if you're recapping a story. The in-universe issue can be resolved with cleanup; the original research and plot summary problems cannot be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's true, but it's a problematic way to define "original research" because by your definition, every Wikipedia article about a film or novel that includes a plot summary — which is virtually every Wikipedia article about a film or novel — should be stricken due to the "original research" objection. Cribcage 17:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a plot summary is going to substantially rely on the structure of the work itself, whereas this reassembles the story points into a new fashion. Ideally we should be using secondary sources even when writing plot summaries, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Metal Gear Solid 3 manual gives the timeline from 1939 to 1964 exactly in the same order as shown in this article. The Metal Gear Solid 3 ending gives the timeline from 1964 to 1971 exactly in the same order as this article. The Metal Gear 2 manual gives the timeline from 1986 to 1999 also in exactly the same order in this article. If this article was just a combination of these timelines, then that cannnot be considered "original research" because of the fact that it's a direct copy of several other pre-existing timelines from official sources. Again, I don't see the point in a deletion if a clean-up is all it requires. Jagged 85 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's duplicating source material, another WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's exactly the same as those sources like you say, then surely it's also a copyvio issue? The Kinslayer 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was quick. Well that was just a hypothetical if, not an absolute solution. I was not suggesting we copy anything exactly word-for-word, but was pointing out that there is no original research involved in taking information from official timelines. Well anyway, I've just been looking around for whether there are any policies on fictional timelines, and I doubt there is actually any policy against them, considering the fact that there are already a dozen other fictional timelines on Wikipedia which haven't been subjected to much controversy nor have they ever been nominated for deletion. Why should the Metal Gear timeline be treated any differently to the others? Like I said, this can be solved with a clean-up (and looking at other examples). Jagged 85 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As with all articles, we'll later deal with those on the merits. In the case of this article, no amount of cleanup can make it not a substantive reproduction of source material or pure plot summary. We don't need a rule that specifically outlaws timelines in order to realize that this particular timeline is extremely problematic, in ways that cannot be fixed with cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find arguing that an article should be kept because similar articles haven't been nominated for deletion is a really poor arguement anyway. Maybe those other articles haven't been deleted simply because no-one has got round to nominating them? I know I'm certainly going to be giving them a close inspection afterwards. (And FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlevania timeline should show you this article hasn't been specifically singled out. The Kinslayer 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is just me but I still fail to see what's so extremely problematic about it (or any timeline for that matter) that cannot be fixed with a cleanup. If you do still wish delete this fictional timeline, then we might aswell delete all of them... but like Kinslayer ponted out, it looks like the Castlevania timeline has also been nominated, although the vast majority over there actually wish to keep it, which further complicates the issue of whether timelines are acceptable. Jagged 85 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been up a couple of days, and people haven't noticed it's up yet. Guaranteed now it's been mentioned here, more votes will appear. But trying to argue the merits of keeping an article based on a 2 day old unfinshed AfD of another article is shakier than the 'but these articles haven't been nominated' defense. The Kinslayer 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a defense, it's just a plain fact that the majority over there prefer to keep that article, at least for now. Anyway, I think I might have changed my mind after looking through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life series storyline. Transwiki might actually be a better idea after all. Jagged 85 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 100% delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charities that apply 100% of financial contributions towards end-recipients

[edit]

Not quite sure what this is supposed to be, but if it is what I understand it as...it's supposed to be a list of charities that donate 100% and don't take anything out for themselves. Not exactly sure if this is encyclopedic. Metros232 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't read all the comments, but first of all there should not be a list with only one item, and an offbeat one at that; the COI issue is serious; and even if we could find another ten or hundred charities which meet this criterion, the article still inherently does not belong. The article tries to make it a public service or something...forget it. 129.98.212.59 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBNNow!

[edit]

Contested PROD. Originally PRODded with the message, "Unnotable company/service." PROD2ed by nom with the message, "While company is notable, (as with other television networks,) service is not." DePRODded by anon with edit summary, "should not be deleted since the product exists and the article is genuine." No other improvement offered between my PROD2 and DePROD. RoninBKETC 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pruyne

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Was originally speedy-tagged, but since he's an author, I want to let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mansfield.edu/news/updater/archive/02-03/up11-22.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.207.141 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: If you want a nickname expert, it's a good listing; if not, it's pretty random. But this site is made up of a ton of random listings. What makes this one any less worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.204.234 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is always good to have a guy who knows something about nicknames. And who knows, this column he writes may someday become syndicated and then everyone will want to know about it. This is definitely a keeper.And the book may not seem notable now, but I have a feeling it could become so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lrhowel (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Lrhowel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete nn author, below inclusion threshold. Eusebeus 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. MCB 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dotson

[edit]

nn bodyguard, "Jim Dotson" wwf gets about 250 ghits, more wrestlecruft Tony fanta 03:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KUNG-FUzion

[edit]

Article about a group created by User:Kungfuzion, who is its only editor. Peter O. (Talk) 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge & redirect to Jake Brahm. --MCB 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mess With Football

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social marketplace

[edit]

No real sources and more like advertising to me. Kamiawolf 04:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google seems to indicate that "social marketplace" is a spam buzzword. No verifiable sources were found. MER-C 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (advertising fodder) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Social marketplace is a deep tendency on internet. A bit like ebay for articles, Social Marketplace are a way for people to monetize their expertise with social networks. What other article could hold this tendency ?
  • Delete per nom. Radagast83 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The text of this article is unintelligible. It is filled with jargon, sales-speak and extremely bad grammar. There are no reputable 3rd party sources. Every source is simply a link to one of the featured websites of the article-- part of the story, not an independent observer of facts. Is this original research? Is it an advertisement? It sounds like an advertisement, but then I can't figure out what I am supposed to buy. Widgets? Thneeds? It doesn't explain anything.OfficeGirl 01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stillmeadow Church of the Nazarene

[edit]

Contested prod. Original prod said "Non notable local church; no particular claim to notability, and the article is not written from a neutral point of view. --Brianyoumans 10:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)" Khatru2 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you count as the nominator, then I vote delete per nom. Khatru2 06:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ex-Lion Tamer

[edit]

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A7) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Smells like vanity and/or hoax, but wanted to make sure. As it stands, delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, could be speedy A7. Not a hoax, though. Note also that this band apparently tames dead lions, although they probably meant that they used to tame live ones. --N Shar 04:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wine & Spirit

[edit]

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Tere Bin by Atif & the credit goes to?

[edit]

Does not meet WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 04:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was okay, that's better. Notability properly asserted, article expanded - it's now a keep. DS 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Calero

[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Subject's only assertion of notability is working for a comic book company. Appears to be a borderline A7 article, but the author strongly refutes this. NMChico24 04:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm sorry, but I have tried to, respectfully make clear, that Dennis Calero, aside of course from being one of my favorite artists, has worked on hundreds of comics, many of which are featured in wikipedia as significant, as well as having had his most recent title nominated for a Harvey award, which is arguably the second highest award in comics, second only to the eisner.

    My understanding is that he is working on several projects that would be commonly considered "notable."

    Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ughmonster (talk • contribs)
    • The projects themselves my be notable, but that doesn't mean everyone who works on them is. What has this person done that is truly notable? What non-trival, widely-read and trusted publications has he personally been interviewed or been the subject of articles in? --NMChico24 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a bit premature. A good start is that he's the penciller of a recently Harvey-Award-nominated series (and penciller is the principle artistic role for a comic), and there should be mre info to find. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your concerns about this being premature. The fact is, the article has been deleted twice, and has been proposed for deletion a third time by more than one person. This seems like a good compromise, because it allows community consensus and stops the repeated deleting and reposting that's been occuring. --NMChico24 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand the idea that the project may be notable and yet the person who actually draws it is not? Other than the writer, the penciller (or artist as he both pencilled and inked his own work) is the most significant person on the project. By the way, my apologies for my misunderstanding of Wiki ediquette. In the meantime, here's a link to the 2006 Harvey Award nominees: Thank you man in black. The only reference I have is a printed program from the Baltimore Convention in which the awards took place. Other than that, this link: http://www.harveyawards.org/

        Thank you Ughmonster 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please accept my apologies if the above statement that I made seems a little strongly-worded. I am simply stating some questions that should be answered by the article. If these questions are answered, then it's unlikely the article will be deleted. Just wanted to clarify so as not to be biting anyone.  :-) --NMChico24 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dennis Calero was featured in an article in time out ny, a page of which is on dennis Calero's website. www.denniscalero.com I believe this qualifies as a non trivial magazine, at least to some people anyway. Ughmonster 05:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he gets a few more credits under his belt — This is not an encyclopedia article but a book blurb. Also, whoever wrote it didn't have enough respect for Wikipedia to read the Manual of Style, Wikiproject Comics exemplars, etc., so it certainly feels as if he just considers Wiki a place for hype/adv. -- Tenebrae 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask Ughmonster, who created the page and is either a huge fan of the artist or the artist himself, to please stop interjecting whbat may be seen as self-serving or possibly biased comments, and let an unfettered dicussion take place. --Tenebrae 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are unnecc. acerbic and frankly, presumptuous. No I did nto read the entire manual of style, but I have made an honest effort to read to every page and set of guidelines that I've been referred to, none of which suggested that commenting in a discussion page is ill-mannered. There is no "hype" in my listing, except perhaps for a link to the artist's website, which I did not add.
I don't see how asking me to stop "interjecting" is going to add to the discussion. It's my first page, and if this is supposed to be a discussion, why wouldn't I be encoruaged to try and answer criticism and ask questions?
At the same time, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to hinder the process, but I frankly don;t understand, with every Wiki policy emphasizing being kind to first time users, why some obviously more experienced users insist on slamming me for not being as familiar with Wiki policies as they, and to the point of accusations of dsengeniousness, especially considering that in terms of "overt bias" and "advertising", just about every other current comic artist's listing on this site includes contact information and service descriptions. --Ughmonster 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's "slamming" anyone by asking that those who contribute to Wikipedia read up on some of the basic rules and editorial policies. It's also hard for unbiased, disinterested contributors, with no personal stake in an issue, to have a substantive discussion on its merits when an interested party won't let them do so without it turning into an issue of personal emotion. --Tenebrae 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The author of the article has given a pretty good defense of notability, if it all turns out to be true. Unfortunately, the article as it currently stands does not reflect all the information Ughmonster has cited. The article needs major improvement, it needs to be written out with proper sources to verify everything said by Ughmonster. Starblind notes that the guy is up for a pretty serious award within the industry and working on several major, notable projects is good enough for me as far as notability is concerned. If the article is fixed by the end of the AfD cycle, it should be kept... if it only has a small amount of info, as it does now, then delete it. --The Way 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems as though a lot of people are exercising an absurdly high level of notability re:deletion. He's a notable artist that's worked on notable books. This is an encyclopedia, not a who's who. --MonkBirdDuke 09:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote for delete was blanked out by User:70.19.97.253. I restored it by reversion. MidgleyDJ 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.18GB is clearly an identity made up on short notice, no credits etc, who wants to, for whatever reason, disrupt this process and thus I felt needed deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk) .
Your own account also has no edits save this one. Is this user (User:70.19.97.253) posting under different names in this deletion discussion? MidgleyDJ 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm moving anon because I saw something shifty going on, so I don't wish to, in turn, be flamed. I'm sorry you find that level of caution so shocking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk) .
It's noteworthy that User:70.19.97.253 & User:Ughmonster have been editing the same pages, in similar language - and are likely to be the same person. Removing delete comments in a deletion discussion that you have a clear interest is concerning. MidgleyDJ 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fer... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.115.36 (talk) .
For further discussion of the blanking please see User talk:70.19.97.253. MidgleyDJ 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that not all articles need to be really long, but they need to have at least some content; this one has a grand total of four sentences and they leave out vital information that ALL biographical articles need: birth date, hometown, education, etc. Four sentences isn't anything, it needs to be written out in a few paragraphs and in the proper form for living biographies. I agree that the guy seems notable enough, though so far there aren't really any sources cited in the article to back up these claims. I think the article should stay but it needs to be expanded, properly sources and properly formatted. --The Way 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're 100% right and I will, as soon as I get home from work. Some of us have jobs you know!  ;) One thing though, clearly I am an inexperienced user, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so the fact that I may not format things correctly shouldn't be the deciding factor. People should help me format it, once the information is there, of course. --Ughmonster 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, people will. --Mild Mannered 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- The subject of the article is clearly notable to anyone reading comics now. And the article seems at least as long and as informative as other people of the same level of notability and relative..."newness"... I should have expanded on this earlier and I am a new user but jumping to the conclusion that I'm "stuffing the ballot box" is silly. Grow up. --ConeyIslandBoy 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above "Keep" is also by a newly registered (Oct. 24) user. This, together with the new-user erasure of a Delete above, as noted by MidgleyDJ, very much gives the appearance of an interested party rallying friends not previously contributing to Wikipedia is order to "stuff the ballot". An Admin should be made aware of this. -- Tenebrae 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no interest in the fact that Midge and 4.18 post within 2 min of each other. --Ughmonster 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ughmonster, assuming you are talking about me when you say Midge (sic): I said on this talk page I am more than happy for an administrator to look into any sockpuppetry you are suggesting has occured on my part. If you'd like to report your assertion that I have been using sock puppets I believe you can do so here by requesting an administrator to investigate. If you look through my contributions and those of the user you are suggesting is also "me" ie: User:4.18GB you'll see we dont have the same edit history, interests or contributions. I've done nothing wrong: I've not deleted other peoples comments, I've not written comments under pseudonyms or sockpuppet/anon accounts. MidgleyDJ 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the people concerned about 'ballot-stuffing,' keep in mind that the AfD is NOT a vote and is NOT determined by which side has the most in support. Rather, whether or not to delete an article is determined by the arguments offered by each side. When someone says 'keep' or 'delete' without any argument, the administrator is supposed to totally ignore them. Theoretically, an AfD nomination could have 10 people voting for keeping something and only one or two voting for deletion and the article could still be deleted if those voting for deletion have the better argument. --The Way 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way, I will keep that in mind. And Midge, I have, but regardless, it's clear what you're up to and merits no further response. --Ughmonster 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ughmonster, what is it that you think I'm up to? I just dont understand your comment. MidgleyDJ 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This arguing (between Ughmonster and Midgley) needs to stop; please quit being so petty and quit accusing each other of things. Stick to the topic: whether this article should or should not be kept. The admins are smart, if someone is playing games they'll notice; they're only going to look at the arguments so this doesn't matter. Can't we keep it a bit more professional? --The Way 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly be more mature here and cut it out. But he started it. --Ughmonster 11:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He started it"?? I find that statement, combined with Ughmonster's sockpuppet accusations (without requesting formal verification) a troublesome drop in the standards we all voluntarily try to keep. I applaud The Way's attempts at keeping the discussion at an elevated level. Ughmonster has more than made his position clear and I can only ask, as a disinterested party, that he please just let the Admins make their decision. -- Tenebrae 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for letting admins make their decisions and I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems obvious to me that Ughmonster was making a joke. Unless I'm a suckpuppet. Or sockpuppet. Whatever. --ConeyIslandBoy 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. --Ughmonster 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's A Wally

[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 04:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. GRBerry 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You See The Trouble With Me

[edit]

Besides being a hit in the UK, this song seems otherwise non-notable GinaDana 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I see the error of my ways. I'll rescind my nomination. GinaDana 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - True, but it also says that it it meets one of those criteria, it may border on notability. GinaDana 05:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, although it also came pretty close to the top 20 of another country (Australia) and could probably be argued to be the performer's "singature song", by virtue of the band being a one-hit wonder according to everything I can find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Simon

[edit]

Not verifiably important per WP:V. Article created by User:Aaron Simon violates WP:WWIN, WP:VAIN, and WP:AUTO. -AED 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is merely a web directory. Even if the links are eliminated (as the author suggest s/he might do on the talk page), it's only a membership roster that is unencyclopedic. Metros232 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As mainly a list/web-directory, it isn't really an encyclopedia article. Ideally, such information should be placed in the main article (if this AfD determines it to be encyclopedic), but that would make the main article ridiculously long. Right now it is more of an appendix to the main article. Leuko 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Task Force on Palestine

[edit]

non-notable organization with no verifiable references and no sources other than the organization's web site. Metspadres 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by Quarl as a hoax. This isn't technically a speedy deletion criterion, but WP:SNOW can be applied here. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. recreated admitted hoax, see User talk:GusVanDean, User talk:Dormeus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.A. Ruscaba. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 06:59Z

Kiran Parkhe

[edit]

Unverifiable far as I've tried, possible hoax, likely nn even if exists Seraphimblade 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax - I tried finding her name and the Ghosh Factor (what she is allegedly "famous" for developing) with all sorts of google combos, and found nothing relevant - not even a blog or anything, let alone a reliable source. This is what I believe would have yielded the best results, but as you can see, a grand total of 0 hits. Daniel.Bryant 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to 2090s.--Konst.ableTalk 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2099

[edit]

Too far in the future to put any relevant events, all events currently documented there are fiction or anniversaries and it is the most distant year to have a page of its own, the next being 2065. I suggest delete and redirect to 2090s. Philip Stevens 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and North Korea - a new threat to the world

[edit]

I guess the title says it all. It's a POV essay, cites no sources, possibly an attack page - "Now the world have two monkeys with N-tech" - and contains speculation. Contested prod. MER-C 06:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, verifiability is non-negotiable and despite that being the basis for the nomination no reliable sources have been provided to even show that this album is even actually being produced. This deletion does not prejudice against a verified article being written instead. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.E.L.L.Y.

[edit]

Future album, no references, scant information. Prod removed without explanation. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For what it's worth, I recently asked about this sort of article on the Village Pump and was pointed at WP:NOT, which states that "speculation (about an upcoming item) must be well documented". Zetawoof(ζ) 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which way? Currently, this is a page of unsourced speculation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources can be provided, and contents verified keep the article. If not, redirect to the artist, where the article can later be un-redirected if/when verifiable information from external, third party sources can be provided. -- saberwyn 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge per saberwyn. The album will be noteable, sure, but that's only half the battle 'round here. Unless it can be appropriately referenced, it starts turning into a crystal ball issue. Consequentially 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Odyssey: A Tale of The Tim Box Wars

[edit]

Someone wants it deleted? Timbox129 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Man, this took me THREE schooldays to make this. Timbox129 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –– Lid(Talk) 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, maybe I should!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbox129 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McDonald

[edit]

Unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:16Z

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

The result was delete. DS 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vespene gas

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. These articles provide an unnecessary level of detail. An appropriate level of information for these subjects is already in the StarCraft article, so these really aren't necessary. Also nominating Minerals (StarCraft) for the same reason. Was PROD2'd but then removed due to the age of the article by User:N Shar. Delete as unencyclopedic content. Wickethewok 07:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Emeraude 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Minerals is 90% game guide, 9% speculation, 1% verifiable and enyclopedic knowledge. Talematros is 100% regurgitation of storyline. Same with Psionic technology, Khalai Caste, Zerus, and so on down the line. The whole series of articles could use some attention, really. Being an element of a notable game does not establish notability, and since nearly all the articles source only the Starcraft manual and StarCraft Compendium, a Blizzard-run site. Smells crufty to me, and ripe for a whole lot of merges. Consequentially 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebong

[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy and later prod, and I'm bumping it to AFD. My first impression is this article should be kept or merged; I'm bringing it here for wider audience. I haven't seen the subject cartoon but it definitely seems to exist at 19,000 Google hits; the article isn't a hoax or an attack page (is the cartoon itself an attack? probably just a parody). —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:32Z

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Plate Scare

[edit]

Unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:35Z

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Weapons List

[edit]

Page that has nothing more than explanation of what a kunai and a shuriken are. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Boys Incorporated

[edit]

Unverifiable -- all Wikipedia mirrors, myspace, and other user-submitted websites, except: "Tough adjustment for young Albanians" by Selim Algar. Bronx Beat is student newspaper (its website starts with: "Bronx Beat is a real newspaper" [21]). I have a hard time taking this seriously if this is the only documentation in existance. Selim Algar now appears to be working as a journalist [22]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:46Z

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

The result was tedious delete. DS 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osism

[edit]

Nonsense about a "newly founded religion". Was speedy-tagged, but tag replaced by Prod tag ("WP:V and no assertion of notability/significant following"), which was subsequently removed without comment by the article creator. Not merely a delete, but a speedy one, in my opnion. Calton | Talk 07:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Steel 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmigaOne

[edit]

Notability not established. Not referenced. MER-C 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non existing product. Out of production. Discontinued. Encyclopaedicly irrelevant. 85.138.1.15 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that the product is non-existent (in the sense of it never existing) is false. It is discontinued, but there are plenty of articles on discontinued products (for starters, the Amiga article and all the articles for every other Amiga machine). Mdwh 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How can it be discontinued if it's nonexistent? JIP | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The one that proposed this deletion knows what an Amiga is? He is kidding right? 151.46.9.80 18:34, 22 October 2006
  • Keep - Certainly notable as one of the very few non-Apple consumer PPC-based computers and within the context of the Amiga, even if only around 1000 were made. Whether or not the product is in production is irrelevant.--Alex Whittaker 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no references? I see a bunch of references at the bottom of the article. They aren't as specific as they could be, but that certainly isn't a cause for deletion. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Right up there with Commodore 64, Vic-20, Coleco Adam and Timex-Sinclair, also no longer in production. Remember whan 64 k of memory, a and a 4 meg procesor speed could entertain and handle word processing? The Amiga was so far ahead of the aforementioned. Edison 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only PPC Amiga ever made. --Mwongozi 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep amigaone is extremely notable please tell me this is a joke Yuckfoo 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Deletion? Don't be silly! AmigaONE was a brand of computer on the market since two years ago. You can't cancel this evidence and if you consider Wikipedia a serious Encyclopedia, so feel free to start deleting all invoices of: Apple Lisa, Acorn BBC, Sinclair QL, Commodore 65, and so on. The fact that these computers had a little market, and could had had just little/medium/great impact in the history of computing does not prevent they have not existed for real and should to be mentioned into an Encyclopedia. Even if they had poor userbase.

Keep Amiga invoices safe to let Wikipedia be a honest serious and well balanced Encyclopedia letting all voices to speak with democracy, and keeping a decent point of view, preserving the history. Even big/little phenomena as AmigaONE.

3000 AmigaONE happy users, who use their machines with profict and consider their machines as the evolution of Classic Amigas ask this to you all.

Check also the thousands of occurrences of AmigaONE in google:

[24]

And see how much AmigaONE is notable (or not) into computers.

Don't be so moronish to delete AmigaONE article. Just don't make Wikipedia from other nations laugh at you of English version. Other language versions respect well Amiga articles. Here in Italy for example there is a good respect of Amiga invoices into Wikipedia.

Ciao, --Raffaele Megabyte 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - An important part of the ongoing history of the Amiga computer platform. -- Nomad Of Norad 06:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually the article is referenced, just not in the latest cite ref format implemented on Wikipedia. Most older articles are in this same state, or much worse. As for the subject itself it is notable and should be covered by Wikipedia without question. Yamaguchi先生 07:34, 24 October 2006
  • Keep - Maybe this board didn't sold in the millions, but I believe it is still part of the Amiga history.
  • Keep - Part of the still not dead AmigaOS history, with a few thousand boards in existence, and the board that the pre-release of Amiga OS4 was released on. I find it unlikely that all entries referencing Amiga OS 4 will be removed as well, so it seems obvious people might want to know what board the OS was originally released for. Not a spectacular board, but still part of AmigaOS history.
  • Keep Just to endorse everybody else here, and to ask for a Snowball if possible. I think there's a clear consensus developed. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME KEEP hello perfectly verifiable, known to exist, of significant historical value... add references to this, dont delete it... Jeez MER-C, its a good thing your not running the whole show here, I'd expect to see Computer deleted next!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unambiguous Keep ...please. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep its a bit early for april fools day jokes. I vote for penalties for unjustifiable use = abuse of the VfD process. I criteria would be the number of nominations with a rejection rate of 90%+ --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - obvious keep. This is an embarrassing AfD. There were 70 edits by 40 different editors before this article was nominated. There's no record of any shortcomings being noted or discussed prior to the AfD. I think nominator means well and acted in good faith but ... well, this was a big mistake. Even for folks that have never heard of Amigas, there's still a process of consensus in addressing problems and it should normally start on the talk page before it goes to AfD. (Actually, it should start with a look at the article's history -- this article dates back almost 4 years.) --A. B. 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third holiest site in Islam

[edit]

Article misuses WP:V to present numerous sources of dubious reliability and violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Amerique 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology 3rd site by its virtue came from a hadith by Prophet Muhammad. It is really wrong to cite from here and there to prove otherwise. If this article is written to explain this terminology used in Islam, it is fine. The article went far beyond explaining this to actually try and dispute it. Something that cannot be really understood and is certainly not anymore explaining an Islamic terminology. Almaqdisi 10:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and Thorough revision The introduction is not informative and it is very hard to understand why this is an interesting topic. Once this is solved, the rest of the article seems to make some sense. Arnoutf 14:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise with references. --Buridan 17:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is just a bombastic collection of any page/article/post on the internet wherever any other 'third' holiest site is mentioned without any consideration to the reliability of the source to try to dispute a well-established claim. Already 2 links that are the only sources for 2 sections in this article no longer exist or have been updated, yet the creator(s) of this article insists that they be in the article (Why cite an outdated article which the original author himself said was erroneous).I suggest this article be deleted and any third holiest site claim be entered into the respective articles of the proposed sites and clearly mentioning which sect (from the reliable sources ONLY eg: "The shrine at Karbala is considered the third holiest site by many Shiite Muslims") since this article makes it look like a dispute. Thestick 17:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not necessarily about what traditional Sunni Muslims consider the third holiest site. That is made quite clear on the Al-Aqsa Mosque page and the top of this page. The article provides information as to what the world at large, including many Muslims regard as the third holiest site in Islam. Advocates for deletion of this page accuse the creators of being politically motivated. However, is not their own proposition for deletion of the page itself politically motivated, to try and deny others of this interesting information? As far as I can see, this page doesn't fall under What_Wikipedia_is_not. All the sections are well sourced to provide authentic counter claims to a very significant issue! Chesdovi 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But surely you realize that the article makes no attempt at distinguishing between so-called "claims," beliefs or opinions gathered from various sources, that could be mistaken, from any actual differences in theology between various sects of Islam? The article regards any and all sources with any reference to a third Islamic holy site as equal, rendering undue weight Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to spurious material and suggesting that all these assorted assertions should be taken equally seriously. This is specious logic. Any actual differences between various sects of Islam, or any religion, would be appropriately discussed within the pages devoted to documenting these distinct religions, including the pages devoted to particular sites that for reasons I can't pretend to know are holy to them, rather than mixing all such sites up with spurious references in an apparent attempt to denature the significance of all forms of Islam and the meaning any such site has within particular forms of Islam. This page seems to me entirely intended to stir up unnecessary conflict and while this is not strictly prohibited on WP I don't find it at all usefull for most users except those users who would get a laugh out of doing this.--Amerique 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That claims, beliefs or opinions could be mistaken is a very strange thing to assume. Let’s take the example of the tour guides. They are not just bits of information thought up by the writer. Someone has actually gone to the place, done research, interacted with the locals to get a review of the place. These are then placed in the guide. Their beliefs are mistaken according to you because in your opinion they are wrong! But I agree we could tidy it up and emphasise more clearly where the theological disputes lie. Undue weight doesn’t apply here, because the original article was included under Al Aqsa Mosque, but was considered to be “undue weight” and therefore a new article was created to conform with the following statement in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. This article is devoted to the subject. Additionally, if all the views were to be added to their respective articles it would be difficult to assess all the claims simultaneously. Chesdovi 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Someone has actually gone to the place, done research, interacted with the locals to get a review of the place. These are then placed in the guide." Are you forgetting that travel agencies exist to do business? Do you think that they'll show any miserable poverty, organized crime and such in a tourist brochure?. And there is 1 dead link, and another outdated faculty handbook that the author himself said contained an error, yet you insist that the old version be linked to and you uploaded it to a freewebs account bearing my username. Also this topic is very well discussed in the List of holy cities article [25]. There is no need to make separate articles for such things like "The fourth tallest building in every country in Asia" etc. Then why not create several articles like "Sixth holiest city in Christianity", "Fourth Holiest site in Buddhism" etc. Thestick 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick, you state that the old edition contained an "error", an error left undetected for 2 years 4 months? Was it you who has been in touch with the author for the sole reason of discrediting the source and arranged for a new version to be downloaded on the same link dated 2003 (not 2005)?! The new edition may not mention anything about the mosque, but neither is there a “places to visit” section. In the new version the whole section was left out completely; so who’s to say that just the mosque bit was an “error”?!
Btw travel guides regularly warn tourists of “no-go” areas and to be cautious of pickpockets, etc. They also give a brief synopsis of the area, including details of whether there is poverty, etc. Take the following from wikitravel as an example: Gaza isn't quite the pure hellhole you might expect given TV coverage, although needless to say the birthplace of the Intifada and one of the most overpopulated bits on the entire planet isn't exactly paradise on earth either. A UN report in 1952 stated that the Strip is too small to support its population of 300,000; there are now well over one million inhabitants and the January 2002 latest figures from the Palestinian Authority put unemployment at a whopping 79%. Most inhabitants are Palestinian refugees who fled the 1948 war but were denied entry into Egypt proper. Chesdovi 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“There is no need to make separate articles for such things like "The fourth tallest building in every country in Asia”
That’s because they are concrete (excuse the pun) facts and are not the subject of ambiguity. (They are listed on wikipedia’s more exclusive pages, e.g: List of tallest buildings in Toronto). However the third holiest site is a common term, and itself a matter of debate with numerous other sites vying for the position! That is why it requires its own page.Chesdovi 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to bother arguing since any source that states anything else other than the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in Islam is perfectly acceptable to the creator of the article. Wikitravel is different from some travel agency that needs to make money. And yes, that error went undetected for more than 2 years, until you brought it to their attention. Also, there is no other source on the internet that says the Jawatha mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. To understand the political inclination just take a look at the first version of the article [26] Thestick 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, till I did (sleepy) but let's not deviate of the topic Thestick 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no question that this article is not written to explain an Islamic concept but rather to spread confusion about it and false information. You cannot just bring any claim and say that some muslims believe that this is a 3rd Holy site etc. I wonder why not finding out also what some muslims consider the fourth site in Islam? What might be also the Second? What is the first? This article is becoming a polling station and not explaining a well-established undisputed Islamic terminology appearing in authentic Islamic texts? When saying "in Islam", is different than saying "by some Muslims". I believe the article is just written to dispute the Importance of Jerusalem in Islam. Almaqdisi 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick, it is interesting that whenever the al aqsa mosque is mentioned the need to assert it as the “third holiest site”, goes hand in hand. THIS is the recent creation. A recent creation aimed at aiding the political intentions of the Muslim world. If, as you demonstrated, it IS the 3rd holiest, why stop there, whenever a Muslim holy site is mentioned, say what number down the list it comes? Is Baghdad known as the fourth holiest, Samarkand as the tenth holiest? Etc. I will settle for deleting the page if on the Al Aqsa mosque page or any other on wikipedia, no reference is made that it known as the “third holiest site”.
  • Almaqdisi, no one doubts the importance in Islam of Jerusalem. However whenever the term “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined. Why the need to emphasise the third, fourth, etc.? It is to bolster the claim. This is an unnecessary politically motivated term which should be discarded. Chesdovi 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick: "why not create several articles like "Sixth holiest city in Christianity", "Fourth Holiest site in Buddhism" etc. Well, it seems it is only Muslims who insist on short listing there sites! If there are enough of a variety for the other religions, why not? In fact I intend to do so, and I'm sure it won't cause such a ruckus as it has done with the Muslims. Chesdovi 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thestick: Google search: “third holiest site Buddhism”, Result: The noble sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam. Google search: “third holiest site Christianity”. Result: Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam.
You see, it’s only the Muslims who refer to any site as the third holiest. This is for a reason, not just because it happens to be so! Chesdovi 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ The above responses confirm the political/religious/whatever inclinations of this article.. Furthermore, this is an AfD page, not a page to discuss politics, anyway I'll answer your points one by one :
  • "I will settle for deleting the page if on the Al Aqsa mosque page or any other on wikipedia, no reference is made that it known as the “third holiest site”. ". -Then to be fair, any reference made in the temple mount article that it is the holiest site in Judaism will have to be removed too (This is based on your argument, I don't feel this needs to be done).
  • You cannot compare a site which is considered the holiest to a religion to one which is third holiest. Once upon a time a site considered the holiest was a point of interest, now because of Muslim discomfort at the situation in Jerusalem, it has to be extended to the "third holiest"!? Chesdovi 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Al Aqsa mosque has been mentioned as the third holiest site in Islamic doctrine for over ~1400 years. This has already been shown to you time and time again, yet you still keep saying it is a recent political creation based on an erroneous and hardline article circulating through some hardline Jewish POV websites that does not qualify for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. If you want to post information based on that article, this is not the place to do it.
  • "it IS the 3rd holiest, why stop there, whenever a Muslim holy site is mentioned, say what number down the list it comes". - There are only '3' according to mainstream Islam, and the articles about all 3 of them contain which number down the list it comes.
  • "It is to bolster the claim. This is an unnecessary politically motivated term which should be discarded." - This is nothing but your personal POV.
  • "Thestick: Google search: “third holiest site Buddhism”, Result: The noble sanctuary, the third holiest site in Islam. Google search: “third holiest site Christianity”. Result: Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam." - I seriously dont understand what this has to do with the AfD proposal of this article, but - Try running those searches again, this time with the whole phrase in double quotes.
  • Doesn't help, I even tried with quadruple double quotes and it never fails to come up with Islam’s third holiest site, the first result noch! No third holiest site in buddhism. Sorry! Chesdovi 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However whenever the term “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined." - Once again, this is nothing but your personal POV
  • "You see, it’s only the Muslims who refer to any site as the third holiest. This is for a reason, not just because it happens to be so!" - They are most certainly not the only ones, and again, just your erroneous POV. Thestick 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Chesdovi, The word third comes from a hadith that says, that the virtue of praying at the site of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, or al-Masjid al-Haram or Masjid al-Madina is not like any other place. The hadith talks about the virtue and reward of praying at these sites. It does not talk about Holiness. The word Holy, 'Mukaddas' is not mentioned in the Hadith. Therefore, the Hadith continues, only to these 3 sites you may go on journey, and anywhere else on this earth, the prayer has the same virtue. There are no political agendas etc, this has been said 1400 years ago. These sites were chosen by the following Prophets of Islam: Ibrahim and his sons, Yakub and his sons, and Muhammad.
According to Islamic teachings, the Quran allocates much of its text arguing that the Message of the Prophets of Islam as being one message, from the same God (Allah, or Elohim). Furthermore, regarding the Temple Mount, historical sources show that when Muslims entered Jerusalem during the time of Umar, they did not find Jews having any temple or worshiping at the site. Hence, the Covenant of Umar did not address that, and only mentioned protecting the Churchs of the Christians etc. No mentionig of protecting the Temple Mount as a site for Jews. Having said so, Muslims believe they fullfilled the Prophecy of other previous Prophets of Islam by re-constructing the Masjid, 2nd after Mecca' masjid, that was mentioned and illuded at various places in the Quran text. Almaqdisi 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The word third comes from a hadith that says, that the virtue of praying at the site of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, or al-Masjid al-Haram or Masjid al-Madina is not like any other place. The hadith talks about the virtue and reward of praying at these sites." Please provide where it says that the mosque in Jerusalem is Third and Holy. The following hadith places Jerusalem second in the list: Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:31:215, maybe it is therefore second holiest? It may be more virtuous, but is that isn’t the same as holiness. Maybe it should be called third virtuous site in Islam?
"It does not talk about Holiness. The word Holy, 'Mukaddas' is not mentioned in the Hadith. Therefore, the Hadith continues, only to these 3 sites you may go on journey, and anywhere else on this earth, the prayer has the same virtue." If it doesn’t actually say holy – why is it called third holiest? The temple is called beit haMikdash – the Holy house – no ambiguity there! Maybe it should be called "the third pilgrim site in Islam".
"There are no political agendas etc, this has been said 1,400 years ago". What has been said 1,400 years ago? Provide the word holy. Did Muhammed say it was a holy place or just a good place to say a pray in? Jacob also never said it was a holy place but he summed it up 500 times better than the hadith does: "He was afraid and said: How awesome is this place, it is none other than the house of God and the gate to heaven":
“they did not find Jews having any temple or worshiping at the site. Hence, the Covenant of Umar did not address that, and only mentioned protecting the Churchs of the Christians etc. No mentionig of protecting the Temple Mount as a site for Jews.”According to you, Neither was it a place of muslim worship as the Masjid had to be re-constructed. Umer found Jews in Jerusalem did he find any Muslims? Yes the ones who he had come with him, sword in hand, to occupy the city and the Jews holy site as Kaab al-Ahbar told him.
"Muslims believe they fulfilled the Prophecy of other previous Prophets of Islam by re-constructing the Masjid, 2nd after Mecca' masjid". I thought the second mosque was Jwatha, the site of Muhammad second Friday prayer?
There are also other hadiths which say otherwise:Our sixth imam, Imam Sardeg, says that we have five definitive holy places that we respect very much. The first is Mecca, which belongs to God. The second is Medina, which belongs to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the messenger of God. The third belongs to our first imam of Shia, Ali, which is in Najaf. The fourth belongs to our third imam, Hussein, in Karbala. The last one belongs to the daughter of our seventh imam and sister of our eighth imam, who is called Fatemah, and will be buried in Qom. Pilgrims and those who visit her holy shrine, I promise to these men and women that God will open all the doors of Heaven to them. Is there something missing? Chesdovi 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is among the 3 holiest sites in Islam. First it is the Masjid Al-Haram, second is Al-Masjid al-Nabawi at last is Al-Aqsa Mosque. There are several virtues of the Al-Aqsa Mosque which ave been shown to you time and time again yet still fail to understand it. It's obvious from your previous comments that all you are trying to do is discredit this well established historical and theological fact by any means necessary because for some reason you feel by saying it is the third holiest site in Islam "the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined.".This article is a result of that, and it's content is just WikiLawyering Thestick 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of course. A POV nomination trying to censor information. Amoruso 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I have not been convinced that the title “third holiest site in Islam” refers solely to Jerusalem. Millions of Shia do not agree with this and although “mainstream” Muslims currently refer to the al aqsa as third holiest, there has been no unambiguous proof from the hadith or Koran or any other Islamic holy book that any site, let alone Jerusalem was to be considered 'Mukaddas' or holier than any other place. That others sites are also considered third holiest must not be subdued and should not be seen as a slight against Islamic sentiment…. Just as I would personally not take issue with a page devoted to whether Rachel's Tomb, Tiberius, Safed or Hebron or Mecca is considered the third holiest site in Judaism. Chesdovi 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, I repeat. There are many hadiths that discusses al-Masjid al-Aqsa. There is one of them mentioning that it is the second masjid designated to worhsip Allah on earth. The first was masjid al-Haram, the second is masjid al-Aqsa. These spots were chosen by God according to muslims long long before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. In Quran, prophet Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets of Islam. Prophet Muhammad called to the same Religion of Ibrahim and Ismail and Isaac and Jacob according to Quran. These are Quranic statements. Hence, 1400 years ago, these Hadiths mentioned the virtue of praying at al-Aqsa mosque. Only these sites which were built by Prophets have such a virtue. Anywhere else, does not. This is mentioend in [Mosque] article anyway. There is really no need to confuse things up. It is not true to keep arguing that the Shiites discredit Jerusalem position in Islam. Do you have a conclusive evidence. Hezbollah, which is Shiite, would strongly disgree with this. AhmadiNajad himself disagree with that. Finally, there is no point to keep looking around to find and Quote just any muslims who talks about what he thinks is holy and what is not. I can find many websites on the internet which mentions that no vistited that moon!! This is a distortion and are not considered authentic sources. Just giving names here and there will not be as credible as sources muslims continue to use for 1400 all attributed to the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Almaqdisi 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, there has never been a defined third holiest site. Mecca and Medina are the only holy cities, and the title third holiest wasnt used until the 20th century. Other sites may play a significant role, it can be written here. --Shamir1 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the reason for this nomination extremely weak. Of course, some improvement, NPOVification, etc. would help, but I don't think the content of the article qualifies as "an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information". On the contrary: it makes an attempt to systematize information that interests so many people today and is in the news all the time. And WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: The reason being that that there is a misuse of terminology here. Muslim resources describe al-Masjid al-Aqsa as the third virtuous masjid in Islam. The origin of the word 'third' really comes from this:
The Sahih Bukhari quotes Abu al-Dardaa as saying: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsa is worth 500 prayers more than in an any other mosque.
  • Then Mecca should be known as the most holiest site in Islam and Jerusalem as “the least holiest site in Islam”? I mean 500 is quite a drop from 100,000. Should Al Aqsa be on the virtuous list at all? Chesdovi 12:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Praying anywhere else on the earth apart from these three mosques has the same virtue according to the Islamic teachings. It is also described as being the second masjid established on earth (by Jacob) after the one in Mecca (by Abraham). Finally, the same spot was the first Qibla. Hence, if the terminology Third Holiest is used by some, it is really meant to be Third masjid by its virtue. Almaqdisi 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about the following: It should also be noted that in regard to Fazilat (auspiciousness), as per few references, it is learnt that the Great Mosque of Kufa is better than the mosque of Al-Aqsa. Hazrat Imam Muhammad Bakar had told that if anybody who performs his essential prayer in this mosque, shall be given a benefit of one Haj and if any person performs non-essential prayer in this mosque shall be given the benefit of one Umra. And Dargah Sharief in Ajmer, the most famous Muslim pilgrimage center in India. It is considered the second holiest pilgrim site after Mecca - it is believed that seven pilgrimages to Ajmer equal one to Mecca.Chesdovi 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source which says the great mosque of Kufa is the third holiest site in Islam is someones personal 8m website which Im sure isnt qualified for WP:RS. And the only source of the Dargah Sharief claim is travelvideosonline.com . Same goes for the erroneus KFUPM faculty handbook which you seemed to be so keen on preserving it by uploading it on a freewebs account bearing my username (You thought it was funny?), and the only source of that blue mosque in Afghanistan is dead!According to WP Policy and guidelines Im confident a big chunk of this article can be deleted with no contest the'''s'''tick 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don’t think Syed Mazhar Saeed Kazmi report is a WP:RS and that his assertion the at he great mosque of Kufa is more auspicious you better had check his CV: He was is a member of The Council of Islamic Ideology and taught as professor at Baha-ud-Din Zakaria University, Multan & the University of Karachi. He is on the Advisory Committee of the 1st International Conference on Advances in Space Technologies for Disaster Management and Rehabilitation, Islamabad, Pakistan, and the Deputy Director of WAPDA.
  • With regards to the KFUPM faculty handbook, I thought it was only natural that you would want to be associated with it as you went to such lengths to get the latest version uploaded on the same link.
  • Strong Delete, This is extraordinary; again the same gang of Pro-Israelis is misusing wikipedia for their own agenda. The article in question is very dubious and serves no good faith purpose other than doubting Al Quds-Jerusalem’s place in Islam. It is widely accepted between Muslims (Sunni and Shi’a) that Al Quds is the 3rd Holiest city of Islam even the vast majority of Shi’a state this loud and clear and they regard the Mosque of Ali (AS) as the 4th holiest mosque/city. Now, a few point towards the facts:
  • It is the Place where Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ascended into the Heavens ("Israa and Miraaj).
  • In the Holy Qur’an, in the first verse of Chapter 17 entitled 'The Children of Israel / Bani Israel. '
"Glory to Allah, Who did take His servant for a journey by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless - in order that We might show him some of Our signs. For He is the One who hears and knows all things." (17:1) Qur’an
  • Jerusalem was the first "Qibla" for ALL Muslims.
  • Prophet Mohammed said: “"There are only three mosques to which you should embark on a journey: the sacred mosque (Mekkah), this mosque of mine (Madinah), and the mosque of Al-Aqsa (Al-Quds)”.
  • Since Muslims believe in Prophets Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus, then they also recognise the sacredness and importance of Jerusalem in Islam.
  • The site of the Haram al Shareef (temple Mount) was a garbage dump, a dunghill for the people of Jerusalem. But Caliph Omar, upon learning this was the site of the Masjid of Al Quds-Jerusalem cleaned the place with his own hands and put his forehead in payer on that ground.
  • Muslims rule of this city was longest out of the three faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism), this proves that Muslims regarded the city with respect and sanctity.
  • Many Muslim scholars also migrated and settled in the city.
  • Add to that the Google search experiment it becomes clear that the only SANE option here is to delete this article.

As for the other supposedly third holiest sites, they can be mentioned (if referenced thoroughly) as part of Jerusalem’s religious significance or as a foot note in Al-Quds article since the other sites significance represent a largely non Muslim misconception. The points I listed above distinguish Jerusalem from the other suggested sites. Palestine48 06:38, 25 October 2006

Please restrict your ad hominem attacks on fellow editors of Wikipedia, please. This article is on a discussion on an issue. Wikipedia is not a place to promote specific ideals and stifle other views. Whether or not the Quran may call it the third holiest site, or no matter how much you wish to quote from it, it does not change the fact that there are views on the third holiest site of Islam, and hence this article will be pertinent. If you have a view that opposes these arguments, do put them on the article. This is what Wikipedia is for. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Am a tad flummoxed by the objections. Surely they can be satisfied through appropriate edits? I think the article, as it currently appears, is amply documented and deals with a significant and notable concept.--Mantanmoreland 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and clean-up. The article is in its early stages, but it has enough verifiable info, IMHO, to establish that the topic is encyclopedic and meets Wikipedia's list guidelines. If I understand correctly, there does not seem to be much dispute that Mecca and Medina are the two holiest sites in Islam, but there are several sites in contention for the title of "third holiest site." I understand that this idea is offensive to people who strongly believe that only one of the contenders is the 3rd holiest, but most or all of the entries seem to have verifiable and reliable sources for their inclusion, and if people disagree with one source or another, the solution is editing, not deletion.
  • In terms of the article clean-up, and I should stress that none of this even begins to support deletion in my view, I would encourage the article's editors to (1) write a clear and sourced introduction laying out the issue neutrally; (2) maybe request peer review to get some outside suggestions in how to improve the article; and (3) invite the members of Project Islam to chime in, particularly if they have access to more resources identifying the various contenders. Thanks, TheronJ 13:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Compare these two articles created by Amoruso: This article in its original form and the article on policide in its original form. Ah, these are just POV issues and that is no good reason to delete articles I hear Amoruso say. No it isn't a mere POV issue at all! A pure POV dispute relating to an article does not merit AFD, except perhaps in extreme cases. You can imagine someone starting an article on some topic, and some other editors come along and they have a genuine debate on that topic. Here we are dealing with articles that are created for POV reasons relating to some other topic. This is similar to the POV Forking problem with the difference that the POV issue does not have to stem from another wiki article.
Amoruso could just have well started an article on poodles with the first sentence saying that it is a type of dog but then diverting to Blair and framing the whole article around the relation Bush-Blair. AFD would then be warranted because the issue then has nothing to do with a POV debate on poodles. It's also no good saying that the article should be kept because an article on poodles has potential. A genuine article on poodles would be so different from the original that it would be best created by a good faith editor who wants to write about poodles. Also, by keeping the article Amoruso would have shifted the burden on writing a NPOV article on poodles to others. The only good reason to vote to keep would be if you are willing to put in the effort to transform the article to a genuine article about the subject yourself.
This issue reminds me of the recent AFD debate on Heim theory. There the source of the problem was different than in this case but there are some parallels. There you have POV pushers who want to promote a particular pseudoscientific topic. It then became too much of a burden for the editors of wiki project physics (who are mostly professional physicists) to keep the article in a "NO OR" and "No POV" form. They wanted to delete the article. I voted for keep because like some who voted for keep here, I am of the opinion that the pseudoscientific topic was notable. But then I was told by the others of the physics project that I should then become personally involved in editing that article. It is no good to just say "keep" because it can be made NPOV and then run away from the task of actually putting in the effort to improve the article. After the AFD vote I rewrote the article in an aceptable form.
So, in conclusion, my opinion is that the article should be deleted unless good faith editors with no agenda stand up right now who are willing to invest the time and effort to rewrite the article. The option of keeping and "let's see later how we improve it", is not adequate because Amoruso can create new articles written in bad faith faster than good faith editors can be found to step in every time he does so. Count Iblis 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this editor also has his own agenda; you can see how he messaged no less than 9 (at my last count) pro-Arab members to vote against Amoruso’s latest article. He is against anything considered by him/her to be remotely conceived as anti-Arab. This article was in fact not "created for POV reasons relating to some other topic" but was originally part of the al aqsa mosque page but was considered to be “undue weight” and therefore a new article was created to conform with the following statement in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. This article is devoted to the subject. Chesdovi 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I'm for neutrality which perhaps to some pro-Israeli editors is seen as "against anything considered by him/her to be remotely conceived as anti-Arab.". You obviously did not see my edit on the Hamas page changing "attacks" to "military action and terrorism". I don't shy away from being neutral at all. I stand by my opinion that the article was created in bad faith. Such articles should be deleted unless others stand up and write a serious article on the topic.Count Iblis 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The above is a completely unnecessary personal attack accusing Amoruso of poor faith. It is counter to wikipedia policy WP:AGF. Various editors here have various opinions here on Wikipedia; that's a reality. According to the WP:NPOV policy, the truth is in the combination of all the well cited neutrally stated views, not in any particlar POV. Wikipedia is not a product of a totalitarian regime and is not propaganda. Therefore, everyone is going to disagree with some content here or other. AFDing articles that are not agreed with is really a form of censorship and violates WP:DEL. Elizmr 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) NOTE: edit conflict; the user being discussed here is Count Iblis. Elizmr 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of poor faith is in the original version of the article, and it wasn't the first time. As explained above in detail this is not a mere POV issue. You can have a POV discussion on poodles but you should not create an article on poodles because of your POV on Blair. Count Iblis 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Chesdovi demonstrated above, your allegations make no sense what-so-ever. Not only you've recruited many POV pushers including the banned Yas121 to influence articles violating the basis of wikipedia, now you have the audacity to attack other users. Sad. This original article was part of the Al Aqsa Mosque article, and it was moved to an own article as part of a proposed compromise - I suggest you see the discussion of the original article first before spreading any bull around again. Just look at this person sick recruitment attempt of POV to censor another legitimate article that was speedily kept. [27] Amoruso 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked some people to look at the policide article which was written for POV purposes. The fact that some of them may not be neutral in Israeli-Palestinian conflict exactly undermines your argument, because the concept of policide should have nothing to do with this conflict. To use the "poodle" analogy, it's like accusing someone for recruiting people with a pro-Blair bias to take a look at the poodle article. The article was only speedly kept because the POV aspects were being edited out by other editors and I wrote on the AFD page that I was satisfied with that. Count Iblis 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (I'm not responding to anyone specifically, just making a general suggestion). I think it would be helpful if people tried their best to confine their discussion to the merits of deletion/non-deletion, and to identifying the specific policies and guidelines that apply, rather than analyzing the motivations of the article creators, and AFD commentators. The admin who closes this will do so based on the reasoning presented about the article, so all the comments about people's motivations, while I'm sure well intentioned, are distracting from the central issue of whether we should delete this article. You're all swell editors, whether you're pro-Star Bellied Snitches or anti-. Thanks, TheronJ 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete. Chesdovi, the creator of this article and major contributor to it's content (before Amoruso moved it to a seperate article from the Al-Aqsa Mosque) himself admitted this is because he thinks its role in Judaism is sidelined because of it's status as the third holiest site for Muslims. He pretends this article he created is devoted to minority views, yet his own comments on this very same page prove he just wants to satisfy his personal agendas.
  • When the original article was written is was not to put at rest my personal POV. The quote of mine you bring was commenting in a discussion with Almaqdisi on why I think the term has been used, not the raison d’etre why the article was written. Besides I have already answered thestick regarding this by saying that this is actually a fact; it’s human nature that when “third holiest” is applied to the temple mount complex, the absolute holiness of the place to another, older religion is disputed, dented, and sidelined. It suddenly isn’t an exclusive holy site for one religion but also has a great deal of significance for another one. Chesdovi 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"One should travel only for visiting three Masajid (Mosques): Masjid-ul-Haram (Mecca), Masjid-ul-Aqsa (Jerusalem), and this (my) Mosque (at Medina)." - Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31, Number 215

This hadith and the others arguments provided by Palestine48, and are much more reliable as evidence, as opposed to quotes from tourist brochures, travel websites, and other such dubious sources. - Mlaheji 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have yet to find where on Wikipedia it says that tourist brochures, travel websites are dubious sources, if anything they represent the views of the local population who were no doubt consulted of their views on the site. Chesdovi 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if there are muslims who still believe otherwise? Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever action is taken, we should make the best decision based on the perspective of these people both for the people searching information and for wikipedia's reputation. A large fraction of the people who read [this version] will probably never use wikipedia for reliable information about the Mid East anytime soon. Count Iblis 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is not an article that is devoted to any sort of minorty view. All it does is personify websites regardless of their reliabilty and accuracy and gives the illusion that there is a group of people that believe so. Just look at some of the statements - "IslamicTouism goes further and bypasses Medina stating “Najaf, home to the shrine of Imam Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia”. [13]" . And again, the creator himself mentioned his personal agendas behind the article on this page itself. To summarise it's WikiLawyering, not in line with principles of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and is openly Bad Faith Also, THIS is the original version of his article --> [28] the'''s'''tick 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is being attributed to my POV, but in fact this was an introduction to the subject I took from a website (later on to be added as a link) after I proceeded to do more research on the matter. Initially I had found that Hala Sultan Tekke was also considered as third holiest and thought the best way to including in the page was by providing the short introduction. Subsequent edits rephrased the introduction until it was considered NPOV. So what’s the problem? Chesdovi 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not attributing it to your POV, you quoted and for some time vehemently defended that statement from an external link that was already shown to be erroneous and biased until the article was submitted for review. And you still keep restoring those sections of which the only sources (dubious sources too) no longer exist. the'''s'''tick 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "you quoted and for some time vehemently defended that statement from an external link that was already shown to be erroneous and biased" I don’t remember – In fact I have checked at it was I who removed the alleged POV! [29] Chesdovi 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The third holiest site in Islam is al-Aqsa mosque, which already has a Wikipedia entry. This page does nothing but compile dubious assertions that attempt to challenge what is readily acknowledged to be the third holiest site in Islam. Some of the information in this article can be added to the respective pages for each of the holy sites listed, most of which already have their own pages as well. The article as titled and constructed is totally unencyclopedic and seems to have a POV pushing agenda. Respect. Tiamut 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic, argumentation. Palmiro | Talk 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only purpose of this article is to mock Muslim claims about Al-Aqsa mosque. It was created and continues to be maintained for that purpose and no other. The sources are mostly junk found with Google. Wikipedia is not a damned soap box. --Zerotalk 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are verifiable and reliable citations that although the Al-Aqsa mosque is the site most frequently referred to as the "third holiest," there are other contenders. The solution to any remaining problems is clean-up, not deletion, IMHO. TheronJ 13:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the location of the Jewish Temple has also been proposed by some sources not to be in Jerusalem but other places. If you are okay with creating an article entitled "Holiest City in Judaism" based on those sources and commence with a list of every bigot, racist, or purely mistaken (or mistyped) source that has said that the Temple was actually in Saudi Arabia or Nablus or the Sinai, then you would have more of a reason to argue for the existence of an entire article dedicated to such nonsense. Ramallite (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a useful comparison, Ramallite. If there are sources for it, I think an article on "Locations argued to be sources of the Jewish Temple" would be a reasonable topic. I imagine there would be some vigorous disputes over how to fairly address the balance of evidence, but those disputes wouldn't support deletion, IMHO. Thanks, TheronJ 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BEAUTIFUL. Without realising it, you've just proven the whole point. Jerusalem is not holy to Jews because it has a holy site in it. It's holy to Judaism as a CITY . You'll have a hard time to argue with the thousands of its mentions in Jewish bible, history, folklore, poetry, prose, Mishnah and Talmud and it's importance to Jews. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant even if it was based on anything. Amoruso 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UGLY. Fully realising it, you've just missed the whole point. The point is not the status of Jerusalem in Jewish folkore (or Islamic/Christian folklore, of which there is also plenty), the point, as you know, is the false pretenses and sloppy sources involved in creating an entire article about the importance of Jerusalem in Islam. We can argue about which houses in French Hill and which shopping malls in Telpiot have more songs sung about them by which group some other time, when I'm really really bored. Besides, what you wrote above is not accurate because you've confused 'holy' with 'historic capital'. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I did not confuse it. For Jews, JERUSALEM IS HOLY. Yes, the city. For Muslims and Christians there are HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM. You see the difference ? That's the difference, and that's why arguing over Jewish sites in Jerusalem like you suggested is irrelevant. Amoruso 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And salvageable part can be merged into Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is just a tirade mocking Muslim claims, as Zero correctly said. Some quotations are laughable, like quoting what CNN once said. CNN once referred to Ariel Sharon as the President of Israel, does that make it worthy of a WP entry? Most of the quotations are NOT authorities in Islamic history of religion. The purpose, as well as the content, of this article is highly offensive because it is not done in good faith and moreover uses sloppy sources. Ramallite (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us not only rely on theological viewpoints, let us also take into consideration the view of the “man in the Street”: The following is from a blog: For us Shias - Karbala, Najaf, Kazmain (all in Iraq) and Mashad in Iran all precede Jerusalem by many a mile.[30]Chesdovi 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You might not realise it but the question of the place of Al Aqsa was highly disputed in Islamic circles at the time. As the sources show, it's still disputed by some today. Other muslims believe that other sites are more important. Even the pov proposer like Almaqdisi admits that there's a big difference between what sunni and shia think on the subject, and this is all relevant info to depict. It was already in the Al Aqsa Article but people thought it was given undue weight so it was moved in compromise. Obviously, this is all pertinent information. These other sites exist and are very imporant for Muslims and many regard them as the most important behind the undisputed Mecca (and Medina). Amoruso 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "dispute" you speak of is because 'some Muslims did not feel comfortable with the notion that the Masjid Al-Aqsa is the very same "Temple of Bani Isra'il" (Bnei Yisrael) because that's (according to how I've always interpreted it) how it's described in the Qur'an. The verse that describes the 'Masjid al Aqsa' in the Qur'an is immediately followed by sentences mentioning 'Bani Isra'il' a number of times. In Islam, G-d has commanded the 'faithful' to fill in and take over from the followers of Moses and "the son of Mary" because they betrayed their covenant with Him. So He sends his final message to the world through the Qur'an. Jerusalem was the first Qibla in Islam, partly because of the Jewish influence on Mohammad in Medina. Things changed after he had a falling out with them. But there is no question in my mind that any dispute over the 'Masjid al-Aqsa' is marginal and irrelevant. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've moved a discussion on whether an OIC statement supports Chesdovi's hypothesis to the talk page; everyone now seems to agree that the OIC statement does not provide support for the idea that there are alternate contenders for the status of "third holiest site in Islam". If anyone wants to see or continue the discussion, it's on the talk page [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam#OIC acheivements in "creating consensus"|here]]. TheronJ 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion on this board for quite sometime, and I could not let this go on without intervention. This article deals with a Islamic site. This, then has to be decided based on Islamic references, i.e the Holy Quran, Prophet Mohammad's Hadith, and trusted time-proven text that rely solely on those two. Citing any text or references other than those is, by all means, an attempt to cause confusion and dispute over facts that are known for all muslims. The site of al masjid Alaqsa is 3rd in virtue, that is they believe that praying in these sites multiplies their hasanat (the good deed for the judgement day). Muslims do NOT pray for these sites. I strongly believe that since this site deals with Islamic understandings, it should be STRONGLY DELETED, due to its unprecedented inclusion of disputed material that does not rely on the Islamic references mentioned above.Aboosh 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Aboosh[reply]

Aboosh, I know I am assuming bad faith and that you are a newcomer here, and I apologize, but I find it strange that you would create an account and edit for the first time just to defend another user User:Almaqdisi and vote on this issue. I think you might be a sock puppet and have filed a report. Again, please excuse the incivility if this is not the case. Elizmr 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He said he has "been following the discussion on this board for quite sometime" - Mlaheji 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Puppet Suggestion Dear Elizmr, I appreciate the fact that you appologize before you made your comment. This is not the first time for me to make any editing. I have been editing anonymously for sometime on other articles, and I am Wikipedia editing literate. But this article has made me make the conscience discision to make myself an account for editing. I noticed that their have been many voices calling for an open discussion about a non-debatable issue. Best regards.Aboosh 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for DELETE, Amoruso, you are very wrong if you think that Shiites dispute the importance of Jerusalem and its rank after Mecca and Medina. The narrations regarding Prophet Muhammad Hadith are the most studied of any other human being ever existed. The narrations are divded to more than 70 degree, and Muslims have rigorously studied these and settled whatever controversies or mis communication regarding some of the Narrations by weakening some and strengthening some. Hence, I noticed that Amuroso and Chesdovi are putting themselves at a level of what is called in Islam Faqih. The title of this article is about 3rd Holy cite in Islam. Okay, then it is Islamic sources that are verified here then. This article is instead talking about 3rd travel destination preference by some muslims. This does not qualify these preferences to compete with the title of 3rd Holy Sites in Islam. IT is VERY VERY wrong again to say that the Shiites dispute that. You better go and listen to nearby Hezbollah speeches, and your beloved Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for some info about this. In anycase, Amoruso believes that muslims disputed the location of al-Masjid al-Aqsa... Wrong again! The Prophet Muhammad's journey is well documented in his narrations and the notion that al-Masjid al-Aqsa being in Jerusalem or Bayt al-Maqdis, was well established and well understood and explicitly mentioned in the words of the Prophet and the majority of Muslims read these narrations at his time and understood it. You keep arguing and mentioing that Jerusalem was never mentioned in Quran etc... Well, the Quran is not a travel brouchure and was not to my understanding written by Human beings! The word Mecca itself only appeared once in the Quran and illuded at others. The word Moses and Jesus appeared at least 128, 22 repectively. The word Muhammad appeared only 4 times... Please let me know Chesdovi and Amuroso some Islamic interpretation, Fiqh, about this? It is clear from Amoruso's input at the [31] Dome of the Rock discussion that this is all politically driven dispute of Islamic authentic reports regarding the al-Aqsa mosque in general. Amoruso for some reason favors reports discredited by muslim scholars. Furthermore, Amoruso also disputes the definition of al-Aqsa mosque [32] or the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa which denotes that whole area surrounding the Rock and not only the congregational mosque per the correct Islamic terminology. Hence the issue is really larger than this article. Please note that Amoruso created this article and at the same time continues to remove the correct Islamic view and definitions regarding al-Aqsa congregational mosque and the Dome of the Rock mosque to prove his own wrong non Islamic theories part of which only appears in this article. This way, Wikipedia is getting turned to an unreliable source regarding Islamic sites and concepts. A great favor and preference should be given first to the better understood and well explained Islamic resources and cannot just be left open to travel brouchures and travel preferences by some muslims googled on the Web. Almaqdisi 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short response for comment : Almaqdisi has repeatedly used this incivil with no basis language to maintain his narrow unreferenced and WP:POV and has went as far as uploading copyright images under false pretexts of public domain to try to maintain this POV. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Amoruso 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, your position has always been based on on tottaly rejected or marginal propoganda citations like this [40]. I am including the 1400 continuously used Islamic resources in my inputs regarding Islamic articles or Islamic terminologies. If you have problems with these sources, say it. Also, I will correct these copyright issues when I have more time and more experience using Wikipedia's image editors. Almaqdisi 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly lying, as the history can show you've rejected dozens of WP:RS such as Oleg GrabarProfessor Emeritus of Islamic Art and Architecture at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, one of the most authoritive subjects on the issues [41] Amoruso 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, watch out WP:NPA Almaqdisi 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should watch out ? :-) lol. Amoruso 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a fundamentally unsound topic to be discussing in any kind of "multi-cultural" Forum. The only way this article could be valuable as a reference is if it were written entirely by Muslims (and they were going to come to some kind of consensus, which I doubt). But it still wouldn't belong here, just as a discussion on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" wouldn't belong in here. PalestineRemembered 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Islamic terms and authentic evidence must be used when Islamic issues are discussed. Alathiri 19:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete:Amoruso, I do not see any uncivil behaviour that Almaqdisi has showed in his comments. He has explained to you the concept of Fiqh in Islam. His explanation is very accurate, and there is nothing uncivil about it. It is a very extensive well-founded science and you cannot dispute whatever you feel like. This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY. Also, Beit Or, Islam does not open a wide door for discussion and interpertations as many non-muslims wish for it to be. So, this discussion must be ended and for this page to be deleted.Aboosh 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. Amoruso 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Amoruso, I think whats dubious is your intentions of writing this article in the first place. You cannot continue to shift your argument from the core of the issue like what you showed in your response to Ramellite. Your neutrality towards the issue is questionable. The 2nd Resulotion of 2nd Islamic summet of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) (see [[42]]) has clearly stated that the city of Jerusalem represent the Third Holiest City in Islam. There is no logical reason for debate beyond this point, other than the intent to confuse the average Wikipedia user with dubious conflecting information.Aboosh 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment about original proposal: I believe Amerique has originally accepted the creation of the article instead of giving it undue weight in the Al Aqsa mosque article (even though it seemed he objectec to the idea, he agreed to a link from the article to a differnet article). [43] So I think this proposal should never have been made in the first place. Amoruso 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, my comment in that instance had to do with whether just a link or a whole section on the contested topic in the Al Asqa article was still appropriate, after you forked the content into this article. My "support" towards any solution in any case is always contingent upon critical examination and open discussion, which we are attempting to have here. The rest of my statement in that post, including my final comment, I don't think a whole section on "third holiest sites" is at all necessary obviously extends to the content in this article. Whatever the outcome, I hope you agree the discussion has been worthwhile. Regards,--Amerique dialectics 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I mentioned above you seemed to object to it back then too, but it also seemed like you agreed to the compromise and I think a compromise should be kept. Anyway, I do believe your AFD is in good faith of course even though I disagree to it. Amoruso 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are correct that this is "an attempt to use AfD to resolve a content dispute." I wholeheartedly wish this dispute could be resolved here. However, this is not fundamentally about me or my politics, or even about the politics of the other posters here. What this matter is about is whether this content is at all appropriate within the goals and policies of this encyclopedia. I've said before that any actual theological question here should be discussed strictly within theological scholarship, I would think this would be a standard policy for any encyclopedia article on any religious topic, and it frankly shocks me that I seem to be the only non-Islamic editor here that has at all voiced that opinion. Moreover, I am also shocked and suprised that editors with no possible interest in what is a completely specious article have lined up with "strong keeps," as if the subject actually meant something to them. The plethora of negative responses to this AfD from editors knowledgable about Islam clearly shows that this article is flamebait and cannot be redeemed through ordinary editing practices. I reiterate my strong opinion that the best option for Wikipedia and its readership would be to delete this article completely.--Amerique dialectics 06:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I find your comment as somewhat not understanding and grasping what wikipedia is about IMO and from my very modest experience. Wikipedia is about sharing sources by users on a variety of subjects. There are both muslim and muslim experts WP:RS that are relevant to the article and there are also other sources which can be used, and it's all good. There's no need to back down simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrow islamic thought as falsely one sided represented by a few users. wikipedia is open to everyone and for anyone to have research using WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V. It's exactly informative articles like this that make wikipedia such a convenient encyclopedia and censoring information rather than discussing, changing, improving it and so on stands in contrast to everything. Therefore, the result should have been speedy keep... Amoruso 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is what Wikipedia is and there is what an encyclopedia is. That Wikipedia does not rely on "well-educated, well-informed content experts" does not mean that WP:Verify is so loose as to accommodate any and all references from people that might not be so well-informed, especially as presented on a topic guaranteed to piss off a huge portion of its likely readership, as this discussion has clearly shown. I still think that realistically, articles on sites sacred to distinct religions should be respectively separated, and that mixing together content on various sacred sites along with non-scholastic references in a single article can only offend religious believers, again as this discussion has clearly shown. Wikipedia is not about anyone's right to piss anyone off on the basis of race, creed or color, and if this site is to become an authoritative resource it must rely on scholastic references, especially on controversial topics, and present information with appropriate respect for the subject matter. I don't see how keeping this article can at all be justified after comments from Wikipedian Islamic experts.--Amerique dialectics 09:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be intidimated by a couple of people who will be offended by the truth... Wikipedia is not a place to be intimidated by a sect of Muslim fanatics. The very fact you consider this as possibly offensive is strange. Amoruso 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I agree with with Amerique . Moreover, it seems there is an attempt also to CENSOR OPINION like this recent one [44]! I think the purpose this article is badly written for POV purposes is really evident from this [45], and this [46] Almaqdisi 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're in favour of using sock puppets and in favour of censoring information ? I didn't understand . Amoruso 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am voicing my strongest opposition imaginable to the attempts at Islamicizng Wikipedia made by several editors who voted "keep":
    • "Islam does not open a wide door for discussion and interpertations as many non-muslims wish for it to be. So, this discussion must be ended and for this page to be deleted."Aboosh 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...it's a fundamentally unsound topic to be discussing in any kind of "multi-cultural" Forum. The only way this article could be valuable as a reference is if it were written entirely by Muslims..." PalestineRemembered 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Almaqdisi has said that “IT is VERY VERY wrong again to say that the Shiites dispute [that Jerusalem is 3rd holiest]" and Aboosh has stated: “This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY”. I repeat: Let us not only rely on theological viewpoints, let us also take into consideration the view of the “man in the Street”: The following is from a blog: For us Shias - Karbala, Najaf, Kazmain (all in Iraq) and Mashad in Iran all precede Jerusalem by many a mile.[47]. Of course this is a not a RS and I have no way of proving the writer is actually a shia muslim, nevertheless, assuming it is an honest statement, it does go someway in disproving what Almaqdisi is trying to lead us to believe. Chesdovi 12:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almaqdisi I am not going to pretend I am a scholar of the stature of Yusuf al-Qaradawi but all I can say is that since Jerusalem is not mentioned (Is bayt-ol-maqqudas mentioned?) it gives us no conclusive evidence that Jerusalem was intended. See Location of the “farthest mosque” for elaboration. If Jerusalem would have been mentioned only once, like Mecca, there would be no basis at all for most of the arguments on this page and others. Just that one mention would have dispelled any notion that Jerusalem was not the intended place. Unfortunately it was not, hence the ongoing debate. You are correct in saying that it is not necessarily the mere mention of a place that gives it it's importance: there are tens of name places in the Bible, most of them insignificant to Judaism. However, the fact the masjid al aqsa was not identified in the scripture as being in Jerusalem is just a strong argument whether Jerusalem was the place intended or not. Chesdovi 12:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But unlike yours, his "POV" is backed by over a billion Muslims, is verifiable by authentic, historical texts, established since the very beginning of islam, readily acknowledged today, mentioned in several Islamic texts that unfortunately arent there on the internet but readily available in any bookstore selling books by Islamic scholars, and a whole lot more. Unlike your theory mostly surviving on your painstaking search for any page on the internet and which IMHO is as credible are those rumours and chain emails circulating on the internet like "Secret corporations headed by the Jews were behind 9/11", with all the alleged "evidence" they provide. - Mlaheji 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong -- it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the vast majority of authorities consider Al-Aqsa to be the third holiest site, but that some groups of Muslims, such as the Cypriots, consider other sites to be the "third holiest." In fact, assuming that that's true (and I due), WP:NPOV requires that "due weight" be given to each opinion. However, "undue weight" isn't a good ground for deletion, IMHO, just for a {{sofixit}}. Thanks, TheronJ 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, are you saying that Al Aqsa holiness is a Palestinian issue ? :-0 Now I've heard everything... It would make very little sense what you just proposed. Although this didn't have its own page either - it was in the Al Aqsa Mosque article and moved to its own page after the same people who now wants it deleted wanted it to move. See previous discussion. It can be moved back, just decide. Amoruso 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by the the methodology of "find any page of any title which remotely mentions what I want to prove", in ~45 minutes, I have compiled the following sources supporting that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam :
Time Magazine [48] Time Magazine[49] Al Jazeerah[50] Al Jazeerah[51] Gulf Times [52] The Hindu [53]Middle East times [54]
Moment Magazine [55] BBC [56] BBC [57] FOX News [58] Times of Oman [59] IslamOnline [60] Yahoo News [61] SpiritHit News [62]
CNS News [63] CBC Canada [64] IslamicNews.org [65] ABC News [66] Lycos News[67] Presence TV [68]
Ma'an News agency [69] Sudanese Times [70] Middle East Times [71] Jerusalem Times [72] CBS4Boston [73] IOL [74] LA Times [75] Associated Press[76] MSNBC [77]
Federal News Radio [78] Global Security [79] International Herald Tribune [80] WorldNet Daily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34776] Boston Globe [81] News24 [82]
Realtime News :[83] CBS 5 [84] The Guardian UK [85]
Public Broadcasting Service [86] Public Broadcasting Service [87] MSNBC [88] Townhall [89]
Some research journals :
[90] [91] [92] - Mlaheji 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until reliable sources are found. SunStar Net 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The belief that the furthest mosque is in Jerusalem is not universally held by Muslims, even if it is only with around 10 percent of Muslims. If the Imam Ali Mosque is holier than the Al-Aqsa Mosque to 10% of Muslims then this is significant and an informative article. You will never make everyone happy. This is the reason why there are no modern artist renderings on the Muhammad page because it disagrees with the beliefs of many Muslims (but not all). So let it be disputed, but let the article stay as it is quite informative. Valley2city 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the issue is clear by now. Wikipedia does not supress any information. The supporters of deletion brought examples after examples that were refuted - they said "oh wikipedia doesn't have anything dedicated to the theory that Jews were involved in 9/11" and then they were showed a page that it did have. They said "oh wikipedia doesn't have a page dedicated to the moon hoax" and then were showed a page that it did have an entire article about it, and so on. The problem here I'm afraid is broader than wikipedia... wikipedia shouldn't play a part in censoring information. I think most users acknowledged that article should be edited more and more, articulated nicely to a great article, and not to delete valid information because of POV's. I think again this is non issue according to wikipedia policy. Amoruso 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amuroso and Chesdovi, Please listen. Jerusalem was mentioned by the Prophet when he embarked his night Journey. There are several authentic narrations to this regard one of which is this found at al-Aqsa mosque page itself! Here is is again:

The hadith narrator Imam Muslim reports that the Prophet's companion Anas ibn Malik mentions that the Prophet said:

Comments: If you do not want to believe this Hadith of the Prophet, it is a problem because Islamic terminolgies we are discussing here started there and not in the Torah or the Bible. There is two more Hadiths regarding the night Journey where the term Bayt al-Maqdis is used too. I do not see why you do not want to listen to these narrations and instead favor other sources to discuss a purley Islamic term. It seems to me that you are now discussin if the Furthest Mosque was in Jerusalem at all apart from it being the third virtous mosque in Islam. Finally, Jerusalem and it surrounding is what was described in Quran as "al-Ard Al-Mubarakeh" meaning the blessed land, or the land God has bless to all nations. Almaqdisi 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (to Amoruso): The difference between those articles and this one is that those articles deal with actual orchestrated hoaxes and conspiracy theories as they occur in the real world. This article attempts to inject the same spurious reasoning into what should be a purely theological question and nothing more, the matter of which again would be more diplomatically addressed in different articles associated with particular sites sacred to respective religions. I agree that this is a manufactured dispute on a non-issue.--Amerique dialectics 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, the fact that you keep saying that The Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [93] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [94] should really tell a lot about the sources you have been reading to edit and comment on this article. If you use the title Islam in the topic, you should use and give priority wieght to Islamic resources. Else, the article should be changed to travel preferences by some muslims. Or the word Third should be removed from the title cause your sources are not discussing what they believe about one and two, or just delete the article as it has no basis whatsoever in Islam. Chesdovi, with my due respects to your entries, I believe you need to have your self more familiar with Muslims resources. Finally, Sock pupperty accusations [95] by Amuroso, I consider as an attempt to block my entries here and to censor my voice! Almaqdisi 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of people are saying here that this is a Muslim topic so the Muslims have to have the first and last word on the subject. Well, there's a problem with that. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has articles about Islam, but Wikipedia is not a Muslim project. Wikipedia is a multicultural project. Sources from OUTSIDE of the codified Mulslim clerical world can and SHOULD speak on Muslim topics on Wikipedia so that many POVs can be neutrally stated and the reader can get a more full picture. If there were a Mulslim Wikipedia, then the people here who want Islam to have the first and last word concerning what should and shouldn't appear here would be appropriate. In the case of the english Wikipedia, however, that's just not the way things should work. On Wikipedia, omiting sourced material stated in a NPOV way just because it doesn't jive with one's accepted version of Islamic thought represents censorship and smacks of book burning. I know this is not a particularly comfortable thing to many, especially those coming from places where individual expression is not especially encouraged, and I don't mean to insult anyone here. I just think that we need to loosen up and allow somethings to stand even if we don't agree with them because others do and also have a right to speak. Elizmr 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speaking for myself, to me the matter is about what consitutes reliable sources on what is purportedly a theological issue that would be most appropriately discussed within authoritative scholastic literature. We all should know that it would be impossible and entirely against Wikipedia policy to screen editors on self-disclosed cultural or political affiliations to any or all articles. However, it does seem to me that the practical matter of "what constitutes reliable sources" is being obscured by the political matters you've just described, which however this article seems entirely designed to evoke.--Amerique dialectics 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not talking about who should EDIT here, I'm also talking about the SOURCES that editors can cite here. What I'm saying Wikipedia policy on citations for a Wikipedia article on Islam does not and should not equal Islamic policy on citations for a Wikipedia article on Islam. To choose a maybe extreme example, including Salman Rushdie's pov on the satanic verses would be ok by Wikipedia policy but not by Islamic policy. Elizmr 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with that, provided the sources are authoritative, that is, the peer-reviewed literature in this area. What do you think about the idea of forking content that is notable and well-referenced into articles on particular sites, as opposed to maintaining this article in it's current form?--Amerique dialectics 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might use the word "peer-reviewed" differently. I usually think of it as a situation where an editor sends a paper out to various experts in the field for review before deciding on publication. This is not necessary for a Wikipedia source, see WP:V. It really seems to me like the sources cited here are in compliance with that guideline. Elizmr 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comments to Elizmr: WikiPedia is not an Islamic Project I agree. But it is an Encyclopedia that should be informative. The title of this article has problems because of two things. First, it has the word "Third" and the word "Islam" in it. This article would be reasonable if it discusses holy site regarded by muslims in general. In that case, there is a space for this article. However, the people behind this article insist on using the word "Third" which comes from a narration from the Prophet Muhammad. If the word third stays there, then the authors of the article are obligated to stick to the Islamic resources discussing the word third. The problem is right here. This article if you notice is not written to discuss the first or the second site in Islam. It is only written to argue about the Third site! The numbers First, Second and Third are ranks of how virteous is a mosque. This is the only reason these are ranked in Islam and have a designated number. The article would be fine if the authors do not focus on the rankings because they are then entitled to come up with a narration or a resource which explicitly mentions that this sect of muslims reject the narration of the Prophet Muhammad regarding the Bayt al-Maqdis and explicitly demonstrate the argument of that particular sect on what is the first, second, and third site for them. The resources should include what sect is this, and whether there is a consensus in that sect regarding this site, and so for. This article is therefore failing to do so. Some users here say there are articles about the Hoax of Jews and 9/11. That is okay, but still the title say it is a Hoax. Unfortunately, this article we have here give no useful information because it gives all resources equal weight, and is written by people whom main objective is to Challenge and dispute a well established fact in Islam. They are therefore entitled to give their evidence about that from the Islamic resources itself. They need not of course to be muslims, but their evidence should come from Islamic resources and not from anything else. The reason again being in the fact that it has the in the title the word "Islam", and that it uses the word "Third" coming from an authentic narration. Almaqdisi 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almaqdisi: So, it sounds like you are saying that the article could be fixed if 1) divergent Muslim views were discussed more explicitly with what they reject, etc 2) The idea of ranking of sites in Islam and what it means was discussed more explicitly 3) and the sources and how relevant they are felt to by Muslims from different sects were discussed more explicitly in the article and 4) the article touched on the first and second sites more than it does and 5) the title did not include the word "Third" and the word "Islam". Elizmr 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Very fact Almaqdisi tries to add the word "the Prophet" after every mention shows why this request of deletion is so un-encyclopedic. It's also perplexing how this article is now accused of censorship? strange. Describing the importance of other muslim sites like in this article , as well as describing the history connected with the Jews that you mentioned - that's fact, there's nothing wrong with doing that. Amoruso 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, the fact that you keep saying that The Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [96] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [97] should really tell what you think and why you created a false article like this. You are creating a Hoax, and the word Hoax should be added to this title if it is to stay! Almaqdisi 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just copy-pasting your irrelevant info. The fact Jews also were connected to the Dome is widely known, and the original edit there wasn't mine at all. I've brought sources explaining Jewish connection to the original buildings in that other article. You can continue with your strange attacks and akward attempt at grand worldwide conspiracy - also I did not create the original info of this article , this was already discussed. In fact, I have very little to do with the article, perhaps nothing at all, don't remember writing one bit of it , except moving it from al aqsa mosque article by requests from those that now want it deleted. Amoruso 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, what about this one [98]? Stop this nonsense of your prpoganda wrong info! Almaqdisi 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest archiving these irrelevant strange comments by Almaqdisi. Also, cease your personal attacks. Amoruso 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you personally, but I have allergy to non factual edits! As long as you stay factual and authentic, nothing will be wrong with your edits. But loosing rigor and therefore credibility in citing info is very very non academic. Almaqdisi 00:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: title seems a stretch if the intent is encyclopedic rather than polemical. Holy sites in Islam would be a valid article, and a good deal of this content might be useful there; insofar as one or another has a claim to precedence, it could be taken up there. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that title is much larger in scope than this one is, but the point is well taken. Is it possible to come up with a less polemical sounding title to cover this article that would make people happier here? Elizmr 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: Delete article, but fork content that is notable and well-researched into articles on respective sites. The content could still be linked between respective articles on particular sites. I would be willing to initiate this if people here agree this is a valid compromise.--Amerique dialectics 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a proposal even. This is still a delete proposal and all those who voted keep found merit in the article. There's no compromise here.Amoruso 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an experiment I already tried it here[[99]]. I think saving some good content in different articles and losing the miscellaneous material would be a valid compromise in the interest of all concerned with the integrity of this encylopedia. Also, this saves the situation from remaining an "all or nothing" proposition for all parties involved.--Amerique dialectics 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, there's no compromise in it. A compromise like discussed above will be to rename the article possibly to "Islam holiest sites" and have the discussion on the third site there for example. There's no compromise possible to delete this - most of the users object to deleting this, there's no consencus obviously, and therefore article stays. You can propose possible name changes to this article in the talk page of the article. The information could have already appeared in the differnet articles like it did on the Al Aqsa mosque , and it's not related to the issue of keep or delete of this article. I find it very strange you write that this is a compromise of some sort, it's not even something new. Amoruso 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we wouldn't be strictly "deleting" if we saved some content that could be said to be relevant to some other articles... Problem is, I don't see any authoritative resources used for any of the material in question, other than the Boyle, Kevin & Sheen, Julie reference, so on second thought I can't support my own proposal that the material should be saved. I would withdraw it, but I'll leave it to others to decide if a compromise on these terms is potentially feasable. It could be feasable, provided better references could be found for these assertions for the sites in other articles, but right now I don't see what the use would be of forking over the bulk of this badly referenced content.--Amerique dialectics 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support Amerique's Proposal for two main reasons:

  • First, the article as it appears now is really creating a Hoax rather than Documenting a one.
  • Second, by moving the bits of information found in this article to the designated places like those of Imam Ali mosque as Amerique just did, will give a chance to creators and readers of those articles to verify these added bits of information to either support/discredit them by acceptable resources. Only after these bits of information are verified and tested at the respective article, then one may have a single article collecting them. But so far, this article is really creating a Hoax rather than reporting it. For example, if you may check Al Juwana Mosque, it was only created on October 25th by Chesdovi [100] after this info was used by Amoruso on September 7th [101]. ?!?! How comes so-called a third ranking mosque in Islam only recently having a page for it! I do not understand this! I can bring more evidence of how flawy is this article. See this for another example [102].

This all does not make sense. It is obvious that this subject is a new creation and is not a mature subject worthy of attention as of yet, and this article is creating a DISPUTE and not REPORTING A DISPUTE! Therefore, my opionin continues to be a STRONG DELETE and a SPREAD OUT to have more input from other users. This is for the sake of Wikipedia and its reputation as an informative resource and nothing else. Almaqdisi 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Until now, I had been convinced by the media that the temple mount was the 'third holiest site'. I did not know that this claim is disputed by many. --Shuki 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a strong argument why this article should be deleted :). Wiki articles should be free of propaganda. "The media" will also convince you that global warming is real, so that's reflected in the global warming article. The fact that it is disputed by many isn't relevant as long as these persons don't know that they are talking about and only make their claims for propaganda reasons. Count Iblis 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HELP. Somebody should do something about this continuous vandalism that al-Aqsa mosque page continues to experiece by the same creators of this page Third holiest site in Islam! See this [103] and this [104]. Cited information that is informative and CORRECT is removed again and again. WHY? User:Amoruso keeps removing credible correct information found everywhere else and known and documented at the Arabic Wikipedia too [105]. Please some body do something about this! It is just getting so much troubling for me to keep cleaning up and restoring these damages and wrong edits. Almaqdisi 19:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so you feel this the proper place to try to convince more people to help with your extreme WP:POV and copyright violations and distruptions ? You have violated so many wikipedia conventions by now that it's not even funny. I note to everyone you already violated copyright on articles [106], on images [107] [108] [109] and used sock puppets [110]. You of course also used personal attacks, and now this. What next ? Amoruso 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amoruso Before you attack Almaqdisi and accuse him of having an extreme POV and discredit his knowledge on the subject to support this article, Tave a look at Chesdovi's little episode on the Talk page [111]. His POV is so neutral (*cough*) that he seems to see things that aren't there, and he's the one who started all of this. Why dont you have anything to say about that? I would love to read it.This article openly violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, is not a Soapbox,is not a directory, WP:RS.thestick 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Almaqdisi's support for resolution proposal Over my own concerns, I've gone ahead and forked all the content from this article to the other articles where it was lacking. Now this article can be entirely deleted without any claims that any information would be lost, however trifling. Almaqdisi, I am willing to represent you in my capacity as an advocate against any charges brought against you as a result of activities pertaining to this AfD.--Amerique dialectics 00:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - pure speculation with very little regards to sourcing policy. Kyaa the Catlord 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could people take a look at the new lead I wrote and see if this makes things better. I might have made mistakes becasue I am not a Muslim, but I tried to address the concerns that have been addressed regarding scriptural references by Almaqdisi and others. What I did in the lead was to distinguish the scriptural basis for the 3rd holiest from other considerations that are more important for the other sites. Does this work/help? Elizmr 03:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look, and it seems well-intentioned and well-written, but it is beyond me to evaluate the content issue in this case. All I have been doing is applying my understanding of WP policy to the references used to support these assertions, as that is where this article seems weakest and how it seems most likely to spread misunderstanding and confusion both as to the subject and as to the goals of this encyclopedia. I have nothing against what you've done, but my own concerns were mainly about the references as opposed to the language per se.--Amerique dialectics 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second vote ruled out. Thank you for pointing it out. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize about 2nd vote! Aboosh 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Al-Aqsa Mosque is third holest site of Muslims. It has room for improvement but still enough reason to keep it. --- ابراهيم 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Sorry, I had previously not seen article on Al-Aqsa Mosque. Now if that exist then it should be deleted. We do not consider a site holest according to western Media reports but according to what Muhammad told us. --- ابراهيم 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point... the ones that want to delete it seem to have only the argument that Al Aqsa is the third. That's an argument to KEEP the article with what Elizmr did. Amoruso 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stick to my vote to DELETE since these resources are not credible and mostly errors on websites rather than being meant to be facts. Amerique already sent this out to the respective article although some of these alleged "third Holy sites" statrted to have articles on their own recently!! Get more serious resources about this subject before doing anything else. As Ramallite said, CNN refered once to Sharon as the President of Israel. Should I add the term president to his resume because of this typo. Pleae have some common sense. Almaqdisi 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless most of the sourcing is in error to the same degree as the CNN example. While this needs some work, it is an informative discussion about an important idea in Islam. TewfikTalk 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tewfik, have a look yourself at the Quality of the sources. Almaqdisi 02:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the sources before forming an opinion on the matter. I apologise if the rhetorical statement was lost on others, but I was highlighting what I saw as the absurdity in comparing a typo in a single news dispatch with >35 sources explicitly documenting this idea. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article contains the most un-authentic information with no scholarly references. It seems to be created by those people who want to make other places famous, which are not recognized or even known to many Muslims. This topic has already been discussed under Al-Aqsa Mosque. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this article is just an indiscriminate collection of any claim made by anyone as to which site is the third holiest. There are also examples (e.g. here) that have nothing to do with the article itself! I think a simple mention of that fact on the Al-Aqsa Mosque is more than enough, given that it is the most widely accepted to most muslims. As for other supported and authoritative claims (which is the case for many Shiite scholars), another mention on the Imam Ali Mosque would be both fair and accurate. Travel websites, blogs and news agencies are certainly not authoritative sources on what is a purely theological matter. --khello 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Khello. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no definitive "third holiest site". There are many claimants, each with various merit (or lack thereof). Thus, an article like this is necessary as it would be POV to indicate that Wikipedia recognizes a certain claim. —Aiden 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and countless other violations. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zero and Ramallite. any relevant information could easily transferred to the "al-aqsa mosque" article and sized down per the undue weight clause if that has not already been done. it does not merit its own article. ITAQALLAH 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a collection of opinions, not all of them Muslim opinions, about the ranking of holy sites. Any information specifically about Al Aqsa can be put in that article, and information about the other sites, or discussion of Muslim rankings of holy sites, can go in the Ziarat article, which summarizes all the material re Muslim pilgrimage sites. I don't think that any material from non-Muslims is worth saving -- much of what's cited seems to be misinformation or confusion. Zora 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A blanket ban on sources based on their "religious POV" hardly seems neutral, nor is it a good reason to delete this. By the same token, the idea that it should all be merged into Al-Aqsa Mosque is premised on the position that that is the undisputed "third holiest site." It would seem to be much more useful to simply raise the quality of sourcing (per WP:V & WP:RS) if there is a perceived problem, though the major claims all seem to already have good basic sourcing. TewfikTalk 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't you think that it's rather presumptuous of non-Muslims to dictate to Muslims the exact degree of reverence they should give to each site? It's as if I were to tell you that your favorite food was fried liver, your second most favorite food was raw fish, and your third most favorite food was succotash? You object and I then tell you that I know more about your food preferences than you do!
      • I'm prepared to accept that Muslims might not agree on ranking mosques after Mecca and Medina, and that could be discussed in the Ziarat article. However, I'm not sure that we could give any definitive answer. All we can do is cite a few authorities and perhaps give some statistics re number of pilgrims. But does that adequately represent the beliefs of a billion people? I doubt it. Zora 08:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that logic we could never write anything about any religion [or much else]. As long as the claims are properly sourced, there is no reason not to report them based on their religion. TewfikTalk 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article makes no attempt at distinguishing between so-called "claims," beliefs or opinions gathered from various sources, that could be mistaken, from any actual differences in theology between various sects of Islam. --Truthpedia 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete articles with those problems, we edit out the problems. TewfikTalk 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tewfik, if the title of the article is a theological issue, then the only way is to avoid this debate by having the title changed to notable Islamic sites like this one here already available [112] or DELETE it. But just insistin on keeping the word third, and start to generalise from any erroneous link on the WEB, is wrong, non professional, and the article will just have no meaning whatsoever. This is not about censorship which is obviously not the case because of something like this already done[113], this is about a wrong scietific method that is used here to conclude wrongly that all these presented sites are 'holy'! It is a sort of ORIGINAL RESEARCH that is done by non experts and reaching a wrong conclusion that is not scholarly Almaqdisi talk to me 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building

[edit]

The history of getting World Heritage status for the Royal Exhibition Building. Source material - an article by Arnold Zable and minutes of various meetings. Unencyclopedic: shimmer in the crackling heat or emerged, triumphant, from the mists. The subject warrants a few lines in the Royal Exhibition Building article not an whole article by itself. -- RHaworth 08:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striong disagree. You are obviously unfamilar with the work involved. tb is a hiostorical record. i suggest that you continue to act in a vanalistic manner and continue to remove posts that others whcih to make a contribuition.

    The information published is a very relvant bhistorical reciord on teh nomination of the Royal Exhibition Buildings and Melbourne heritage. I do not believe you read the content before you acted so recklessly. If you continue to act in such a manner I will lodge a complaint with the editor. now which version have you removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbcity (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. The nominator of this post is not a vandal. Melbcity, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. It has specific requirements as to what is suitable for inclusion, such as articles being encyclopedic in style, not copyrighted material, written from a neutral point of view, be fact and not opinion, and notability. The deletion of this article isn't a reflection on the content of it, just that it is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. -- Chuq 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong this is a historical record of a public forum related to the nomination of the Royal exhibition Bulidings. I most certainly have seen many other posts that I would claim to have been subjective and not worthy of inclusion. I have chosen these particular opsost for good reason.

    Those that are commenting and seeking to remove this information are not aware of nature of teh issue involved. The State premier wanted to demoplish the Royal Exhibitiuon Buidlinsg and it is only as a result of this public camaign that the nomination for world heritage progressed. It is a historicazl record relected to the hsitory of this significant Melbourne land mark.

    I chose to publish it as a seperate article in much the same way as other articles are published and linked. You either want to support a community based contributuion or you don't. The material is not copyrighted. it is ion the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbcity (talk • contribs) 2006-10-22 09:21:36

  • Delete - there is no ownership or authorship of articles on wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#When signatures should be used and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. What Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. It seems that other than some poitical statements breaching WP:Not, the content of this article is covered by Royal Exhibition Building.--Golden Wattle talk 09:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 10:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic. Any relevant NPOV content could be merged to main article. If kept needs NPOV and wikification QuiteUnusual 13:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, recent well-intentioned edits by Golden Wattle (talk · contribs) have actually obscured what this article is. It is clearer in this version of the article. The article is a collection of primary source texts, namely a copyrighted newspaper article, some presentations, and some minutes of meetings, with a couple of extra, apparently personal commentary, paragraphs thrown in. From the comments above, where xe is talking about complaining to "the editor", and the comments on Talk:The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building, where xe is talking about this being a missing chapter from a book by David Dunstan, it appears that Melbcity (talk · contribs) has mistaken Wikipedia for a self-publishing service or a magazine. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a free hosting service, nor a document repository, nor a publisher of first instance. The place for publishing additional chapters for books is elsewhere. The place for re-publishing copyrighted newspaper articles is elsewhere, too. I see no evidence whatsoever that, as Melbcity claims, The Age, a publication that asserts copyright over its archives and that charges a fee for back issues of articles for as far back as 1990, has waived its copyright over its 1996 article written by Arnold Zable. Even if it had, Wikipedia wouldn't want it.

    This is an encyclopaedia, not a hosting, publication, or document repository service. Strong delete. Uncle G 13:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as per Uncle G. By all means preserve the Dome (I have seen it for myself), but get rid of this screed. Edeans 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all relevant material is covered in Royal Exhibition Building. The rest: meeting minutes, a speech and a newspaper article of dubious copyright status, are so what Wikipedia is not it's not funny (and neither are Melbcity's unsigned comments and accusations of vandalism). --Canley 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Merge anything relevant, but as there appears to be nothing relevant that isn't already elsewhere, I'll say Delete. Lankiveil 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Upon further contemplation, maybe this could also be Transwikied to Wikisource? Formatting would still need cleaning up, but it would otherwise seem an appropriate venue for this information. Lankiveil 01:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The relevant information is already in the main article so there is no need for this. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely POV article says: "You are destroying a place of grace and grandeur. You are destroying the peaceful ambience of its surrounds. You are destroying the work and vision of our collective past. You are destroying aspects of our common heritage. Yes, our heritage. ...Stop it before it is too late" Wikipedia is not a rally for a cause. Edison 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Clearly the Royal Exhibition Building should make reference to this debate in a balanced way.--Grahamec 02:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. JROBBO 03:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In this case consensus to delete is clear. Similar articles by the same nominator have been kept as consensus was not as clear. --Ezeu 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Modern Day Rajputs

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. 7 On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[114]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is not "Rajputs are not notable". The reason is: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Rajputs - per utcursh's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not always consistent; the existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. Moreover, verifiability is very important. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it verifiability is very important for List of English people (not cited) List of Scots (not cited) List of British Asians (not cited) List of Northern Ireland people (not cited) Then why they are not AFDed ??? If some one is very particular and wants reference to say that Abdul Kalam us Muslim and Manmohan Singh Siks, he/she should get all those articles for AFD and not just India related articles alone. Why the above lists are not listed under Articles for deletion ???. Can some one who is very particular about Verifiability explain this bias  Doctor Bruno  08:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your analogy is flawed. List of Northern Ireland people, List of English people or List of Scots is more like List of Indians. A list of Famous Bhumihars or List of famous Nairs is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. If you need to verify the lists that you've mentioned, you are welcome to put {{fact}} tags (or even move them to deletion, if you are very sure that those lists are unverifiable) -- the burden of evidence falls on the contributors. Please don't complain of systemic bias here. This AFD nomination was by an Indian editor (me), who has not got enough expertise on subjects like Scots and English people. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not some one who wants this article to be deleted. If that be the case I will definitely bring an AFD. In my opinion those lists as well as these list are verifiable. I am not comprehending your analogy. As far as I know List of French people and List of Japanese are like List of Indians (Country) Where as List of Northern Ireland people or List of Scots are like List of Rajputs or List of Pandits etc. If you are keeping one, keep every thing. If you are deleting one delete every thing  Doctor Bruno  14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real criteria for inclusion; no sourcing. As an organized and structured list it is better than the precedents were, but not good enough in my eyes. The various sublists might each stand without the Rajput limitation (I.e. List of Param Vir Chakra winners might stand.) Also, as for the presence of other lists, see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. GRBerry 15:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Rename to List of Modern Day Rajputs. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Jats

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.

On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since quite a long time, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[115]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions and list of Pakistan-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Keep Jat is a important caste with important royality, politicians and decorated military personel. Lot of these these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories--Pethj 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user has a total of 37 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the reason for AFD nomination. I have not nominated this article for deletion because I consider Jats non-notable. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc. utcursch | talk 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user has a total of 26 edits. utcursch | talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is not wrong because the process began after nomination deletion[116]. Providing four citations for such a long list is not enough, in my opinion. utcursch | talk 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of your opinion the citation process has already begun and will be increased. --Pethj 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is Citation really needed for such things. If we go on like this, the some one may even ask citation to show that Abdul Kalam is Muslim and Manmohan Singh Sikh.  Doctor Bruno  07:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are needed whenever they are demanded -- the burden on evidence is on the contributors. I won't probably demand citations if this were a List of Indians, List of English people or List of Scots (unless there was some obvious flaw in the list). But this list is more like Famous Middle-Class Americians or List of famous Rednecks. By the way, there have been discussions on whether Abdul Kalam is a Muslim or not (please see respective talk page). utcursch | talk 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is user's second vote. utcursch | talk 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment,That wasn’t a second vote; I was just reiterating my original position (one vote). Moreover, it is highly arrogant of utcursch trying to belittle any user who disagrees with his point. I think it shows someone who is highly insecure and can’t handle anyone having a different opinion to him. It's amazing how whenever someone disagrees with him, he tries to belittle the members’ opinion through introducing things to question the person reputation, it shows someone who is very insecure within himself about people having a different opinion to him (almost fascist/extreme or intolerant).--Pethj 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete. Edison 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the VERY least, Rename to List of Jats. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times in the past. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile—if those lists are bad too, they should be proposed for deletion as well. We don't keep spam merely because there is spam that has yet to be deleted. If the list is kept (and renamed), strict criteria for inclusion should be listed. But I find the precedents cited by Utcursch compelling. Categories are better than lists, IMO, for situations like this, because the inclusion criteria can more easily be discussed on a case-by-case basis that way. Xtifr tälk 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have seen the list and have edited it many times,the list to me sounds pretty much authentic except a few names perhaps,especially that nishan e haider thing was not true..

Although most of the names are verifyable..may be the names underdispute s can be delted until a link is provided..

  • Keep The list contains notable persons who have done works which brought social changes in the society. We can feel proud of them. Names from the list which can not be verified may be deleted but not the complete list. Deleting the list will serve no purpose. List at one place can serve as an index if one needs to see some entry. We can think of renaming it as List of notable Jats to avoid POV. I strongly feel to Keep. burdak 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the question is not whether these people deserve to appear in a list on Wikipedia; the question is whether "Jat" is a verifiable category under which they can appear. Relisting these people by region might be more appropriate. Xtifr tälk 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Burdak.Shyamsunder 5:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Nairs

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list. On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list.


The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing since over a year now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV. Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[117].

Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not. Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I dont think either the Telugu Brahmins nor the Reddys were ever written about in the Lusiad or the Enclycopedia Britannica Ivygohnair 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be a place for discrimination against any groups of people either Ivygohnair 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discrimination here. I've is no doubt on notability of Nairs. The article on Nairs is not on deletion. utcursch | talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable.  Doctor Bruno  13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi)(1). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely right. Many Nairs don't have the Nair surname and are as opposed to the terrible caste system as you are. But you can't use this to justify deletion because a lot of Jewish people also have non-jewish names.Justice4us 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guidelineIvygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Hey, I think this is an unacceptable racist comment and I wonder whether it is not really put up by those who are obsessed with "delete" to discredit the supporters of this list. Frankly if all kinds of people, including the Jews, who like the Nairs are scattered all over the world (the word diaspora was first coined for the jewish people) are allowed to have their list in peace (which is also not perfectly verifiable by the above standards), I don't see why the Nairs can't!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't know whose side you are on and why you are in this discussion at all! Your crude outburst against the jewish people will only get knee jerk reactions from otherwise neutral admins and users to vote "delete". You can call the Nairs a lot of things but certainly never "stupid" nor "crude". I should know, I am married to a Nair! So you should choose another forum for your invectives, pleaseIvygohnair 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No criteria for inclusion, no sourcing. WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)) tells us that the presence of other lists that may or may not be in good shape is irrelevant to whether this should be kept. GRBerry 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think to be fair, what is more important is to consider whether what this user is saying makes sense or not, and not use technicalities to silence or discredit him/her.Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbei78 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, more than one article were cited above (actually five). We are talking about double standards here. Of course if other similiar articles exist it is very suspicious why we are picking on the Nairs!Justice4us 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Rename per Bakaman. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment step in the right direction, but for me, the real deciding factor is, "castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources." To me, that puts it right in the same category as List of middle-class people or List of rednecks, and not in the same category as verifiable lists like List of Scientologists or List of Welsh people. Xtifr tälk 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Strong keep I think this is really an obsession with some people on the delete side and I don't think "obsessions" are to be encouraged on a free site like Wikipedia. Please see the discussion of [118] another AfD case. If other lists of people exist, I don't see why the list of Nairs (renamed) should not exist. BTW the Nairs are not neccessary a caste and are really quite famous as a people for they are featured in The Lusiad the National Epic of Portugal published in 1523 and also you can find a write-up of them in the Encyclopedia Britannica.Justice4us 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Justice4us (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Wikipedia has an article on Nairs too. I don't have any problem with Nair article. 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)-- (Is this a favourable vote from a user? Admin should show the IP address if this user did not sign in properly).Ivygohnair 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I volunteer to attempt to clean up the page if this survives the AfD process. In fact I will print down a copy of the present list to have on record all the red links, and after I finish editing and creating for notables in Singapore Literature (in a short period of less than a month, I have created several profiles of notable Singaporean poets, playwrights, novelists etc), I will make this my next project. A simple google search will show whether the red links should be even considered for notability. But with so many names I will certainly need a lot of assistance, and I can't promise to be able to check everyone.(btw I just cleaned and rearranged this page. I hope it's more user friendly now:-) Ivygohnair 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opposition is based almost entirely on the unmaintainability and non-verifiablity of the list. If someone takes the responsiblity and actually weeds out the random entries, it may yet turn out to be of some worth. Tintin (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was keep. The article does not violate any policies, it has been renamed as suggested by some, and the criteria for inclusion is implicit, as is the case with similar lists. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Tarkhans

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Reddys etc.

The prod was removed by User:Sbei78, whose only contributions are removing prod from caste-based lists (in short, the account was created only for this purpose). The reason given by Sbei78 is that there are lists like List of Scientologists, so this list should be kept as well. I would like to point out that List of Scientologists is a fully-cited list.

On the other hand, this is an Unverifiable list. The argument that "lists can be verified later" doesn't go down, because the list has been existing for a long time now, and nobody has bothered to provide a single citation or source. There is no way of verifying these entries except relying on information from personal users, most of whom are hell-bent on adding every other famous person to list of their caste, which essentially means POV.

Please don't blindly vote keep/merge. None of the users who voted Keep last for List of famous Nairs time have bothered to cleanup or verify the list. The only user who tried that, voted Delete next time[120]. Other similar lists might exist, because they are verifiable. This one is not.

Also please note that this is not one of those "systemic bias" cases, because the nominator (myself) is from India. Strong Delete. utcursch | talk 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The surnames don't always indicate caste (for eg. Mira Nair is Punjabi). Except OBCs, SC/STs, castes don't exist officially -- so, there are few official sources. The only sources are the personal sources or magazines/websites run by caste-based organizations. Also, please note that many people (esp. nationalists) that editors have categorized as "Famous Bhumihars" or "Nairs" do not believe in caste system and don't consider themselves as Bhumihars or Nairs. utcursch | talk 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article cannot be deleted because there are:

--Sbei78 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only contributions are removing prod from and voting keep for these lists. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, to say it is not a valid list because it is not cited it is completely wrong because below lists are not cited.

--Sbei78 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. utcursch | talk 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If members of this caste have Wikipedia articles in their own right, then link via a category if the membership is documented in the article. The list would by definition be incomplete.Edison 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No criteria for inclusion, no sourcing. See WP:INN for the explanation of why Sbei78's argument is just plain wrong. GRBerry 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Rename to List of Tarkhans. The word "famous" is inherently POV, as has been discussed many times before. There is no way this list should be allowed to remain with its current name. And there are far too many indiscriminate, unverifiable lists on WP already. The argument that we should have more bad lists because of existing bad lists is futile per GRBerry. We don't keep spam just because there are other spam articles that have yet to be deleted. I find the precedents cited by nom compelling, and think deletion is the best option. Conversion to category is possible too (maybe even preferable to renaming), but the word "famous", in any case, absolutely must go! Xtifr tälk 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per wiki convention and Keep but add references and claen upRaveenS 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Freddi

[edit]

Youth player and not yet played for first team. Matt86hk talk 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matt86hk talk 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:BIO:

    Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing at the highest level.

    Serie A club players are definately in the category of "a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles". The last sentence I quoted is the only part that is giving me a slight concern, hence the weak keep rather than normal/strong keep. Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on this one. He has made his first team debut [121], and he has a first team squad number but as yet there isn't much information about him available. As a young player he might establish notability beyond doubt in the near future, but equally he might not. Oldelpaso 09:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sorry about not checking he made debut or not. Not info. in http://www.asroma.it . But the article is lack of information, not stub tag, and no cat, and confuse with other speedy creation problem in Liverpool F.C. youth player , S.S. Lazio and F.C. Internazionale Milano Primavera . Matt86hk talk 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both WP:BIO and consensus from past AfDs is that if a player is listed as a first-team squad member for a leading club (which Roma undoubtedly are), that qualifies him as notable regardless of how few first-team appearances he's made - unlike past deletion of Liverpool youth or Internazional primavera players, who are/were nowhere near the first team. The article sucked a bit (I just added categories and a stub notice), but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. Qwghlm 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professional footballer for a major club. Obviously notable. -- Necrothesp 00:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please professional footballer who is notable Yuckfoo 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep, nom withdrawn, no delete opinions - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Westinghouse High School (Pittsburgh)

[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:SCHOOL, and it shouldn't get it's own article just because it's a public school in Pittsurgh; what's stopping me from making seperate articles for each public school in my city? Also, Google refers to a whole other school located in Buffalo, New York,, even when I type "George Westinghouse High School Pittsburgh." Lastly, I added a Prod tag, but was removed with no edits to justify its removal.SuperDT 09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Byron Insert

[edit]

Non-notable sexual technique. Was deprodded by article's creator. (For reference the included images have since been deleted as violating CSD I3 - uploaded under a non commercial use license). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, throw WP:OR into the mixer as well. Daniel.Bryant 10:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V plus totally unnotable according to various Internet search engines QuiteUnusual 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, No sources cited, assumed to be OR. - Crockspot 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This qualifies for speedy deletion, IMO. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of references makes me wonder if it's a hoax. Captainktainer * Talk 06:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.Edison 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Source has been added. Creator of page is also owner of image, therefore allowing the creator to use that image. References are pornographic videos, with Latino Fan Club videos being the majority. 20:49, 23 October 2006
    • Comment 1. Do NOT delete the comments/votes of other editors. 2. Please sign your posts with four tildas. I've reverted your vandalism. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment User:172.193.136.25 has primarily targeted this article to spam promotion for Latino Fan Club.--Rosicrucian 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It's my opinion-and feel free to disagree with this-that this article qualifies for a speedy delete, re: advertising/promotional spam. The topic is simply not encyclopedic in any manner, shape or form. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The topic gives information on a sexual position. If there is a page for the Venus Butterfly, there should be a page for this. They are in no way different. To call this page advertising is completely ridiculous. If you are going to say that then you could say that the Venus Butterfly page is advertising L.A. Law, where the sexual position originated. It also seems to me that because this sexual position is a homosexual sexual position and the Venus Butterfly is not, the people in this debate that are against the page are being homophobic towards it. You all seem to be looking for any small thing to get rid of this page. As for "the topic is simply not encyclopedic in any manner, shape or form" comment, the topic allows you to comprehend what The Byron Insert is; therefore, it is "encyclopedic" as you said. Although that is incorrect usage of the word "encyclopedic", just so you know. As a way of providing the source, the Latino Fan Club was mentioned. But that was VANDALIZED by someone, which I'm just going to guess is one of you who believes that to be advertising. 22:32, 23 October 2006
            • Comment Whether or not they are distinct or identical is irrelevant. And in any case you are not in any position to make a dispositive judgment in that regard. Wikipedia operates by consensus, which is why we are having this afd discussion in the first place. I suggest that you tone done your rhetoric-especially your absurd accusations of "homophobia"-try to maintain a more objective attitude about an article in which you obviously have a vested interest, and attempt to collaborate productively with other editors in the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment This is a debate, I'm giving my argument. Calling my accusations of "homophobia" absurd is, in fact, absurd because the same could be said about the accusations made towards the maker of "The Byron Insert" page about this page "advertising" the Latino Fan Club. But considering you are for deleting this page I can only assume that the "advertising" accusation is allowed. I am not for deleting this article, so "collaborating productively with other editors" could not fully apply to me. I obviously have different views than they do and the only thing I am doing is expressing those different views. Instead of attacking my views by calling them "absurd" and "irrelevant", perhaps YOU could try to maintain a more objective attitude and maybe, just maybe, attempt to collaborate productively with me, a fellow editor. If it isn't clear enough to you yet, for what you said in this latest entry you are doing the exact same thing that you are telling me to stop doing. So, I would like to suggest that you read and reflect upon my views on the topic of "The Byron Insert" in a positive way by not bashing my views and sharing with me and everyone else your views. Thank you. 15:45, 25 October 2006
            • Comment First of all, please sign your remarks with four tildas. I don't know why your IP address-or user name-isn't showing up, but it isn't. Secondly, this is not a quorum or a debate. If you want to provide evidence that this article is not advertising or spam-other than referring to the promoter of the person who created that image-I suggest that you do so. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment By saying "spam" you are talking about what is considered spam on Wikipedia, which would be a different way of saying advertising. If you want evidence that it is not advertising then why don't you just remove the "Latino Fan Club" comment and the link to the Wikipedia page on the Latino Fan Club? Without those it would not be advertising, correct? But, as stated before, those were added on there to be a source as to where the information came from. Jt801 04:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment You see, that is precisely the point. Without the link to a site advertising this sexual technique-presuming of course that it is not completely fictitious-there would be no sources-even that does not constitute a verifiable source-period. In other words, it would not even meet the qualification of being Spam or advertising, but would simply be gibberish or "patent nonsense," and thus qualify for speedy deletion, which it should qualify for in any case. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Your point is that you have no point. The first argument against this was that there was no source. So because of that, a link to the Latino Fan Club website was added. But once that was added, the argument became that it was advertising. The page was not created with the link to the Latino Fan Club or with any mention of the Latino Fan Club. But once someone wanted a source as to where the information came from, the link was added. That right there should be proof that there was no advertising (spam) involved. With you saying that it should qualify for speedy deletion in any case, just says that no matter what is added to it you believe it should be deleted. Which would have to mean that your own morals are getting in the way of your decision making here on Wikipedia. The Latino Fan Club is the source as to where the information came from. It is not advertising (spam) and so "gibberish" and "patent nonsense" have no place here. 19:32, 26 October 2006
            • Comment Again-lest I remind you for the umpteenth time-this is not a debate. If it were, then this article would have been deleted three days ago. The Latin Fan Club-presuming that it is the only source that documents this alleged practice-is not a reliable source and citing it as one merely serves to illustrate the inherent weakness of your argument, yet again. Also, I would appreciate it if you sign your comments in the future. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It would be for the 2nd time and when did I say "debate" in my last entry? Nope, I didn't at all. Thousands of pages are made based on sources like mine, no I don't mean pornographic distributor's websites but websites in general. Which makes it a reliable source. Have you visited the site before? If not then you cannot call it an unreliable source. As far as weak arguments go, you have no argument. When asking for a source, one is provided. When the page is called advertising, the link to the website is removed. Like I said before, you are letting your own morals get in the way of things. Does something like this really make you so uncomfortable that you have to spend so much time arguing about it? To answer the question now floating around in your head, yes it is important to me that a page like this one be allowed on here which is why I am spending so much time arguing about it. There are a lot of pages for sexual positions and sexual techniques here on Wikipedia, this one should not be excluded. 01:45, 27 October 2006
          • Comment You could not find a single website-outside of the promotional vehicle you linked to-which verifies this alleged sexual technique. It's as simple as that. Thousands of articles are not based upon the sourcing of one site. If they were, then they would be on their way to deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hifey Ball

[edit]

Seems to be something made up one afternoon in the park. No sources given. No links. Google gives 7 hits, all referring back to this Wiki article. Emeraude 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable movie screen

[edit]

Spam. Majority of edits are made by User:Openaircinema, pictures were uploaded by User:Openaircinema, and are copyright (though waived) Open Air Cinema. Emeraude 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narutofang

[edit]

Prodded once, removed by article's creator, claims no notability in article (3000 hits), fails WP:WEB. Delete --Richhoncho 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly said prodded, meant speedied. --Richhoncho 12:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - apart from the perosnal endorsements, nobody has provided any evidence he is notable. If we "watch this space" then I'm sure we can recreate his article when he does become notable. Yomanganitalk 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sterling

[edit]

Advert for a NN amateur athlete & stunt man. Has one IMDb credit but it don't look like a speaking role. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me at least as notable as many other people listed on Wiki. --Ughmonster 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'*KEEP' - I have seen the guy in person at a martial arts seminar and the guy is amazing. Watch this space. I would not be surprised if we see more or Mr. STERLING in the movies. His win in Final Fu alone should give him notability. The guy can fight and his aerial ability has to be seen to be believed. And then there are his 23 world titles....what more do you guys want??? Nicho5150

  • Delete having trained with a host of famous coaches does not in itself confer notability; Nor does the fact that his live show is amazing. WP:BIO criteria must be fulfilled. A search of the Krane site for "Daniel Sterling" yields a blank. Ditto NASKA in 2005, although he does appear to have won some stuff in 2004. Am I looking in the wrong place? Next question: how important are these competitions? Ohconfucius 04:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No vote for now because I don't know enough about the field. Perhaps the article's author could create an article about the KRANE Championship, to help us judge whether it's important enough to confer notability, and also deal with Ohconfucius's question about what Sterling actually won. JamesMLane t c 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'*KEEP' - I am a personal student of Daniel and I have seen his trophies in person. Also, he may only have 1 listing on iMDB.com, but he has been a stunt double and fighting henchman type character in several films.

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Banter

[edit]

Totally non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 440,000 plus. Delete. I did prod this, but prod removed by anon user who has only edited this page. --Richhoncho 12:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it real

[edit]

Reads like an urbandictionary entry. The phrase itself does not need its own page, considering it already has an entry in List of slang used in hip hop music. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southview Camping

[edit]

From the website, sounds a nice place and I might even use it. Article though is no more than a directory entry/ad. Only article by author (owner?). Emeraude 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Arnoutf 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cap'n Brownhand

[edit]

Hoax Rhialto 12:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article to be a hoax. As I noted on the article's talk page:

"Anyone else think this is a hoax article? No google hits beyond the wikipedia mirrors, and no less than three puns within the article body too. The original maker of this article has only ever contributed to this article, and his user name is the same as this article." Delete. Definite hoax. Emeraude 14:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerCinema

[edit]

One of many Netflix clone sites, with no documentation on meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Similar to RussArt.com, under deletion here, where consensus so far among established users is to delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFlix

[edit]

One of many Netflix clone sites, with no documentation on meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP, but with information on their prices; seems to be advertising. Similar to RussArt.com, under deletion here, where consensus so far among established users is to delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

[edit]

This is an article about an open letter published in some French weekly. It reproduces the entire text, but is otherwise uninformative and useless. If the letter is notable at all, which I doubt, it could be a footnote in the article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Charlie Hebdo. Skarioffszky 14:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrasexuality

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programs about animals

[edit]

Firstly, it is not what the title says, but a list of programmes with animals in important roles. Secondly, what defines "important role" (compare Flipper with the dog in Frasier)? Thirdly, in over 18 months, the list has reached the grand total of 10 articles. Fourthly, to create an exhaustive list on either criteria is impossible, if worthwhile, which I doubt. (And, fifthly, what about Mr Ed?) Emeraude 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its subject is too vague. This could also be a long list if it were to be every show with an animal (of some type) on it. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the list would have to include most westerns ('The Lone Ranger' show had Silver and Scout, Gene Autry had Champion, etc) and in the year plus the article has been up no one has bothered to add more than the handful of shows out of the hundreds which would qualify. It might be more manageable if it were shows starring an animal or named after the starring animal: "My Friend Flicka," "Fury," or "Rin Tin Tin" none of which are even listed in the article.Edison 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating in Counter-Strike

[edit]

Not important and not encyclopedia worthy to me. ASDFGHJKL 15:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This seems to be original research without proper inline citations. While I don't think this is all original research (so I'd actually lean towards keeping it) there may be major portions of the article which would have to be cut (unfortunately, I don't know which parts, because of the lack of inline citations). ColourBurst 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as almost all of the article is OR. I realize there are a couple reliable resources, so merge what can directly cited to Counter-Strike or other appropriate articles. Wickethewok 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you don't find it important doesn't mean no one else will. I think that because it's the most popular FPS, it probably justifies a page such as this. It probably does need some cleaning up, however. Mhtbhm 09:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems quite informitive, detailed and encylopedic to me

Armanalp 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Pleasant

[edit]

Unverifiable biography. I can't find any sources for his accomplishments (specifically his knighting and his Puffin award). Metros232 15:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Naconkantari 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia

[edit]

This article was previously deleted at AfD, and had its deletion confirmed at a DRV in July. A new DRV consensus just overturned the deletion, in light of new evidence: the wiki-site's frequent mentioning on ABC. Please consult the new DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's bad enough that the Motion of Confidence page now seems to have fictional mentions of occurences of Motions of Confidence, I notice that there is even a Wikipedia article on Darth Vader - what next! Maybe there needs to be a Fictionopedia seperately - probably already is.--Lord of the Isles 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Controversy about links
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia really does not need this sort of blatant advertising, it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)
Lostpedia fails WP:WEB:
  1. “The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” – So far they’ve only really been able to post “blogs” and point 1.1.2 = Fail.
  2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – No awards cited so = Fail.
Lostpedia fails WP:EL:
  1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft.
  2. “Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” – Blatant fail.
  3. “A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.” – Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?
  4. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – 3 adverts are pretty objectionable, imho, (left, under content, both Google, and bottom selling hosting.)
  5. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE.
  6. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered.
The behaviour of their sysops attempting to get a link to articles and even creating spam articles does not settle well with me, furthermore the “if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” approach by filling retaliatory AfDs, Prods and Speedy Delete requests was just patently pathetic imo (see history for Memory Alpha). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MatthewFenton, I'm guessing you're in favor of deleting the article. If so, the strike-through on your recommendation is confusing. It makes it look like you no longer support deletion. If this is not your intent, you might want to fix that. --Loqi T. 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MatthewFenton. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete waste of space. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or else delete I don't see how this is significant enough for its own article. Any notability comes from the TV show. Bwithh 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again per MatthewFenton. At least M&R to Lost (TV series). The current article is entirely dedicated to justifying its own existence by citing sources mentioning the site, and will never become encyclopaedic. Lostpedia fans have repeatedly acted in bad faith (as noted by MatthewFenton), which is not very impressive. --N Shar 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, but I don't see why Lostpedia should be deleted and Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, for examples, shouldn't be kept. Besides, the extensive attempts to find problem with Lostpedia seem more like reaching than genuine concerns. Really, these kinds of frivolous complaints do not improve your arguments. CSS incompatible?? Where? What pages? Copyrights of others? Are you kidding? Lostpedia isn't a site about software piracy (Astalavista) or movies (IsoHunt). 3 Advertisements objectionable? CNN.com has just as many. The nytimes.com page has even more. I don't know about the behavior of the sysops there, but there is certainly plenty of verifiable information on the site, and even if there is fan speculation, it is often identified as such, so it's not a problem. Besides, it's not like there isn't published works on Lost(Amazon for example, has at least 3 Unofficial Guides that I could find without looking hard), and it's not a no-name unknown show. So, there are sources for it as well. But seriously, it seems to me that there is some serious personal animus here. That's a concern that tends to make me doubt the fairness of this proposal. Seems to me that this is a conflic that needs to be resolved more than this article needs to be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Comparison to Star Wars and Star Trek
  • Delete or merge into the main article as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say merge in the main lost article but some of the editors over there constantly delete it. If Wookiepedia deserves an article with only the scifi.com site of the week as a reference, lostpedia also deserves an article.[124]--Peephole 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reason the editors at Lost (TV series) delete links to Lostpedia is, according to this discussion, because of all the fancruft. In a straw-poll-like discussion, the consensus seems to have been that Lostpedia does not deserve its own article, and possibly does not even deserve a link from the main Lost article. In that case, why keep? Wouldn't it make more sense to say delete? --N Shar 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment All the fancruft is hardly an argument. Fancruft is not suitable for wikipedia, yes. But lostpedia is not wikipedia and fancruft should not withhold wikipedia from recognising lostpedia as a notable website. --Peephole 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean it as an argument to delete. I meant it, in fact, as the opposite: the "gatekeepers" of the Lost (TV series) article are probably making a mistake by not including a link. Therefore, merge and redirect could be a viable option. --N Shar 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As MatthewFenton notes above, there is a long history here (largely by people who otherwise participate either very little or not at all in WP) of trying to get a link to Lostpedia on WP, in any way, shape, or form, including bad faith edits and behavior. Especially given the economic aspects (i.e., WP-driven traffic boosting a site's ad revenue, probably by thousands of dollars a year), we have to be very careful about providing such links. There are dozens of Lost-related fansites, too, so this is a slippery slope. See, for example, the LostCasts AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LostCasts. -- PKtm 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to that reasoning we should delete the links to all sites with ads and not link to any sites because it might increase visitors or leads to a "slippery slope". Lostpedia is an honest attempt at building a Lost encyclopedia, not a money making scheme and it certainly doesn't need wikipedia to get visitors. Also, the comments about editors who support inclusion of lostpedia on wikipedia are bordering on personal attacks. I'd suggest you would withold from making such comments.--Peephole 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. Sorry, I won't accept that. The facts (specifically, the WP edit non-history of many of the people voting here for Lostpedia inclusion) speak for themselves, and are well documented in the very lengthy discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites, which this discussion is threatening to repeat once again, with the same people voting in the same way. And sure, revenue considerations have to be brought into this mix. WP is a powerful traffic driver. The bar of notability has to be kept high; we can't have a site considered notable merely because it has 7000 users, especially when there are very considerable quality concerns about its information and approaches. -- PKtm 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whilst users critique the argument that Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha both have articles, it is a valid point to make, as these articles supposedly passed WP:WEB on the virtue of an article in Sci-fi.com - which Lostpedia has along with much more media coverage to boot. Having been officially recognised by the show producers and company itself on numerous occassions also gives Lostpedia strong notability, as does the response by ABC to set up their own Lost Wiki (undoubtedly in response to the exponential growth the site Lostpedia has experienced in but a year). Thus, Lostpedia deserves to have its own article. And in response to "the slippery slope" I see no real precedence for this, as not to reiterate using the old examples, but allowing other Wikis to have articles did not for instance cause a huge precedent for Star Wars and Star Trek sites being allowed to stay articles on the WP database to my knowledge --Nickb123 3rd 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Nickb123_3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leflyman (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Wikipedia has had over 30,000,000 page views, which makes it one of the most visited non Mediawiki's on the web.
Lostpedia meets WP:WEB:
  1. “The website has a list of Media Coverage [125].
  2. “The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.” – Wikipedia has won Sci-Fi's site of the week [126].

Lostpedia meeting WP:EL:

  1. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.” – Precident has been set via Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia's entries. It is a far more detailed resource than the LOST article here.
  2. “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” – Adverts are subtle, more subtle than for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia ones, where precident has been set. Adverts are solely used to cover the costs of the site, which are greater than the advertising revenue.
  3. “Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.” – Website uses same CSS as a standard Mediawiki installation.
  4. “Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)” – Lostpedia licenses all images with correct license information to avoid violations of copyright infrigement in the United States. --Plkrtn 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Above user has been involved in two bad faith "retailiatory" AfD nominations for Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia)--LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't have to look long to find this image; it was on the front page of Lostpedia. The image is described as "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media." It is also stated that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material ... [conditions removed] ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law" (emphasis mine). However, a high-resolution version of the image is provided! This is not good copyright policy. On the other hand, this is really a straw man. The question is whether the site is notable enough for its own article, not whether it can be linked to from Wikipedia. --N Shar 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this, Wikipedia itself is no greater in this respect [127] --Nickb123 3rd 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Consensus in DRV determined that “Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability”; this AFD is the formal procedure that follows the overturning of its deletion in the DRV.
NOTE: remaining interpersonal issues among some users voting “strongly” for delete:
The first "Strong Delete" vote above is made by a user with a long-time history against Lostpedia, and was banned from Lostpedia for making bad-faith edits-- his opinion is clearly biased from reasons external to WP. Similar editors have likely been recruited by this editor (and/or have their own pre-existing polarized biases) for voting; note the vote histories and comments on past afds on this article, as well as at the main article Lost (TV series), for a list of these editors; these include Seargeantbolt ("Speedy Delete") and pktm ("Strong delete").
Also quoting from the closing comments of the DRV:
"So, in closing, Lostpedia fully meets the criteria for notability.(snip)
"Also, let's try to keep the vendettas and underlying motives for this site's page's deletion to a bare minimum. MatthewFenton, I do see a double standard with Wikis here. Please, just be fair with this instead of trying to bring down a site that didn't meet your personal standards." --Out-of-focus 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
*"Overturn. I believe this meets WP:WEB and it's a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis." Angela 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(End quotes from DRV)
In summary, Keep, in accordance with the consensus of the DRV. --Santaduck 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#DRV discussion
Please also see Wikipedia's list of wikis for additional precedent on articles for wiki's hosted outside of Wikipedia. That article contains only links to wikis that with their own entry in Wikipedia. --Jabrwocky7 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Some of the statements to notability are not currently noted on the article page, as it was protected/speedy deleted while being written. It should also be noted that MatthewFenton seems to have a vendetta against Lostpedia, submitting a Speedy Deletion (overturned), and adding lostpedia.com to the SPAM blacklist (overturned). He is currently banned from editing Lostpedia, which could be the source of his frustrations. --Jabrwocky7 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Above user initiated the Lostpedia article (as his first edit) and was responsible for a WP:POINT AfD nomination of Wookiepedia.)--LeflymanTalk 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see a whole lot of hand waving about "we have other wikis, so we should have this one too." Wrong. A lot of those articles are kind of crappy upon review, and I'd probably express an opinion to delete those if they were to come to AfD; however, that said, the existence of some uncited messes doesn't justify the existence of other uncited messes. We shouldn't lower our standards for inclusion just because some articles inexplicably get kept. This one fails WP:WEB and has very little about it verifiable by reliable sources. GassyGuy 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. GassyGuy 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Why this had a listing on AfD to begin with is puzzling to me...it's a verifiable internet webpage that's growing exponentially. I think several people have some biases towards wiki's and want this one to not exist. All of the information can't be on Wikipedia, because it would be deemed non-notable or an indiscriminate collection of information...so Lostpedia is a perfect place for it...and it deserves its own article on here, as this is a general purpose encyclopedia.--MonkBirdDuke 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article had and has COI issues and does not demonstrate that it meets WP:WEB. A smerge to Lost Experience (which is a passable imitation of a link-farm in need of cleanup) might be reasonable, but that could have been done at any time; no need for DRV or YAAfD. But that wouldn't be as effective as free advertising, would it ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - i somehow get an overwhelming impression just from reading the upper part of this AfD that some users seem to be simply holding some kind of grudge against it. I don't see Lostpedia as obviously failing either WP:WEB or WP:EL, and i especially don't see how lostpedia fails them any worse than Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha. Talking about which, i don't see how "unverified fancruft" has anything to do with this. Do people even realize what fancruft means? The opening line of WP:CRUFT explains it quite well "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". There's nothing wrong with Fancruft, it's not bad. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. But fansites by definition exist to serve the 'small population of enthusiastic fans'. So-called "Fancruft" is exactly the kind of external sites are supposed to provide, since it's information that's not appropriate on our own encyclopedia. Arguments like this "Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" is circular. Because even if someone independant added links to lostpedia in wikipedia articles, there is no way to prove who is adding links because they think it's a good idea, and who is adding links because they're affiliated with lostpedia. At the end, it just comes down to the bad faith assumption of "you're adding links to lostpedia, you must be from lospedia and trying to advertise". --`/aksha 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#AfD noms
  • Strong Delete consensus has consistently been that website is not independently notable despite claims to the contrary and WP:POINT violations. Eluchil404 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSTAIN Full disclosure - I edit on Lostpedia and haven't been on wikipedia that long, so I don't feel it's appropriate that I vote on this. However, a number of factual inaccuracies have been posted (as well as opinions posing as facts) here that I'd like to correct, many of them by Matthew Fenton. I apologize in advance for the length of this.
WP:WEB:
"So far they’ve only really been able to post 'blogs'" Untrue as shown by lostpedia's media coverage page [[131]]. References include businessweek, newsday, and wired news (those aren't "trivial" sources, are they?). It is true that there are blogs listed as well, these include ones hosted by sources like the Chicago Tribune, USA today, and the guardian, in most cases written by the TV critic or pop culture columnist for that publication.
"No awards cited" SciFi weekly site of the week[[132]]. For comparison, this is the only reference provided by Wookieepedia, which has its own page. It should be noted that WP:WEB says that only one of the three criteria needs to be met to merit inclusion.
WP:EL
"Site provides nothing unique, except of course unverifiable fan cruft"
A comparison of the two sites shows this to be wrong. For a specific example, compare the wikipedia page Lost Experience with the Lostpedia page for the same topic [[133]]. The wikipedia page is fairly detailed, but it is mostly highlights, while the lostpedia version (as far as I can tell) documents it in enough detail that a reader could access every bit of content in the lost experience. This was particularly significant during the online game, as people trying to figure out the puzzles were able to use Lostpedia as a repository of game information while someone referring only to wikipedia wouldn't have sufficient information to solve the puzzles.
Trying to write off Lostpedia as "unverifiable fan cruft" seems like a circular argument to me. It's not a legit site because it has nothing unique beyond fancruft, but the info that goes beyond what wikipedia has is defined as fancruft because it is on a site that's not legit. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases. And while "cruft" is generally frowned upon on wikipedia (while there's still a fair amount on wiki's Lost pages), wiki policy doesn't list it as a reason for excluding links to external sites.
“Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” I'm not sure what you consider factually inaccurate or unverified. The info that is on Lostpedia generally isn't any less verifiable or inaccurate than the info on the wikipedia lost pages - the primary source is the show itself in the vast majority of cases, and the information can be verified by watching the show. Obviously, the information on a site operated using wiki principles will never be 100% correct or verified, as I'm sure wikipedia editors will readily admit, but I'd argue the vast majority of information on Lostpedia is accurate, and as inaccurate info is found, it is corrected. Lostpedia does contain fan speculation, but it is clearly marked and kept separate from the factual information. Such speculation is certainly not inappropriate for a show that actively encourages it, and as long as it as it is presented as opinion and not fact, I don't consider it unverified or original research, not any more than a movie data site would be disqualified for containing user reviews in addition to factual info.
"their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" In fact, independent parties have added links to lostpedia, here's an example from a user who is a longtime wikipedia editor, doesn't mainly edit Lost articles, and as far as I can tell, isn't a lostpedia participant [[134]]. This link was deleted with the reason given being "rm spam" [[135]] even though that was clearly not the intent when it was posted, evidence of bad faith editing on the part of MatthewFenton. From what I've seen (and obviously, I admit it's difficult if even possible to find every instance where links to lostpedia have been added) it's entirely possible that links to lostpedia are automatically assumed to be bad faith "spam" edits, whether they are or not. Above is certainly one example of that happening.
I'd also like to see a reference to where the owner of Lostpedia has added a link to it. If this has happened, I'd agree that this is a neutrality violation. However, in the case of a site that is open to public contribution, it seems likely that many people who would find the site notable could choose to participate in it themselves, thus disqualifying themselves from writing about the site.
Also on the topic of neutrality, if it is a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to add links to it, I'd argue that it's also a conflict of interest for those participating in Lostpedia to delete links to it as well. Specifically in the case of MatthewFenton, he declared his bad faith intentions on Lostpedia [[136]], immediately began a major edit that would have had an effect on the entire site, without getting any input from other users [[137]], and as a result was banned from the site. If the opinions and edits of those involved with Lostpedia are to be ignored (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it has been argued), I'd suggest that MatthewFenton should be included in that group. And after all, if Lostpedia is truly not notable as some argue, wouldn't someone independent remove the link?
"adverts are pretty objectionable, imho" Your opinion. There are quite a few similar sites that have pages on wikipedia that have quite a bit more advertising. And lostpedia certainly doesn't "primarily exist to sell products or services", especially since the site doesn't sell things at all - looking at the site, I don't find a way to send lostpedia money if I wanted to.
"Website uses CSS incompatible with MSIE." I just looked at lostpedia and was able to access it just fine with MSIE. If you're talking about a cosmetic feature not being supported, that doesn't make the site "inaccessible". If you weren't able to access the site, how were you able to create a user account and edit the site, much less read the site to determine whether it's deserving of inclusion on wikipedia?
"Unwilling to fix their blatant violations of GFDL and US copyright even when assistance is rendered." Simply not true. Since MatthewFenton was at lostpedia and edited there, his recommendations for GDFL and copyright notices were taken, and the images he referenced in his comments there now have GDFL and other copyright notices. "Unwilling to fix" isn't the same as unwilling to let a brand new user singlehandedly implement a copyright notice policy with no input from the community (particularly one who had made a public declaration of bad faith).
“if lostpedia cant get an article, no one can” While I frown upon Lostpedia users creating AfDs for other articles in "retaliation", I think an argument can be made for doing that in good faith. Articles like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have been referenced in comparison, and those arguing that Lostpedia doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:EL have made arguments that, when applied to those other pages, those pages fail as well. In each of these discussions, there have also been wiki editors who have spoken in favor of deleting Lostpedia references, and have favored deleting the two above articles for the same reasons. If a Lostpedia reference is deleted, and criteria given for the deletion, shouldn't other articles that fall under the same criteria be considered for deletion as well? The question is simply, should a set of standards be applied to one article but not another?
"it is pretty obvious to me by the way their sysops have behaved in attempting to get links and an article here that they generally require the traffic Wikipedia would generate (hence a bigger income from the Google ad words et cetera)"
Lostpedia sysops don't make money from lostpedia, if any profit is made at all (since obviously hosting a site costs money, and income has to cover expenses first), it would only go to the owner of the site. Such an accusation seems ad hominem and unfounded. A similar accusation could be made of the editors of the Lost pages on wikipedia - that they have been removing links to Lostpedia because they're worried that traffic there would decrease traffic to wikipedia. MatthewFenton has also made accusations that Lostpedia engages in google bombing. Are there facts to back up that accusation?
Sorry for the length of this, but I don't want to see a decision like this made based on incorrect (if not intentionally misleading) information. Thanks to all of you who have participated in this discussion - and for those of you have have voted "per MatthewFenton" to be aware that a number of his statements are factually incorrect and that he has shown bias and bad faith in regards to Lostpedia. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But the article is critically in need of improvement. See the articles about other websites: Salon.com, Television Without Pity, Democratic Underground or Free Republic. Those articles discuss the organizers/founders/owners of the sites, their influence, their strengths and shortcomings, and in all provide some information rather than just being a stub and link like this article. Clearly some people like the show and the Lostpedia, neither of which have ever appealed to me, so perhaps some of them could take the time to write a good article. Edison 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. As long as we are allowing Memory Alpha (sourced by a trivial mention in "Florida Trend" and another trivial mention in "The Charlotte Observer") and Wookiepedia (sourced by stories on theforce.net and apparently WP:WEB compliant due to the oh so prestigious scifi.com Sci Fi site of the week) I think we've pretty much given up on holding anything to WP:WEB once it becomes obvious that the fanboy "pokemon effect" has taken over to stuff AfDs, complete with petty . Just give up kids and let the cruft wave sweep you away... and hope that someday we can live in a world where User:Bwithh gets to hear his sweet fanboy howling lullaby.--Isotope23 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not exactly the best reason in the world, but I've heard of it and I believe it to be notable and varifiable. Whether it's a good site, whether the articles any good or any other reasons miss the point. I just wish people (mainly those voting Keep) would stop trying to think that this place is precedent based when voting when it really isn't. Halo 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is not precedent based (hence my WP:IAR) and it is also not a vote...  :)--Isotope23 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said on DRV, I believe this meets WP:WEB and that it is a very significant wiki. ABC's poor attempt at forking it shows they're taking notice of this site. With 7000 users, it's one of the most active non-Wikia wikis. Angela. 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or else keep. Merge into Lost (TV series)
[disclosure: I have participated heavily in the Lost article's discussion on this topic. I am in no way affiliated with Lostpedia, as some have implied. I have occasionally read Lostpedia as a resource, and have been impressed with its scope. In particular, its unfounded speculation has been a source of some entertainment and insight to me. If competing sites meet or exceed Lostpedia in value and/or notoriety, I'd be prepared to support them in addition to, or instead of, Lostpedia.]
In the ongoing side discussion of the Lost article found here, the bulk of the arguments against a link to Lostpedia have been around claims that Wikipedia policy prohibits an external link to Lostpedia in any context. That is, according to some, a mere line item in the External Links section of the Lost article pointing to Lostpedia, would be a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy. The comments on this AfD page expose such claims as misguided at best.
Since this is a discussion on whether to delete an article about Lostpedia, and not about whether to link Lostpedia in the Lost article, I am forced to support keeping the Lostpedia article, if only as a means of notifying Wikipedia readers about a valuable Lost resource. A single link from Wikipedia:Lost(tv) to Lostpedia would satisfy all my concerns about offering potentially valuable outside resources to our readers. Failing that, I'll have to support a separate Lostpedia article, since an internal link could not be so mis-objected to, by some Lost article editors.
P.S. Lostpedia does not appear to be hurting for findability. The Google terms "lost wiki" currently turn up these results: Lostpedia, Wikipedia's Lost article, Wikia's Lost section, ABC's Lost wiki offering, and finally a large number of obscure Lost-related sites. --Loqi T. 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, what can I say? If it's good enough for Matthew Fenton, it's good enough for me. I'm switching my recommendation to an unambiguous keep. In general, I'd rather we include a page that no-one much is interested in, than to exclude a page that someone might be looking for. Not everyone shares this philosophy, or uses the same threshold of notability, but when in doubt, I tend to go with inclusion. Lostpedia seems to meet the notability threshold of more than a few people who know the ropes around here, and this has influenced my evaluation. In addition, if it doesn't get its page this time, we're likely to be right back here the next time it shows up as a news item somewhere; or worse, we might be too sick of the topic to give it another fair consideration for a while. --Loqi T. 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think thats pretty much the perfect closing summary in my opinion of this whole discussion --Nickb123 3rd 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm afraid I can't buy Loqi's sudden "influenced my evaluation" contention, as he's been campaigning for inclusion of Lostpedia in any way shape or form for over three months. The entire discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites was an outgrowth of his repeated promotion and forum shopping for a link to the site. Only two days ago, he went back to delete the excessive canvassing for his proposal which he had spammed 20 user pages with. The very first edit he made on August 8 was to push a Lostpedia link. He's even been commended by Lostpedia's owner for his "passion" in promoting the site. He attempts to imply that he's participated in other AfD discussions, when this is actually the only one in which he's ever been involved. (Oh, and incidentally, the place to put such a revised "Keep" comment is at one's original discussion above, not as a seemingly new "closing" recommendation.)--LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to use such acrimonious language, Leflyman? I think everyone knows I want Lostpedia linked from the Lost page. But now I beleive a separate Lostpedia article page is fully appropriate. It's true, as you note, that this is my first AfD participation. So it's only natural that I'd make some mistakes. I guess I was following Matthew's lead [in the proper placement of amended recommendations]. I've moved this thread to its proper place. And please don't criticize me for doing the right thing two days ago. --Loqi T. 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (clarified) Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a puppet. --Loqi T. 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I am now formally retracting all my previous recommendations on the narrow topic of this Afd. This is not because I have changed my views on the topic, it's because I want to signal to whichever administrator ends up tackling this beast that there'll be no trouble form me. I listened with interest, and have said all I care to on this and surrounding pages. With the exception of a few rash comments, which have since been retracted in various forms, I stand by everything I've said on the broader issues over the past three months. I am ready to accept any ruling which comes of this, without friction. Those interested in my final thoughts will find them posted on my personal user page later today. Peace. --Loqi T. 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this does met our web guidelines so why erase it Yuckfoo 01:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And just to echo some of the other Lostpedians posting above, the comments by MatthewFenton need to be understood as part of a grudge he has against being disciplined at Lostpedia. As a Lostpedia SysOp, I can guarantee you that we do not want to be linked to generate page views for ad revenue. We want to eliminate a bizarre hypocracy where nearly every other TV show lists notable fansites, while a few self-proclaimed "gatekeepers" insist that the Lost entry be free of fansites. As for the complaints that hardcore Lostpedians do not spend time editing Lost entries at WP, that seems pretty ridiculous - we have our own site to update & maintain, and we've gotten the clear sense from many that we're not welcome. --Jajasoon 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/merge - doesn't do well per criteria one, two or three - But it does seem to show a strong Alexa.com ranking - higher than memory alpha in the last few weeks. Personally I'd rather see it only mentioned as an external link on the main Lost article but on the other hand it doesn't seem to merit deletion. Megapixie 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angela. She is sage and a former member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, I trust her input. Yamaguchi先生 07:01, 24 October 2006
  • Strong Keep, as per Milo H Minderbinder, and my reasons quoted and misattributed above. --Out-of-focus 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Matthew and PKtm. I also note the prevalence of apparent meatpuppetry of voting by recently created accounts, those who've never edited a Lost-related article, or may have only interest in inclusion of this particular article. --LeflymanTalk 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)#Puppetry
  • Delete or Merge into either Lost or the Lost Experience.

    The article seems light on importance/notability; and while it has some acclaim, it doesn't seem to matter for the article. Only the site's inclusion in "the official ABC show blog" and a podcast are referenced in the article; the paragraph it earned from Wired News, as well as its honor as 1/~150 sites of the week from SciFi.com are only externally linked -- perhaps because they do not provide the article with substantially more notability than already mentioned. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a long and torturous discussion this is already. My condolences to the admin who finally volunteers to sort this discussion out. My own opinion is that we should delete this page for failure to meet the criteria of WP:WEB. A few allegations were made above and some links provided but none which convince me that this website really qualifies under our generally accepted inclusion criteria. While this site has been mentioned in some reputable sources, not enough of the coverage was primarily about this website. The ones I reviewed were casual mentions in an article on a related but different topic. Being scifi.com's website of the week is a very low standard - not in keeping with my understanding of the intent of that clause of WP:WEB. Rossami (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a valid article providing information on the website. If the website hosted a section of the Lost Experience game this summer then its worth having its own page here. Merging into the main Lost article makes no sense, and deleting it is uncalled for. Spookyadler 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has not been the primary subject of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources, and really there is not much to say which is not original research other than that it exists; there is sufficient space on the Lost article to do that. If we prune the article of all original research, we get: Lostpedia is a Wiki about Lost. Who knew? The rest is 90% vanity and 10% puff. Guy 15:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abstain Lostpedia is a textbook example of a topical wiki. Lostpedia is a 100% community based site. It's growth has been through the contributions of over 7500 registered editors. Jimbo Wales even commented on this very issue. [138] "Wow, well, I looked into it, and read in particular the entire debate at that last url you sent me. What a mess. As you may know, I try not to personally get involved much in detailed content disputes, and in this case, I really don't know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice to know for sure about that. At the same time, I do think that Lostpedia should be listed there, and that in general Wikipedia should do a lot more linking to community-built resources." (Full Disclosure: I started Lostpedia) --Kevincroy 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo did not comment on the existence of this article; he was commenting on whether a link to Lostpedia was appropriate to include on the Lost (TV series) article, but as he acknowledges, he "really [doesn't] know enough about tv show linking policies as they are put into practice". Add'l note: the founder of this AfD's subject should likely have recused himself from pushing for inclusion of his web site, as it is a conflict of interest in such Wikipedia discussions. --LeflymanTalk 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. Kevincroy has disclosed that he is the founder of Lostpedia. That should be sufficient when evaluating his "keep" recommendation, as well as any comments he makes. Recusal has no meaning here. I must say though, that the Jumbo quote doesn't really fit the topic of whether Lostpedia should have an article. --Loqi T. 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. Crossing out a "delete" or "keep" generally shows the person is changing/withdrawing their opinion, which isn't the case. Really, the creater of Lospedia has as much right as the rest of us to participate in a discussion as long as it's civil and in good faith; especially when he (and others) have admitted involvement in Lospedia. It shows how he is respecting the wikipedia process, and not trying to do anything dodgy (contrast to many people's suggestions that individuals from Lostpedia are puppeting here). Let's just let this be a discussion of the article, instead of about the people who participate. I'm sure the admin closing this will look into it extra carefully, considering how much debate/contraversy it's generating. --`/aksha 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
full disclosure: i'm a sysop on lostpedia as of a few days ago, but was not when i initially entered into this debate.
policy: i think that this debate has raised some interesting points regarding the notability guidelines on wikipedia, as well as some terms (specifically (fan)cruft, fansite, fanlisting) needing a clearer definition. i don't think the ones in place are sufficient or clear enough at present. if they were, this debate would not have dragged on so long.
regarding matthew fenton's contributions to this debate: i feel that this user's comments show a strong personal bias. whilst i strongly disagree with bad faith AfD nominations for articles such as Memory Alpha in 'retaliation' for the ongoing lostpedia controversy, i feel that the extraordinary lengths this user has gone to in order to ensure no mention of lostpedia is present on wiki show such a bias, and as such are borderline in bad faith in themselves --Kaini 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why were the lengthy comments from Mr. Fenton left on this page, while the comments specifically taking issue with them moved to the talk page? Especially when those comments contain a number of factual inaccuracies. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, i'm going to restore them. Comments from people explaining their vote (even if it was an abstain) shouldn't be moved. It's only the off topic discussions arising from people commenting on other people's votes. As for Mr. Fenton's possible bias, i think it is noteworthy. And going a bit too far (see this edit). --`/aksha 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended comments were moved according WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR -- however, the content was not changed in any way. The comments of Fenton were the basis of many of the subsequent discussion responses, and were appropriate to leave in full; as were the long Keep comments which followed a similar point-by-point format. The 1570-word, 3 page comments of Milo H Minderbender were trimmed to his "abstention" introduction about inaccuracies, and the continuation moved to the discussion page; they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discussed personal, off-site disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA. This discussion's length has far exceeded any comparable AfD discussions. As noted at WP:REFACTOR: Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility.--LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't disagree strongly enough with your assertion "These comments were appropriate to move to the discussion page, as they were exclusively a reply to (and about) MatthewFenton, and did not deal with any actual Wikipedia policy-- instead discuss personal disagreements that would likely be classified under WP:NPA." These comments directly deal with Wikipedia policy and more specifically to this AfD. How is disputing the claim that an article cited for notability is a blog (a link to one of the articles in question: [[139]]) a personal attack, much less irrelevant to the topic? From WP:NPA let me quote: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks." I also made accusations of bad faith, and backed up those accusations with examples and evidence. You obviously feel that the posting record of people voting here and their credibility is relevant because you have made accusations of SPA and conflict of interest. I believe I have made no personal attacks in my comments here; if you feel that something I've said falls under NPA, the more appropriate response is to single it out so that I may either clarify my remark, or withdraw it and apologize for it. In addition, WP:ARCHIVE (assuming I understand it correctly) applies to archiving an entire page, not selectively removing comments, so it doesn't apply here. (not to mention that it applies to talk pages, which I don't believe this is) I'm not sure that archiving an AfD while it is still in progress is even allowed by wikipedia policy. In addition, WP:REFACTOR says; "refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors", which you certainly didn't do in regards to my comments. In regard to length, I was unaware that there was a word or page limit on AfD comments, could you point me to the WP policy that spells it out? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood..."
"Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, and avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation." --LeflymanTalk 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to a number of points. I certainly wouldn't have written as much if there wasn't so much incorrect information posted that needed correcting. Are you here to discuss Lostpedia or to discuss users' posting styles? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guildlines are guildlines, they help tell us what to do in most cases. This AfD is far from being a typical AfD. Milo, i'd recommend you try and shorten your comments unless you don't mind having it moved. And put the quotes into italics. Just to make life easier for the admin who's going to close this - if nothing else, it means more chance the admin will actually read through your extended comments. --`/aksha 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep. -- I don't favor deleting anything from a knowledgebase such as this. This entry is valuable simply because there is so much LOST information on the net and so many fan sites. This entry provides a very good neutral grounding place for anyone seeking basic information about a very popular and (I'll say it) unique program. There is so much about this show to read and investigate it would seem imperative that a resource such as the Wikipedia could provide something of a road map. Very few elements of pop culture inspire such interest and response so the fear of "pedia" creep doesn't seem a real danger. It might not fit in with the concept many purists have for this project but it definitely fits into the realm of what should be recorded and archived here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver.surfer (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 October 2006
— Possible single purpose account: Silver.surfer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong keep: [mega strong keep] Omg, Jimbo Wales edited there. Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia and The LOST Wikia. Jimbo also thinks Lostpedia and The LOST Wikia should have there own pages. It does not in any way fail! --75.18.56.237 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 75.18.56.237 appears to be the IP of Iron Chef. See: User_talk:Iron_Chef. This user started The LOST Wikia article currently up for speed delete.--LeflymanTalk 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator abstained from voting due to this be a procedual nomination so how does speedyish Delete per nom apply? Also under what criteria do you believe that this should be speedy deleted? --70.48.173.247 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, MatthewFenton (the original nominator for this deletion) changed his recommendation from delete to "Keep". How exactly are you basing your recommendation on his? --Jabrwocky7 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per reasons stated by Angela in this articles deletion review. You can view her comments at the bottom of this page. Iced KolaT - C 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't see any evidence that the Sci-Fi site of the week award is well-known, but I would still consider the "review", as it's described there, as non-trivial coverage. Footnote 4 of WP:WEB seems to support using reviews in this fashion. The St. Cloud Times write-up is marginal, but coverage of Lostpedia is about half of the seven paragraphs, so I'd also consider that non-trivial coverage. Having about 1.5 media coverages gives it just more than one, and "more than one" was the definition of multiple in three of the four dictionaries I checked. Ergo, weak keep. (Though I considered it, the Guardian article strikes me as trivial.)--Kchase T 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a web site being reviewed anywhere constitutes notability enough for a WP article, then there are probably thousands of web sites that would get articles, which doesn't seem like the answer. There's a whole publishing industry out there covering new web sites, so a couple of citations (particularly one from a pretty minor publication like the St. Cloud Times) aren't exactly a rare commodity, and don't constitute true notability. -- PKtm 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WEB says "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". If you feel that the wikipedia policy sets the bar too low, the solution is to try and change the policy, not to ignore the policy. There's a more complete list of references at [[142]], some of which have been included in previous versions of the article. There are a decent number, although not many are the main point of the article; I certainly feel like there are enough references to qualify as "multiple", especially considered along with the fact that LP was inluded in The Lost Experience. Feel free to add appropriate ones back in. And if you feel that LP doesn't meet WP:WEB, how do you feel about the inclusion of Wookieepedia? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As per Milo H Minderbinder, Lostpedia meets WP:WEB, WP:EL and the arguments against its layout, wiki nature or text adverts are spurious. As per Angela and others, the site has a significant number of users, outstripping Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, and is gaining increasing media coverage. The amount of media coverage it has already attained is enough to be notable. There are many Wikipedia editors who have formed either an outdated or inaccurate opinion about Lostpedia's verifiability and notability, I hope the facts revealed by this discussion convinces them to rethink. 195.173.23.111 10:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (if you have a problem with me being an IP address, have a look at my contribs - I have edited under this address since February and edit both LOST and non-LOST topics regularly. Don't make me break out the "Extraordinary Rendition" account to vote, as it doesn't edit Wikipedia - this IP does)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mabye what is going on is that wikipedia is scared of a little competition? But seriously the site has been recognised by the creators of Lost what higher accalade can a Lost site get? --Dee4leeds 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sails through WP:WEB, article has had media coverage such as a review in Wired News and won Sci-Fi's site of the week as mentioned above. Englishrose 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is notable, it meets all those regulations people are citing, and... Yeah. What I said. On a slightly different note, it's really silly to be saying that "Wikipedia is afraid of competition" and such, because there is VALID concern for Wikipedia becoming a web directory with this sort of thing being included. So stop using those arguments.--The Sporadic Update 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think accusing Wikipedia of being afraid of competition is a bit much, I think its more to do with the quite young keepers of the LOST article (I won't say moderators, as none of them are) feeling this fierce pride in their work, and a wish on their behalf not to link to other sites that also cover this content, arguably with better information. Many sites are like this. Digital Spy won't let you do this, and Lost Media won't either. Its a shame that something like Wikipedia, and the web in general, which are supposed to be for sharing knowledge and information, can be hijacked by people who are fiercely competitive, rather than collaborative. --217.65.158.91 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree saying WP is afraid of competition is silly, I think it was more an attempt at humour rather than the user's argument though --Nickb123 3rd 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETED as hoax/trolling article created by socks of banned user. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the South Beach Scene

[edit]

Part unsourced essay, part nonsense, 100% deletable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do understand that the word "slut" is considered one of the worst insults there is in the English language, right? - Richfife 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, but redirecting to List of Latin phrases (P–Z). --Ezeu 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per se (phrase)

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live! 2004

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paintballforum.com

[edit]

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tujunga underground

[edit]

Band with only one homemade CD (which was discontinued in favor of giving it away free as a download on their website). Non-notable, vanity, fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodeo Boys

[edit]

Folk/indie band that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy beers

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 07:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Girl

[edit]

Fairly much the same as the first nom. This is NOT notable, even though many people say it is. This is frankly classism and stereotyping. The article is depraved and degrading. Delete. Snuogo 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Snuogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Previous afd:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essex_girl - speedily kept, but due to nominator being a sockpuppet. Bwithh 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Zimbabweans

[edit]

thin copy of material from other articles with some opinion added BScar23625 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. White Zimbabweans was created on 2 October 2006. It appears to consist of material skimmed from existing articles Whites in Zimbabwe and Rhodesia. Some opinion and comment has been added. That opinion and comment carries a certain sub-text plus some serious errors of fact. White Zimbabweans serves no purpose and its creator has declined to respond to questions about it. It should be deleted. Bob BScar23625 19:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oli 'n' Clive, Oli N' Clive

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

The result was Delete the nominated article and moving User:Nixer/Space trade back to mainspace to take its place. (This has already been done as a cut and paste, I will move the history).--Konst.ableTalk 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space trade

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Matt Eason 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggerypipery

[edit]

Notability not established, 1,450 GHits, and fails WP:BAND. Delete. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - One of the criteria for WP:BAND is:
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable.
Per the article Húsönd linked to, the drummer, Simon Crowe, was a member of The Boomtown Rats, who are considered notable enough to have a page here.
Weak Keep because I don't like that criteria... --Onorem 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spellings of "the"

[edit]

This whole article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Not only is it poorly written and completely unencyclopedic, put it is without a doubt the puriest example of unverified original research I've ever seen in my year here at Wiki. I tagged it {{or}} over a month ago, as well as adding "Is this whole article OR?? It has pretty much zero refs after all?" to the talk page, and the only edits since have been vandalism and the resulting reverts. Seriously, this has gotta go. Delete Glen 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School

[edit]

Please note there are two different Alex's in this discussion!

Non-notable primary (elementary) school. Does not appear to pass WP:SCHOOLS. --Alex (Talk) 18:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original article has now been expanded, referenced and more detail added, including links from UK Government and BBC. As such I have divided this into comments after and before revisions--Alex 09:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Albany Classes

[edit]

An article on individual classes at one particular school is probably to be categorized as indiscriminate information. up+land 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry. --Ezeu 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees Suck

[edit]

Does not require a Wikipedia article, but if there is a Yankees suck page, then there should be suck pages for all teams in the League. We can't have this. Patsyanks06 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking forward to the comments from the editors on the Yankees page if my original merge suggestion had gone ahead, but it looks like the guys below have a less incendiary response. (incendiary... herm... isn't that what Red Sox fans get up to in downtown Boston when their team wins? ) Bwithh 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a youtube reference is appropriate for the particular claim, which is simply that the chant occurs in venues outside of New England. Stilgar135 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a page about the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry that this could go into? --Hemlock Martinis 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response There's Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry which mentions the most important parts. Stilgar135 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boston Red Sox Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry. - Mike | Talk 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is an interesting case. It's referenced, and there's no doubt about the verifiability of the existence of this particular chant. However, it would be more efficient to Merge to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry.-- danntm T C 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Strong Merge A chant about the Yankees sucking does not, I believe, qualify as "baseball lore." It is a mundane chant that could be done by any team's fans against another team that they are playing. The only signifance is that New Englanders in general (Red Sox fans in particular) yell this chant at non-Yankee related events. This suggests to me that, at best, this article should be merged with Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry. The fact that there are youtube videos of other teams chanting it is only significant in as much as that other team's fans feel strongly about the Yankees when in direct competition. Djdickmutt 01:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yup. "Baseball lore" is exactly what this phrase has become as per articles in USA Today [144],[145] and MSNBC [146] or Espn [147] or the SanFransiso Chronicle [148] or the Detroit Free Press [149] or the Harvard Crimson. [150] It's also a book [151] -- No Guru 05:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel like I've heard a single convincing argument yet for why this requires a standalone article. Chanting, whether it's "Yankees Suck," "Boston Sucks," or "Cubs Suck" is clearly a part of baseball rivalry. This particular chant would appear to only be notable because it is part of one of the most notable rivalries in all of sports. Include it in the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page. Djdickmutt 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll do my best to expand on my points above. It a notable, well-documented chant that has also become a marketing phenomena and has sparked legal and civil rights debates. [152]. It is not simply a phrase that one team's fans yells at the expense of another team. This chant is well-documented and has influence in the way that a phrase like "Blue Jays Blow" does not. -- No Guru 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll concede that it is a more significant phrase than "Blue Jays Blow" or any other chant directed at a specific team, but it still seems that the main reason for the phenomenon is because of the Yanks/Sox rivalry, and don't you feel that all of that could be covered with a merge into the Rivalry's article? Djdickmutt 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The rivalry is well known, without a doubt. The issue is that this phrase itself has taken on a life of its own outside the rivalry. It's referred to in non-baseball contexts, it's cited as one of the more unsavory aspects of sports chants, and it's responsible for a fairly consequential merchandising situation, to boot. If people search for "Yankees Suck," they're not looking for information on the rivalry, they want information on the chant and the things around it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Infoweb access is explained on the talk page. Stilgar135 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Actually, I requested the Infoweb access, and it never worked as explained. Djdickmutt 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is a very popular chant in Boston and is very notable among sports fans, however if the article fail to meet the Wikipedia criteria of notablility and whatnot then merge maybee to the Boston Red Sox page--SeadogTalk 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a merge to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry would make the most sense. Djdickmutt 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stuart

[edit]

Vanity, borderline spam. Prod tag removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rewrite" is not a argument, "rewrite" is an instruction. If you think it can be rewritten to meet WP standards and not be blatant spam, please feel free. And do it quick! Blatant spam should be deleted on sight. A NPOV article can be created at any later date. And I, personally, couldn't be bothered. Xtifr tälk 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and merge. Please decide where to merge this article, then do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagisa City

[edit]

One-line article about a fictional city mentioned in a Pokémon videogame. --Nehwyn 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There isn't enough information about the city to make it into a decent article. -Amarkov babble 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents, and we use them. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, also consider that the fact that similar articles exist is no proof of notability for this one. Also, even though my nomination is for deletion, I do think that merge & listify is definitely a better option. --Nehwyn 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the argument is not that they exist, so this one should automatically. The argument is that those HAVE lots of information, so this one will, too. And I'd love to see someone try to stuff all the Kanto city articles into one page. -Amarkov babble 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The existence of other Pokemon towns in Wikipedia may establish a precedent for describing them within the encyclopedia, but it does not establish a precedent for giving them all individual articles. If there isn't enough to say to justify a full article, merge it. It can easily be broken out into a separate article later on if the merged article becomes unwieldy. — Haeleth Talk 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time will heal all wounds for this article, because within 6 months, we'll have an article the strength of our other regions' town articles, because we'll have Nagisa in the anime as well. Plus, it will be a bit more verifiable if they change it around. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good... then merge the article now, and in 6 months' time, if there is indeed so much material that the merged article is too long, split it. --Nehwyn 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pederastic couples

[edit]
  1. This is unimportant and unencyclopedic.
  2. there are no Sources, but al lot of Rumours. Again - not encyclopedic.
  3. a lot of the historical couples are not real couples, for instance in ancient literature it was normal to say obout famous men something of this kind to stigmate them.
  4. the most of them are in modern history rejected or in question. But here there are as truth.
  5. in this way this article van not be longer here at Wikipedia. It's pure horror.
  6. sorry, my english is not the best (but enough to realize, that the article ist very, very bad). Kenwilliams 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It is current Wikipedia practice to feature articles grouping like events, situations and individuals. That the article is unimportant to Kenwilliams does not mean it is unimportant to others. That it is poorly sourced, I concede. This, like many other Wikipedia articles could benefit from a thorough documentation effort. But are we now going to delete all insufficiently sourced articles?! That the historical couples are not "real couples" is an extreme and unsupported contention, as well as an indefensible generalization. As for this being said of some people in order to stigmatize them, perhaps, but we will really have to examine each case in question - that is no reason to throw the whole lot into the dustbin. And why assume that this was universally stigmatizing?! That is a pov contention. In many cases, it was seen as praiseworthy. Modern history examples in question?! Such as? What this article needs is a group of interested editors to subject it to the healthy dialectic of Wikipedia editing, pruning and adding as consensus develops, instead of being swept under this or that ideological rug. Haiduc 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For an historican like me it's hard to read such rubbish like this article. Ofcourse they are stigmatized. Maybe you can imagine - not at all times in history it was OK to be gay. Such rumours were used to stigmate people. An other problem I forget - here the authors mixed gay and pererastic "couples". The wohle article from the beginning to the end is pure horror. But I belive the article will be keeped. The en:WP seems to the other WP's like a dustbin/ashcan. Such POV-articles without sources, without using modern literature will keep. And actually neraly the only argument for keeping is the reproach, I'm a POV-warrior. It's funny. But I have nothing against such a list (is not important who with who - but at the end it's also not bad) - but this list is to delete. Thers nothing more to say. Kenwilliams 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your vehemence renders your criticism suspect. It is not our concern whether accusations of sodomy stigmatized or not their targets. These people often went to their death, together with their lovers - are we expected to believe that they were all framed and drawn up on false charges?! And then you say that we mixed gay and pederastic couples. But does that statement not refute your contention - that these were indeed pederastic couples? As for the alleged mix, will you now argue that only those who bedded young adolescents were pederasts, and those who loved older adolescents were not? What are you basing yourself on for making your distinction? Sources? You are right, but that was discussed already. Haiduc 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

1. This is unimportant and unencyclopedic.

Let the readers decide what they find "unimportant" and what not. If I remember it correctly, nobody else has complained before that it would be unimportant. And it isn't more "unencyclopedic" than articles about movie stars.

2. there are no Sources, but al lot of Rumours. Again - not encyclopedic.

There are in fact some sources and there will be much more in the future. It's still in the making.

3. a lot of the historical couples are not real couples, for instance in ancient literature it was normal to say obout famous men something of this kind to stigmate them.

"A lot"? Name them all, please. I think you can say this about Caesar (whom I never really wanted to be in the list), but I don't see so many others, who are mainly there, because somebody wanted to stigmate them.

4. the most of them are in modern history rejected or in question. But here there are as truth.

That sounds as if you did a lot of research, which I don't believe you did, sorry. Who "is rejected", for example?

5. in this way this article van not be longer here at Wikipedia. It's pure horror.

It will look alright without the romantic sounding language (we should replace all this "fell in love" stuff) and more sources. Oder nicht? :-) Fulcher 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Information: Fulcher (I think he's the blocked User Roman Czybora) tries to relativate and romantisize Sexuality with Children in the german Wikipedia. Hes absolutely not trustworthy. Kenwilliams 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what "you think" is absolutely wrong. I'm NOT Roman Czybora. Verstanden? Ich bin's nicht! And where did I "relativate and romantisize Sexuality with Children in the german Wikipedia"? Hm? }:^( Fulcher 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naja, 'n typischer Ossi halt... Fulcher 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, that's disappointing - he should know better. As for the article, it would be a lot wiser to examine questionable examples that to try to paint the whole lot as of no interest - there are plenty of works examining sexual relations in history disproving the contention that such matters are "unimportant." Haiduc 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant is only one point of some. Interesting, that the Keepers try to reduct it to this point. I'm a studied historian (I know, this is in the en:Wiki a bad point, people who are experts are not welcome), with special subject (ancient) culture history. I know, how ta handle the sources. The author of the article seems to have a problem with this. And to the personal attacks: I think it's interesting, why people are for keeping the article. Instead to cry, the main author should work on the list - for keeping the List must be free from any rumours - only couples without any doubt could be list there. And there are much less than on the list. And all must be referenced with serious sources. In my opinion there should be a new start without the actuel main author - he seems to be a POV-pusher in his own way. Kenwilliams 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The tone of your discourse speaks louder than your claim of being a historian. Likewise your disparagement of the English language version. Is this how you go about editing your version of the wikipedia, with personal attacks and denigration of others?! Sounds like a pretty unpleasant environment. At any rate, despite your odd attempt to disqualify me from further editing, allow me to say that you would be welcome to contribute to the article, as you already have. Then perhaps we can hash out who should and who should not be featured, rather than engaging in pointless diatribe. Haiduc 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and documented; it could be improved (as could nearly all articles) and we should focus on that rather than delete. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definition of pederasty seems to wobble between chaste relationship and a physical one. Many of the pairings are unverifiable and subjective. Inclusion of living persons violates WP:BLP unless they acknowledge it or there are other verifiable proofs such as legal proceedings, i.e. conviction of the older person.Edison 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "wobble." Pederasty can be either chaste or sexual, this is well known by anyopne who has studied the various historical forms of the practice, and is discussed in the literature. The rest of the criticisms are unanswerable for being too vague. Haiduc 01:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To call something "unimportant" (as did kenwilliams) is completely POV, so to that extent, the opinion doesn't matter in the least. I completely agree that sourcing and references should be improved, but the key aspect of an encyclopedia is that it should be full of as many topics as is possible. Let the reader decide what is or is not important to them. vertium 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand, what I#ve said. And I think you won't understand. Kenwilliams 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How small must a mind be, to say it would be important what a people like? I know here it's important if a person ist gay or bisexual. But normally people don't define themsolve about sexuality. Only if they are ill in some way. One of the biggest mistakes here at the en:Wiki is, that's more important what a people "is", than what he does. I know from the beginning this article will be keeped. Kenwilliams 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - your English is really bad. Fulcher 15:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. RFerreira 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer

[edit]
Previously nominated four times: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
  • del Nothing but a slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide of slang. The article looks big because of a big collection of usage cases, which is hardly an encyclopedic purpose to list where in movied a particular obscenity has been used. `'mikkanarxi 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination needs to be fixed. First the title on the top needs to be to the article in question not to the AFD discussion itself. Second this is the 4th 5th not the second AFD. Finally, there is no notice on the article about the article about the AFD. It needs to be added. --70.48.110.3 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Five AfDs, plenty of verifiable mentions, this isn't going to (and shouldn't) go anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with secondary !vote/suggestion to redirect to Coprophilia. Badlydrawnjeff is probably right that we'll just get another "no consensus", but it is just a dicdef, followed by a list of random references that do nothing more than prove that it's a dicdef. If anyone can figure out how to make any sort of halfway meaningful article out of it, even a stub, I'll be happy to change my vote. --Aaron 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Would Wikipedia really be worse off without this stupid article? Furthermore, is it necessary to have every slang term in Wikipedia? Perhaps this might be better at Wiktionary. Johnbrownsbody 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with User:Aaron and User:Johnbrownsbody on this. It's a dicdef, with loads of citations, but still just a dicdef. Emeraude 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only because we've got some issues with what's deemed "reliable." Stubs are, minimally, dicdefs, and there's no question as to how well known this term is and how it could be expanded with some sanity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that this "could" is not so obvious to everyone. The fact that it hasn't been cleaned up indicates to me that it cannot be, rather than could be. I've tried to find reliable sources to start a cleanup and failed. (Note that none in the article currently qualify as reliable sources as they're mere examples of usage.) Essentially, the fact that this could be the subject of scholarship does not mean that is has been. Since we don't publish original research, such scholarship-in-potential must happen and be found by an editor before we can justify an article here. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I realize we don't have a concept of double jeopardy around here, but seriously. It may be wise to talk to the nominator and see if sanctions are required as well, since this is bordering on a bad faith nomination. Haikupoet 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the evidence for "bordering on a bad faith nomination"? I don't see any. Bwithh 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought up so many times that the nominator is either ignorant or trying to force an issue that should have been dead after, oh, about the third try. It is not clear which. Haikupoet 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly suspect just unaware of the previous nominations, given the brokenness of the nomination at first. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CCC. There's been a quite lengthy period since the last afd, and the current article is still not clearly within policy boundaries. As Saxifrage notes, promised fleshing out of the article into something encyclopedic has not occured. Last afd ended in no consensus as well. The article hasn't been nominated that many times anyway. If articles aren't brought well into bounds of policy, they remain vulnerable to legitimate afd nomination. No need to assume bad faith at all Bwithh 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LOL at the Stassen reference. (I think that may be the first time I ever typed LOL on Wikipedia.) But amazingly, it's not even close. GNAA has been up for deletion seventeen times. --Aaron 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Every time this has been nominated, those voting "keep" have said that it can be more than a dicdef with a laundry list of uses in pop culture if only someone would clean it up. Every time it hasn't happened. In this case, rather than the norm of assuming that multiple previous failed nominations strengthens an article's case for being kept, I think the multiple times the article has failed to satisfy the condition of the conditional keeps indicates that is will never satisfy such a condition. There just doesn't seem to be any meaningful scholarship on the term, and we don't publish an article about a term on the strength of mere examples of usage and the existence of a definition. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is continuously "unclean", is that in itself a reason to delete? This is just a genuine question and not meant to counter. --Marriedtofilm 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. In some cases this is due to a lack of attention by editors, and that doesn't warrant deletion. In others it is a lack of attention by the rest of the world in a form that we can legitimately reference. Which one it is tends to be a judgement call. In this case there has been enough attention at AfDs and in managing vandalism of the article that I'm leaning heavily to seeing the lack of cleanup as a lack of possibility of cleanup rather than a lack of will to do it. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but being a definition makes it more suited for a dictionary. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered. I still think it should be merged, but there's not enough here to merit a standalone article. GassyGuy 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.97.165 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Google returns approximately 105,000 matches for the term, so it is likely that people will turn to Wikipedia for this information. Yamaguchi先生 03:36, 1 November 2006
  • Keep.I found this article useful. Being a nerd who was unfamiliar with this term, rather than doing an internet search which would have just turned up a bunch of porn, I came to wikipedia. The definition was simple, without porn, and I now know what the term means. I would venture to guess that the people who would like this entry deleted are working from a moral objection, rather than a "purity of wikipedia" standpoint.
  • Delete. Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary, what more do people want? --Improv 11:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Improv. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Wiktionary can just go away and nobody would miss it. Also, 5th nom? Yeah, keep, for whatever reason it was kept before. SchmuckyTheCat 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. This isn't a helpful discussion anymore. 3 was enough, 4 was bad and this is just silly. --Apyule 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown: She's a Witch

[edit]

This appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A google search for "Halloweentown: She's A Witch" (with quotes) brings up exactly 0 articles. A search for "Halloweentown: She's The Witch" brings up a few references that only state that the movie may be made in 2007. So IMO this article is all unverifiable rumor. Natalie 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Agency of Missiles and Artillery of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union

[edit]

Article is almost incoherent. There's a lot of information here in raw form, but it's just a jumble of links and lists. It's not an article. This was tagged for cleanup 6 months ago, and doesn't seem to have gotten cleaned up much -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal in a mask

[edit]

Although described as an "internet phenomenon", the phrase which is the subject of this article garners only one Google hit, from Wikipedia itself. [153] This phrase does not appear to be well-known beyond Wikipedia's own reference desk, if indeed it is well-known there at all. No Google Groups hits, either. [154] No sources are provided, making this article unverifiable. This was originally submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD was challenged. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 20:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. How do you penalise a nonregistered user?--Light current 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily redirected to grandfather paradox (which time traveler paradox redirects to) as a duplicate article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timetraveler paradox

[edit]

It's crap. Miserlou 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outward Blonde

[edit]

First AFD debate in April resulted in "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outward Blonde). As I said then, the last real news (i.e., not rumours) about this film was in February 2004 [155], and IMDb is not a reliable source. Not every film that might have happened but didn't warrants its own article - films get cancelled all the time. Extraordinary Machine 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri)

[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited academy. I get almost 300 yahoo hits for "International Academy of Science Missouri". Arbusto 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Global University School of Medicine

[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited school. Claims to be based in Latin America with headquarters in Ohio. I get 119 yahoo hits. Arbusto 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be voting keep based on the hope that a more balanced view will be presented. As you said it is "advertising quite heavily and untruthfully", but that's not really a reason to keep. Arbusto 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I was saying was that it presented a more accurate view than the article originally posted by someone associated with the school - take a look through the page history. In any case, I still feel we should keep the article per Aaron's suggestion of duty to warn. Without independent fact finding, students may be duped into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life attending a fraudulent school. Leuko 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it presents an accurate view because I was the one who made those original changes about its accreditation status.[157] I don't see how its notable; its an article about what it isn't (accredited). Even if this article is deleted, like other diploma mills, it will remain on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to let people know it isn't accredited. Arbusto 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is notable enough to be on the list of unaccredited institutions, then isn't it notable enough to have a blue link instead of a red link? Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And you feel that makes his/her opinion less worthy? If you are worried that it is me agreeing with myself, I invite you to do a checkuser. Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Within the first sentence, the word "unaccredited" is used - I fail to see how someone could be confused. Leuko 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it does claim to be accredited by the World Association of Universities and Colleges [158], but this is not a recognized accrediting body, since it seems the only barrier to accreditation is a $1,000 check. As for notability, it is described as a "top Caribbean medical school" by educationandjobsonline.com [159]. (I am not arguing that this is a WP:RS, just that it has been the topic of independent press). If this is the same American Global University formerly of Wyoming, then use of its degrees are banned in at least 3 states (Oregon [160], Texas [161], and Maine [162]). Leuko 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "institute." I get 342 yahoo hits for "Carroll Theological Institute". This "institute" does not even have classrooms, and while its website in 2004 said it hopes to have accreditation one day, there is no independent accreditation group/board that mentions this. The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable. Arbusto 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I questioned the good faith of this AfD as soon as I saw it on my watchlist, and Arbusto did not disappoint, starting in with a baseless attack on those who voted to keep this article as "inclusionists", accompanied by the use of "scare quotes" to imply that there is something unseemly going on here. A thorough read through the published, verifiable, independently-sourced articles included in the article regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine. That a new school is not accredited by a national accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill, nor does the timeframe in obtaining such accreditation constitute any evidence of non-notability. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of every aspect required by WP:V. I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding those who voted to keep the article in the previous AfD to be yet another staggering violation of WP:AGF by Arbusto, and the bad faith shown in taking another stab at destroying this article so quickly to only add to the issues. Based on the sources provided, I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding the nomination. Alansohn 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two church sources (from 2003, 04) make it notable how? It doesn't even have a campus. Or approval to operate in the state, which is required by Texas law.[163] Arbusto 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You again are falsely characterizing the sources. These are independent, verifiable and reliable sources that describe the institution and its no programs, satisfying WP:V; they are not "church sources". I know of no Wikipedia standard that requires an educational institution to have a brick-and-mortar campus; apparently, in our computer age, schools have the ability to offer classes electronically over this thing called the "Internet". The article you provide is completely and entirely accurate, but entirely irrelevant to the article in question. You again try to falsely imply that the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is offering degrees in violation of Texas law, and provide a source that talks about some other school. What on earth do you have against this school? Alansohn 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the lack of notability of the topic does not mean an editor has something "against this school". Removal of a non-notable school article from the encyclopedia is not a judgement on the school itself, but only on the appropriateness of including an article on it in the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of official permission to operate is by no means a barrier to mention an entity in Wikipedia, or we could not mention any rebel group, any subversive movement, or any underground operation. We only note whether there is a reliable and verifiable source to show notability. We are not a state licensing and regulatory agency. Edison 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the "sources" include "Fort Worth Star-Telegram": Obituaries Oct 19, 2004 that says "Those desiring, please make memorial contributions in Dr. Drakeford's name to the BH Carroll Theological Institute", "Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The: Amen Corner Nov 22, 2003 Baptists in Texas plan to open the independent Carroll Theological Institute."
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an obituary and the only reference to this "institute" where to donate money. Is that the best WP:V you have an obituary?
Do you have a source that this place is legally operating. Those articles mention that "Carroll Theological Institute" will be opened in 2004. Isn't it notable enough for press coverage since its been open? Arbusto 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto, do you even believe a fraction of the stuff you're writing? You pick the two least relevant sources included in the search to represent all of the other articles that directly mention the school and its programs, again deliberately misinterpreting the information provided to falsely push your agenda. Will you ever demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to address ALL of the information provided, and stop manufacturing requirements that you feel this article doesn't meet? Where is the criteria that specifies your made-up rules? Alansohn 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, ALL schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Show me where it says such a thing in Wikipedia policy. Anyone can start an unaccredited "school" and there's nothing notable about 99 percent of those who do. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An "unaccredited Christian Baptist institution" that "does not hold classes in any conventional sense" and only "teaches Baptist principles and practices" is not a school in any sense of the word. All churches and prayer groups teach their principles and practices, that doesn't mean they're schools just because they say they are. I could start thirty of these kinds of online "schools" sitting here at my computer this afternoon and be no more or less valid. wikipediatrix 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unaccredited school with no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JoshuaZ. Small pseudo-institute with no assertion of notability. Prolog 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in independent reliable sources allows us to write an article adhering to the policies WP:NPOV and WP:V. Contrary to the commentary above, one of these sources is from this year, not from earlier years. Getting accreditation is a multi-year process for a new school. See the section on accredidation here for where they are in the process. I assume the editor who claimed they could lauch lots of "equally valid" online schools in an afternoon is a college/university president, as this was founded by one fired as part of a theological (not academic) dispute. See [164]. GRBerry 15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What independnent reliable sources? All we have are a few religious publications with obvious strong biases in the matter. JoshuaZ 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Baptist publications are independent reliable sources. They are not by close affiliates of the institute. For those who don't follow Christian denominations, baptists are about as unorganized as something can be and still be worth having an organizational label for. Independent for discussing notability and for WP:INDY purposes means just independent of the particular organization/person/etc... under discussion. Religious POV newspapers are just as legitimate as "alternative" newspapers with a politically left POV (which we use as independent reliable sources on politically left topics). The Baptist Standard is a print newspaper/magazine that has been publishing since 1888, see [165]. The Associated Baptist Press is a news bureau based in Florida with offices in Washington D.C. and Texas, see [166]. GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find the comment by JoshuaZ that the sources used are "religious publications with obvious strong biases" to be disturbing and confusing. What is their bias? Each of these sources are used to provide factual information, not to offer an opinion. Each source used is an independent entity that covers religion. The implication that these sources are invalid is false, if not patently offensive. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue here is notability. There are two sources tied to churches. That's all there is. Yes, accreditation is a multi year process; Are they a canidate? Can you verify they have applied for accreditation? All regional accreditators require a school have a library, this doesn't even have a campus. Arbusto 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only one of these points relevant to notability is that the false claim about the independent sources. The sources are not tied to churches. The publishers have near pseudo-denominational affiliations, which is very, very different. (Baptists aren't even really a single denomination; in the U.S. they were for about 50 years, but have been becoming more and more fragmented since they original association broke up due to the same tensions that led to the Civil War.) See the response above for more details about what the publishers are. There have been multiple published, independent reliable sources primarily about them, which is the foundational basis for almost all criteria for notability, and we have no consensus criteria for schools to assert a tighter standard. (The notion of tighter standard for schools is laugahable, given the general AFD discussion about schools.) A trivial google search also produces additional reliable sources. There are 34 articles in The Baptist Standard that refer to the school (natural, given that it covers Baptists in Texas) [167]. It has been covered by the North Carolina baptist newspaper, which isn't exactly local to the school, [168] (this also incidentally mentions a near 5,000 volume donation to the Institute's physical library plus a second smaller one, proving from an independent reliable source that the institute does have a library). GRBerry 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Coverage of specialized subjects is often in specialized publications. Particle physics developments are covered in specialized physics journals, and Baptist religion is covered in Baptist religious publications. We do not refuse to have articles about Quarks because only books and journals about particle physics, which are obviously biased toward tiny invisible no-see-ums, discuss them. Edison 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources fails WP:CORP which states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Moreover, you need accreditation in Texas to be a legitimate school. Please provide a WP:RS that this "school" is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(a group that oversees higher education in Texas). Arbusto 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that you are either not listening or severely biased. First, "multiple" means more than one. So even if there were only two, which has been false for the entire time this discussion was underway, multiple is met. But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute. Then I pointed out that one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute. Your arguments hold no water. Plus we have JJay's statement below that it was covered by the city paper, even though their archives aren't freely available to use it as a source. And not being accredited is not a reason for deletion; we have multiple categories for non-accredited schools. GRBerry 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to turn down the attitude and keep your personal observations about other editors to yourself. And as for the other sources, I don't think publications like the Baptist Standard or the Biblical Recorder count, because they violate, at least in spirit, WP:CORP's dictum that the source be "independent of the company or corporation itself". It's for this reason that we don't give as much weight to articles about Scientology that come from Scientologist news services. Lastly, I think the authors of WP:CORP meant "multiple" to be more than just two, because even a hot dog stand in Iowa can manage to get two puff-piece articles written about itself in some paper or other. wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the issues raised regarding WP:V, the publications listed in the article are independent and verifiable in full compliance with WP:V. The fact that they cover church-related news makes them no different from any other "industry" publication that neutrally covers a particular subject. Additionally, it was only a lack of effort that fails to turn up other sources. Google News Archive provided several additional references in such "partisan" publications as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, all of which should pass the WP:V test of even the most rabid deletionists. Alansohn 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP indicates that the school must be the subject of the articles, not just be "mentioned". Is the school specifically the subject of these articles? And are they actual articles per se, or are they blurbs on the "Religion" page of said papers? wikipediatrix 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could always click on the link provided, and check for yourself. Sunject lines such as "Four leave Southwestern Baptist to join new seminary", "Baptist seminary may find itself at home in Arlington", "Texas Baptists to open independent institute" and "Theology education taken to churches" would all seem to be "about" B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, not just mere "mentions" as your scare quotes seem to fear. Though you (and all others who voted to delete) should click on the link and check the sources for yourself, and not take my word for it. The article has been updated with several of these sources, which have been included in the article with links to the references. Alansohn 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes? Um, no, they were quote quotes. I was quoting the editor above who stated "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." And a mention isn't good enough. Many of the articles you refer to came out before the school opened, and are apparently simply passing along what was received in the school's press release. This too, is dealt with in WP:CORP. Again, any hot dog stand in Iowa can accomplish same, but that doesn't make it notable. wikipediatrix 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First there are no sources. Then the sources are "biased" baecause they're church-related. Now the sources are indeed from widely-accepted news sources, but came out too soon, before the school opened. Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. I'd suggest spending more time rooting out Wikipedia's overflowing bounty of Iowa hot dog stand articles. Alansohn 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did quote me saying "one of those publishers has thirty-four different articles that mention the institute." You apparently didn't notice the immediately prior sentence (which you need to read to understand the quoted one, because the antecededent for "those" is in the prior sentence) that says "But we have linked in the article and referenced here, from at least three different independent publishers four different non-trivial published works primarily about the institute." The bit about thirty-four is for people who don't think four is enough and are willing to look at the evidence that has been provided. I think four that meet every test in WP:CORP and WP:INDY is enough to defeat the claim about inadequate sourcing, so I'm not going to waste my time looking at the other thirty-two. If you feel that you need more in order to change your opinion, I point you back to the link I posted above so that you can go read all of them. GRBerry 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nn school. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fort Worth Star-Telegram covered the founding of the school with multiple articles. That's good enough for me. I also agree with Alansohn that the nom's attempts to stigmatize other users is clearly out of order. --JJay 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:CORP per GRBerry and JJay. Kappa 07:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously there exists a pretty substantial amount of verifiable information on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to closing admin.: ALL some the keep votes are from school inclusionists that voted keep last time. Probably due to this afd being added to the school deletion watch list. That is even though it not being a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas. Arbusto 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Note to closing administrator (using Arbusto's "logic"). The exact same individual who created this AfD is the same deletionist who created the original, failed AfD. As a particpant in the original AfD, by his own argument, he should be forbidden to participate in this AfD. Any and all of his comments, particularly his attacks against individuals who have voted to keep, should be ignored in their entirety. For that matter, shouldn't Arbusto have been forbidden from creating a second AfD? Can anyone (let alone Arbusto) show where Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive has a qualification that schools to be included must be "a university, college, public or primary educational that awards degrees or diplomas". Arbusto, please stop finding more excuses and start addressing the facts: Every source listed and provided in the article meets every standard specified by WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CORP which specifies that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself, which is clearly met by the sources provided. Stop attacking individuals and start addressing the facts that have been presented. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another False Statement I opined keep this time, and didn't particpate in the last AFD. Ditto for User:Librarianofages. Ditto for User:JJay. Ditto for User:Christopher Parham. Indeed, the only keep opiner to date that participated in the last AFD is User:Alansohn. In addition to being false, the prior comment is a failure to assume good faith. (It also reflects not understanding that AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and should be closed on the strength of the arguments, and repeatedly making deletion arguments that are obviously false does nothing for the strength of of ones other arguments.) As for me, the claim that I'm a school inclusionist is easily refuted; read User:GRBerry#Notability. The fourth bullet point is about schools, and this one looks like it will meet my permanent standards for introducing a new educational methodology to seminary education, not just my temporary keep standards. GRBerry 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right not all. However, this happened last afd when the school inclusionists astrotrufted this afd. Arbusto 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could both of you calm down please? Also, GRB as to the matter of introducing a new education methodology, the standard precedent for any other type of article (for example software) is that we only write articles after others have found the introduction of the new thing to be notable. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. JoshuaZ 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reminder; I'll try to calm down and focus more on my for pay job. I do think those outside the Institute are already starting to see the new methodology as notable, as evidenced by some of the articles linked in the article. But my keep opinion would stand even if that methodology never caught on elsewhere, because there is more than enough independent reliable coverage, some of it from outside the region, which meets my temporary standards. Also, does your prior opinion still stand given the enhanced sourcing the article now has (significantly expanded today)? GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Some comments above violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA, by seeking to discredit the comments of other editors based on their supposed membership in a group of "inclusionists" or deletionists." Talk about the article, not the other editors. I have voted to delete the articles for far more schools and churches than I have voted to keep, but I voted to keep this article.Edison 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: Using the exact same standards, I could start my own unaccredited "online bible school" out of my living room, send out press releases and get friends in the media to write puff-piece articles about it (not to mention the inevitable articles from religious media), create my own Wikipedia article for it, and point to this AfD if anyone squawks about it. Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, and if you get the secular media in your city to report that you persuaded professors to leave another seminary to teach at yours, I'll be quite happy to opine that the article on yours should be kept. If you can't, there is a real difference in the basis for keeping this real Institute of higher education and your hypothesized online bible school. (That link goes to a source already linked in the article.) GRBerry 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does a professor leaving a seminary for this one make any difference regarding WP:CORP? wikipediatrix 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having independent reliable sources write articles primarily about it means that it is notable to the WP:CORP standard "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." This has been discussed extensively above.
In this particular use of the statement, it undercuts the argument that you could create an equivalent school out of your living room, and explains how the hypothetical AFD for your hypothetical school would not be equivalent. This is a real school, not a diploma mill. The evidence on this seems quite clear to me, even looking just at the sources already in the article, never mind the things I saw when I went looking for additional evidence. We have, between the article and this discussion, proof of staff that were college professors before they joined this Institute, a library in excess of 5,000 volumes, a founder that was formerly a college president, and multiple published articles in multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the Institute. GRBerry 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in your comments do I see an explanation of why this is "not a diploma mill". Saying it doesn't make it so. I see nothing in WP:CORP that says having college professors and college presidents associated with you makes up for its other shortcomings. (Tell me again, where exactly is this "library in excess of 5,000 volumes" if they don't have a brick-and-mortar building??) wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said the evidence was in the sources already in the article. But I'll copy it here for your covenience. To quote our article diploma mill "an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study, and without recognition by official accrediting bodies." (Emphasis added.) At the present they lack accreditation, as everyone knows - Wikipedia even sources the article to their statement that they aren't accredited. However, the other test for being a diploma mill is "awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study". A cursory glance at their admission requirements shows that they want students with the ability to do academic study. (This is most blatantly obvious for the advance studies program. "For admission each applicant must submit to the Committee of Senior Fellows for Advanced Studies a research paper either previously prepared (an ungraded copy) or prepared especially for the application on a subject in the student’s chosen major field of study. This paper should be 25-35 pages in length. The paper should represent the applicant’s best quality of research and writing. The form and style should follow the 6th edition of Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. The paper will be graded in terms of form, presentation, and content to determine whether the applicant is capable of doing research and writing at an advanced level." But it is visible in the admission requirements for all three levels of studies.) Since I went to a school where the typical course was 12 units of credit, I have trouble interpreting course units as used elsewhere, but I'm sure that 48 units in 24 courses for their lowest level or 78 units for one of the second level programs (PDF and PDF), plus a recommendation to take half as many courses per term as one would elsewhere (second to last paragraph), is not "very little or no academic study". See also second paragraph of their statement on accreditation, linked in the article.
I don't know where the physical library is; I'm not in the same part of the world as the Institute. I just know that we have reliable evidence that they have it. I'd guess it is in Arlington, Texas, given that they have a center there where the professors are. If you really care, drop them a line. GRBerry 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikipediatrix, if I understand correctly, you are acknowledging that the article does meet the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standards, but you are stubbornly insisting that the article be deleted because "Surely this is not what was intended by WP:CORP"?!?!?! Why are you concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario, and not addressing the arguments that have been presented for the article in question using the guidelines provided. If you feel that WP:CORP needs to be amended, go ahead and work to change it, but for now, it's the gold standard, and it has been met. Alansohn 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario", eh? Wow. Sorry, not taking the bait. wikipediatrix 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No bait to be taken, especially when you can just grab a weiner at one of those mythical Iowa hot dog stands, avoiding the fish breath. Any response to the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP standard issues? Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The standards for WP:CORP state that The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself., all of which was met with the "church" sources and is more than met with the coverage added based on the items retrieved from the Google News archive. The WP:CORP standards were created knowing full well that any new and growing company will make efforts -- including hiring PR people, whose sole purpose is to obtain such coverage -- to get articles published in the media, the more the better. That these articles cover the subject in a neutral manner, describe teh school in the context of its "competitors" and within the current Baptist theological framework, meets the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard. That the school was covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area could be chalked up to local religious coverage that spits back the contents of a press release (I'm surprised this charge hasn't been made yet), but newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away) bespeak a newsworthiness that meets the WP:CORP standard, using sources that are inarguably valid per WP:V and WP:RS, which ergo, by definition fulfil the WP:N standard. Whether it's Iowa hot dog stands or basement diploma mills, those nonexistent hypothetical cases are irrelevant to the question posed in this AfD. Alansohn 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So the question is whether articles from a few years ago published by The Baptist Standard, Biblical Recorder, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News are multiple non-trivial published works. I have to say it is a little misleading though because your Dallas Morning News, 5 November 2003 and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5 November 2003 are published on the same date on the same topic in the same region so I don't a point in attributing them (as they are in the article now) as different sources, but lets get some more opinions. If you could supply more concrete sources to prove notability for this unaccredited "school," prove it is recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, or demonstrate fame in any way I'll withdraw this. Arbusto 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if you believe that all schools are notable (fortunately I do not) this institute wouldn't qualify. "The institution does not hold classes in any conventional sense. Rather it trains students in 15 “teaching churches” scattered across Texas, as well as through interactive lessons taught over the Internet" Its not a school, its a church afilliated organization and a non-notable one at this point. If they actually get accredited, bring the article back. But we aren't here to speculate on whether it will be accredited as an actual school. Oops, guess I put this in the wrong place the first time around Montco 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisted?!?! There wasn't enough discussion already?!?!?! We seem to be driving this off of WP:CORP, a standard that the article meets and that makes the issue of accreditation moot. If I recall from previous review of the relevant articles, THECB recognition can take two or more years, and B. H. Carroll Theological Institute can't pursue regional accreditation until it has the required state certification. Alansohn 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure relisting was a good idea(probably should have gotten closed as a no consensus). However the CORP matter is less than established. I'm not sure everyone is convinced this meets WP:CORP. In particular that these are actually non-trivial sources. Furthermore, if we lack sufficient sourcing to make an article that meets WP:V that's also a legitimate reason to delete, indeed one required by policy. JoshuaZ 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon! The school was not only covered by papers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, but was also listed in newspaper articles in serious papers based in Kansas City (519 miles from Arlington) and Atlanta (a whopping 800 miles away). Which of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are you questioning in terms of WP:V? What more do you want to see? Alansohn 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a nominator relisting a discussion is almost always a bad idea. Relisting should be left to a closing admin who can decide whether more discussion increases the odds of having a clear consensus. Some participants at Deletion Review consider relisting by a partisan as reason to overturn a closure. GRBerry 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Your first edit on this page was an attack on me. Stop this. Arbusto 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight; In extremely poor faith, you open an AfD just weeks after your first attempt to delete this article failed. You write up an AfD that starts out stating that "The last afd was "no consensus" due to inclusionists claiming two church publications make it notable", attacking those (including myself) who made good faith arguments to retain the article and genuine efforts to improve this article. Please read your own explicit attacks in the nomination before accusing others of attacks. Alansohn 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Holy well-poisoning, Batman. Calm down, everyone. Yes, persistent school inclusionists are tiresome and yes this really isn't a school, but the issue is notability and verifiability, as JoshuaZ rightly points out (though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion). Let's look at the sources to see if they establish these. The "church sources" are articles in independent wire services or publications that appeal to Baptists; however, there is no apparent connection with the seminary itself. They are independent and seem credible to me. Also, this has been covered by major daily newspapers. The sources (and, since Uncle G doesn't seem to be participating in this discussion, let me be the one to point out that you have to actually read the sources) noted the controversy surrounding this organization: it was founded by four moderate Baptist professors forced out of another seminary when it was taken over by fundamentalists (who dispute the propriety of this college using the name of the other seminary's founder). The coverage in the mainstream and religious press generated by this controversy makes this subject notable. (I cannot believe my first edit after coming back from a longer-than-expected wikibreak is to keep a freaking school!) JChap2007 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to keep cool heads here. I was ready to vote delete right away on this one, but further research bears out. By the so-called "tests" this seems non notable on face value, but deeper digging DOES turn up multiple, independent coverage. The various "tests" we apply for notability are meant to get us LOOKING for notability, but they by themselves do not mean that something fails the primary notability criterion. There is multiple coverage, it is covered in a fairly extensive way, and by independant sources (I know it's "religious" press; but then again you look for music reviews in the music press, don't you???). Just because it fails a guideline doesn't mean it is AUTOMATICALLY not notable. It means we should check it out. When one checks it out, it passes. --Jayron32 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates that there are reliable sources for this see [169]. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an insignificant little school to me. Even if it were accredited-- I don't think it would be notable enough for WP. Nephron  T|C 04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, Capitalistroadster, and GRBerry. I could care less how many Yahoo hits you can or cannot find, this institution is easily notable enough for a project which endeavors to be the complete sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-sources are necessary to write about an already notable topic, but do not in themselves establish notability. Unaccredited diploma mills would rarely be of any note, and this one doesn't seem any exception. Seraphimblade 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As per my previous point about a hot dog stand in Iowa, just because something has press coverage sources they can point to still doesn't make something notable. My Uncle Ned has been in the newspaper many, many times - more so than this diploma mill - but he still isn't notable. wikipediatrix 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, nicely referenced. Everyking 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. bbx 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It barely scrapes in. If it was accredited, i may remove the 'weak'. Qaanaaq 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Jayron32. I looked at both debates and as they went on, those arguing for deletion just ignored more and more of the citations of independent verifiable sources. Renomination a mere month after the first discusson closed also looks very suspicious to me. Quendus 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong Delete. Absolutely no recent GNews Hits (so lack of recency and importance). The only article that links here is about the school's founder. Without accredidation, it's just simply not a school (any more than Catholic diaconate formation programs, which confer tons of knowledge -- and ultimately a ministry on students -- through a rigorous academic experience too). There are plenty of things that meet WP:V (which this does) (changed my mind, see below) that are still not notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Once the school is accredidated, recreate as needed. SkerHawx 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, there is no criteria whatsoever that requires a school to be "accreditated" to have an article, nor that articles have to be "recent" to be valid. As you acknowledge that WP:V is satisfied, and that the sources meet WP:RS, which part of WP:CORP is not met by this article? Alansohn 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, WP:CORP is a guideline, not the Bible, and not WP policy. There's a gut check about whether something is notable. 400 students? I can name thousands of high schools with more. Coverage in the Fort Worth paper? I can provide tens of thousands of articles if local news coverage is all it takes to be notable enough to be an entry in an encyclopedia. Per your comment, there's also no criteria that says that I can't use a lack of accredidation and any shred of recent coverage to help form my opinion as to whether this Institute matters beyond its own walls. Lack of accredidation means it's not a school that can confer degrees, which means that it's in essence a Bible Study group. Typically, notable organizations will have ongoing coverage or be historically significant. This fails both. And by the way, the Dallas News article cited is future-looking ("hopes to start classes", "will be based somewhere between Dallas and Fort Worth", etc. Both Ft. Worth newspaper articles focus on the four founders resigning their prior posts and joining this new project prior to the Institute ever teaching a class. No secular (i.e. "independent") news coverage exists after the Institute is founded, so I'm not sure that helps the article's case. SkerHawx 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think there is a false standard invoked here, that an article must be deleted if it has insufficient "recent GNews Hits" This is no Wikinews. Many birds, Kings, high schools, and State Highways have no recent GNews Hits either, but they somehow retain their articles. Edison 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On what basis are you claiming that the 2006 article from the news bureuae Associated Baptist Press [170] is not independent. There is no link between the ABP and the Institute. This independent coverage has been a source for the Wikipedia article since before this AFD began. The claim that both are Baptist is not a serious claim that they are related parties; as reading our coverage of Baptists could tell you. Baptists just aren't as organized or like minded as most other denominations are; they are splintery like the Independent Catholic Churches. Per Baptists in the United States, there are four separate major groups of Baptist denominations. The ABP self describes in part as "Working out of our Jacksonville, Fla.- based headquarters, and with bureaus in Washington and Dallas, ABP provides daily coverage of Baptist news, news from the nation's capital, and other general news and information of concern to Christians in the U.S. and around the world." GRBerry 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I understand how loosely affiliated Baptist Churches are. But the article's author, Marv Knox, is the editor of the Baptist Standard, and the article you cite by the ABP is a direct copy of an article printed by Knox's Baptist Standard [171]. Another "independent" article cited (The Biblical Recorder) is written by Mark Wingfield, who worked for the Baptist Standard directly under Marv Knox [172]. The third article is by Ken Camp. Camp replaced Wingfield directly under Knox at the Standard when Wingfield returned to ministry. So, although Baptist churches are very loosely affiliated, it seems all three of the authors of the four referenced articles currently work for, or worked for, the Baptist Standard (and they all worked together and know each other intimately). That's not independent. Two of the other references provided are directly from the school's web site. Okay, now deep breath... Take a look at this article Baptist General Convention of Texas. Guess who one of the founding members of the BGCT was? That's right - B.H. Carroll. Guess what the official publication of the BGCT is? You got it -- the Baptist Standard. I hope that helps clarify what I meant. Peace! SkerHawx 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: So let's get this straight, even though the article meets each and every criteria of WP:V, and the sources meet WP:RS, all of which satisfy WP:CORP, one of the most widely agreed upon standards in Wikipedia, if not THE Bible, we should ignore all of this. Why? Because each and every author of every single one of the articles published about the school are all part of the vast right-wing Baptist Cabal. Somehow, despite the fact that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are all independent nationally-recognized publications, with editors and publishers looking over reporter's shoulder's, each member of the cabal was able to pull the wool over their eyes and get an article published. Send your theories to Dan Brown, it sounds like a great plot for a new book. But, other than that, it's pure unsupported original research. You'd be hard pressed to find any group of reporters covering any one industry -- Recording, Iowa Hot Dog Stands or Baptist churches -- who haven't worked together at some point in their career. Alansohn 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm sorry, I don't see any citations from the San Antonio, Kansas City, or Atlanta papers in this article. The Dallas and Ft. Worth papers are responding to a press conference covering a notable event (the abrupt resignation of four faculty members at SBTS, as below.) And I searched the papers you mentioned, and they all have articles from (only) November 2003 indicating the same information (faculty resigns, to form new institute - note future tense). SkerHawx 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: Two of the three secular articles cited are from Nov 5, 2003 (Dallas & Ft. Worth papers). These articles were covering a press conference [173] on Novemeber 4, 2003 and seem to be covering the abrupt departure of the four faculty members from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as much (or more) as covering the new school. Of course, both articles are (as mentioned above) future tense, since no such Institute existed yet. I'm not paying $2.95 to see the full text of the third article, but the only visible paragraph just repeats the information already known from the first two. Look, the Baptist Standard is the official paper of the BGCT, and all of the religious articles covering this came from the Baptist Standard or its writers. All but one of the articles was published in the Baptist Standard directly (see my citations above). This isn't a conspiracy, it's a Public relations strategy. WP:V is crumbling on this one. Take care, SkerHawx 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost convincing Where this falls apart is the link between those editors and the Institute. Yes, the Institute is named after one of the founders of the BGCT. But he was also a founder of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which the staff broke away. We wouldn't say that the Institute was affiliated with SWBTS because of using one of their founder's names. The argument was enough to go make me look and see if the BGCT supports the Institute. The BGCT's page on the schools they support does not mention this Institute. The results of a search at the BGCT's page don't show any sort of affiliation. They show trivial mentions a scholarshiop given to a student at the institute, a member of the Institute staff leading a tour group in the U.K, an event being taught by folks from Baylor University held in part at the site of this Institute, that the Institute is one of ninety-seven exhbitors at the 2006 convention, and one of nine schools of higher education hosting a special event at that convention. (The policies of the BGCT do allow non affiliated organizations to exhibit, I checked, and the hotel chain exhibiting is adequate evidence of that.) I also checked the Institute's web You've convinced me that a lot of the articles were written by people who know each other. You've also convinced me that those writers are the world experts on what events among Texas Baptists are newsworthy. You failed to convince me that they have any affiliation with the Institute, which is what independence is all about; see WP:INDY. So I continue to conclude that the articles are by independent sources. GRBerry 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last one This will be my last post on this AfD discussion, simply because I'm just not that passionate about whether or not this article is ultimately deleted. I'll answer your question and then just let the facts speak for themselves. Everyone is welcome to vote for a delete or a keep. Alas, you asked for some more detail, so I'll respond this last time. Here you go... Check out the BGCT member church web site [174] and cross-reference it with the institute's teaching churches [175]. A 100% match on all 17 churches. Charles Wade, executive director of BGCT, welcomed the Institute in "...our ongoing effort to train effective Christian leaders..." [176]. Dr. Russell Dilday, one of the founders of the Institute was a former president of the BGCT [177]. This is the bottom line ... the Institute and the Baptist General Convention of Texas have the same deposit of faith. Their visions are aligned, whether or not BGCT explicitly supports the Institute or not. The Baptist Standard is an official publication of the BGCT, and as a religious newspaper it writes from a certain paradigm. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not unbiased. (If Catholics in Atlanta created a Catholic Theological Institute, the Archidiocese of Atlanta's official paper (The Georgia Bulletin) would cover it (so long as it was in line with Catholic teachings). I wouldn't consider that to be an independent source. Nor would I consider other Catholic publications an authoritative source to help establish WP:V. So I'm just saying that the beliefs of the official voice of the BGCT and the beliefs of the Institute are 100% on target. As such, the BGCT (and therefore the Baptist Standard) have a vested interest in promoting the Institute. That's all. Peace, my friend. SkerHawx 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the point in deleting this ? Above users have made things pretty clear --NRS | T/M\B 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We are not a regulatory agency, nor are we interviewing graduates of the school as potential employees, so even if it were a giant unaccredited diploma mill, we should only look at notability, not legitimacy. This is the same principle on which we have articles about religions without having to prove the truth of their claimed miracles and the existence of their particular god. Similarly we have articles about hoaxes and pseudoscience, without certifying the truth of the claims. We are not the arbiters of truth, just of verifiable notoriety. The school has faculty formerly with the mainstream Southern Baptist seminary, who were pushed out by the fundamentalist takeover of that denomination. The school is widely mentioned in Baptist publications, has 400 students, and trains them in 15 churches. It appears to be notable.Edison 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per original nom. The only thing I take away after reading all of this mess (and losing some sanity as a result) is that the school is *still* not very notable. And we (the users and editors) *are* a regulatory agency, at least in terms of what gets posted and kept on Wikipedia. It doesn't meet WP:CORP any more than a diploma mill does. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. And let's get this straight - the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is NOT a school. That's a thing that kids go to and every school is notable and important in its community. It is argued often that every school is therefore worthy of an article in Wikipedia. I change my mind about this every week! But, I repeat, this is NOT a school - it is a non-notable, unapproved organisation with no classrooms. Emeraude 16:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acts 20:35 & Psalm 2:4 There is something very odd about this site. It seems to be written by someone who wants to paint the instituion in the worst possible light - perhaps the intention is to get it deleted for some reason? Having looked there appears to be three institutions trying to suggest they inherit the Caroll name. I've checked the web site, it looks pukka - it even does greek and that's not for the feeble minded. I've sent an email to the institute suggesting they look at the web page.

--Mike 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This appears to be fairly sizeable institution, if rather new. Comment: Arbustoo and others seem to focus on accreditation as a sole criterion for whether something counts as a legitimate higher education institution. I agree that for an ordinary college, that is a good rule. However, for a seminary or other "vocational" type schools (perhaps, say, a school of auto mechanics) I think the rule is not always applicable - the students' prospective employers (in this case, Baptist congregrations) don't care if the school is accredited, they want someone educated by a group that they themselves trust, and who can demonstrate their knowledge of the field. So, I think we need to focus on other factors - age, size, prominent graduates, connections with established denominations, press, etc. On another point, there also seems to be a tradition of distance education in theological education - probably because prospective ministers can't afford to attend a college full-time. I agree that this makes the institutions less notable, but I don't think it should disqualify them, just because there are fraudulent institutions that use the same methods. --Brianyoumans 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Ridge Christian College

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "college." I get 443 yahoo hits including wikipedia (and mirrors), and forums. Arbusto 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Open University

[edit]

Unnotable unaccredited "university." I get 2,300 yahoo hits including wikipedia and spam. Should be redirected to the New York Institute of Technology per the more famous program of the accredited school. According to the NY IT article, "the college launched American Open University of NYIT in November 1984." This Virgina unaccredited "school" has nothing to do with the NY accredited program. Arbusto 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this "university" is recognised by other universities, not accredited by them. Accreditation is a formal process with a specific meaning, and the article clearly states that this "university" is wholly unaccredited.


  • Delete as not notable. I hesitated when I read the above, but after looking into it, only two universities have an agreement with AOU; one in Sudan, one in Malaysia. AuburnPilotTalk 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now. If the authors can support genuine notability, I could consider a keep. Even though its not accredited, I suppose in the current environment, a school that caters to Muslims could have some notability attached. Montco 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: See my response above about accreditation; few Google hits and no claim to notability within the article all point do deletion. --Nehwyn 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Marginal qualification for an article: more Google hits than the average diploma mill. Has students, faculty, and curriculum, has been around for several years, requires a course of study over several years to get a degree which is claimed to be recognized by 2 foreign universites. Graduates could improve their knowledge of the religion for their own self improvement or for employment in a religious enterprise without accreditation. Edison 20:36, 27 October 2006

(UTC)

Please ensure those claims pass WP:V. Arbusto 08:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extensive news coverage in the Washington Post and other sources concerning this school's ties to Saudi Arabia and funding from the Islamic Assembly of North America [178]. The school's founder was deported in 2004 after being linked to extremism. This is exactly the sort of article where you have to look way beyond "google hits". Obviously needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. --JJay 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point. The articles (the three post articles) you cited is in direct contradiction with how the article currently presents itself. Thus, this should be deleted for WP:V issues.
Perhaps if the person named in the articles you mentioned is notable enough for his own wikipedia article, currently he is not, this article could be merged with him. Yet, clearly this minor news event didn't spark enough interest on the people mentioned, and doesn't warrant a separate article on the school. This isnt wikinews. Arbusto 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:V. As I stated with my first comment, the article needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. There are clearly a lot of sources available for that expansion. Hence, WP:V can be easily satisfied. Finally, your comment about wikinews is not relevant to this discussion. A school of higher learning that has been newsworthy enough to garner attention from major sources such as the Washington Post more than qualifies for an article here. --JJay 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very similiar argument you made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which you were the only one to vote keep. If anything ever came of these three 2004 mentions it should be included. However, all you have is three sources that MENTION the "school", but don't devote any space to the school itself. Arbusto 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baptist Bible College

[edit]

Unnotable, unaccredited "college." I get 1,160 links including forums and wikipedia (and mirrors). Arbusto 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only time an unaccredited "college" should get a Wikipedia article is when they're so well-known that the public deserves a warning. --Aaron 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Xdenizen 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Apparently a residential school with a curriculum covering some of the topics generally covred in education of a preacher, including studies of the Bible, Greek, English, even Science and P.E. I expect that such an education might prepare one to preach in a church of the corresponding denomination. I am not so sure what the function of the elementary education department is, unless the state allows graduates of unaccredited church colleges to teach in parochial schools. Perhaps they teach Sunday School or home school.I don't quite see verifiable notability sufficient for an article. Edison 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Noetic Sciences

[edit]

Unaccredited institute of unknown importance. Has various pseudoscientific claims that make it questionable. Note the article reads the insitute "studies on the efficacy of compassionate intention on healing in AIDS patients." Arbusto 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Institute of Noetic Sciences is an important organisation that has been in existence for many years. The article does need work but that is no reason for deletion. - Solar 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How it is "important"? To who? Why? Arbusto 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important within the field of parapsychology as a major source of information on and research into psi phenomena. Best selling author Dean Radin who is also notable for his contributions to the understanding of psi is the Laboratory Director. If you take a look at the What links here log you will see there are around 26 relevant links to this page, underlining its notability. Your POV that the institute makes "pseudoscientific claims" would still not be grounds for deletion within Wikipedia policy even if it were in fact true. There are many eminent and respected scientists that support research into psi, including for example Noble prize winning physicist Brian Josephson. The claim that all psi research is pseudoscience is simply unfounded and usually comes from pathological skeptics from disciplines that are not members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organisation in the world. Parapsychology on the other hand is fully recognised by the AAAS, which demonstrates it is not in fact a pseudoscience. - Solar 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience and is basically a dead field, I mean only one person has ever been given a PhD in the subject. It is very telling that the the most important member of this "institute" lost his job from a real university.
However, this discussion is about the institute. What sources do you have that prove notablity? Arbusto 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your POV about parapsychology, I have already mentioned that the field is affiliated with the AAAS, which proves it is not a pseudoscience. I would like to see proof to back up your 'opinion'. We all know that the word 'pseudoscience' is used by pathological skeptics, but this does not make it a fact. Most scientists with an interest in psi gain their PhD's in the wider field of psychology, which can include parapsychology. Ad hominem arguments like mentioning Dean Radin lost his job demeans this whole debate. I think I have already shown enough to demonstrate the article is notable, I will now leave it for others to decide. - Solar 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't the venue to debate what is and isn't pseudoscience. Maybe this debate should be moved to the article's talk page. — ripley\talk 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that will be my final comment, thanks - Solar 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please post academic/media sources that mention Institute of Noetic Sciences. Arbusto 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and improve. It needs some balancing critical viewpoints in the article as it currently exists, but "this organization espouses pseudoscience" isn't a valid reason to delete the article. The organization exists, it apparently puts out information purporting to be research that at least some people find credible -- I see no reason it can't have an article when we have articles on Pokemon characters. Additionally, Google returns 150k hits [180] And, a quick Nexis search shows hundreds of mentions over the past few years, including several in USA Today, the Daily Mail of London, Washington Post, Arizona Republic and several California newspapers, upon a cursory glance. — ripley\talk 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was solicited as proven here. Arbusto 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar did post a message letting folks at Wikiproject:Paranormal know this vote was occurring. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, however, and I might note that page you're citing is only a guideline, and the portions dealing with canvassing rather controversial. — ripley\talk 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware meatpuppets and sockpuppets are quite different to making other members aware of an article for deletion. If I have broken any policies it was unintentional. As far as I am aware a meatpuppet is a user account created by a member of the public (a non-user) for the purposes of voting, informing other users the article is up for deletion is not meatpuppetry. As far as links, I do not feel I need to spend any more time on this debate as it is clear from the 26 or so wikilinks to the page and the connection to Dean Radin that the article fulfils inclusion standards. As user ripley mentioned pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion, so your initial reasons for nominating it are in fact dubious. I will not be commenting further as I have other areas to deal with, and I am confident that whatever other users decide will be the right decision. - Solar 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply makes little sense as I quoted the policy, and provided a link on your talk.[184] Also see Wikipedia: discussion for what a meat puppet is.
Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. Arbusto 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what a meatpuppet is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote.". The policy goes on: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." [185]Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - Solar 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting people to post is votestacking and unacceptable. See among other relevant policies WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have viewed the page you refer to and it seems to me the policy stats 'mass' talk messages are unacceptable, I can't see how two users could be seen as 'mass' posting. I feel that I have clearly shown that I acted in good faith and within Wikipedia policy as quoted above. I also stated above that "If I have broken any policies it was unintentional". - Solar 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize it was unintentional (and yes, only two might not constitute a SPAM problem, but there is still a more fundamental votestacking problem involved). This is more of a "please don't do it again" situation than anything else. JoshuaZ 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I guess I should add my vote was very much not solicited. I'd heard about these people on a religious movement page[186] years ago and on occasion I check the articles for deletion.--T. Anthony 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm switching to just keep as they get a fair amount at Google Scholar too. (Again I think they are kooky, but sufficiently notable kooky)--T. Anthony 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, 692 incomeing links to noetic.org[190] and 64 to shiftinaction.com [191] thier other domain. 750 incomeing links... take it for what it's worth. I think that shows the website isn't just some fly-by-night. ---J.S (t|c) 07:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. There are plenty of third-party sources available. And, even though I'm confident the article will be kept anyway, I think Solar is getting a raw deal here. He didn't say, "Vote to keep"; he said, "Add a vote". Isn't it reasonable to inform a Wikipedia project that an article within their scope of interest is up for deletion? I would think they'd be the best people to judge notability. (And the project members do have the ability to think for themselves, you know. They very well could have voted delete if they thought it was warranted.) Zagalejo 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A raw deal? He wasn't blocked; he was told not to do it again:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.[192]

Arbusto 19:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think posting a message on the project page is "attracting users with known views and bias." There are a wide variety of opinions represented at the project page - some are inclusionists, some are deletionists, some believe in paranormal phenomena, some are skeptics, etc. But, whatever, I'm not going to make an issue out of this... Zagalejo 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two people notified were both people who had previously contributed to the article and the article fell into the scope of the one project notified. I can't see how that qualifies as meatpuppetry. I think solar was acting in good faith. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo and J.S, thank you for your support on this matter. The reality is that my three posts do not constitute a violation of policy as shown in the section I quoted. "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." I think Arbusto is a bit confused over the definition of meatpuppetry, as J.S points out, posting on a project page and on two user pages does not qualify as meatpuppetry. Wikipedia policy also points out that light use of cross-posting is part of common practice, for example there is a debate on whether to delete Pathological skepticism presently taking place and I happened to notice that a user from that debate posted a notice on Project Rational Skepticism [193], without incident. I also note that the two users trying to make it seem that I have somehow broken policy are in fact often in email correspondence and have a POV interest in the outcome of this debate, so are far from neutral in the matter. This kind of behaviour towards someone acting perfectly normally within Wikipedia standards seems to me to be little more than a transparent attempt to invalidate the opinions of others in favour of an anti-parapsychology stance. This kind of behaviour undermines the NPOV policy and the fairness and fundamental principles of Wikipedia. - Solar 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing issue is controversial and you'll get different opinions about whether it's "votestacking" or "informing." The key in all cases, though, is whether or not the canvassing has become a campaign so wide-reaching that it's skewed a vote against what the average Wikipedian would believe, in other words, has become disruptive. Which this clearly has not. — ripley\talk 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per T. Anthony's Google News link. — goethean ॐ 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have some interest in the field of pseudoscience, and I think the nominator's characterization of this outfit as "questionable" is extremely charitable. It's organized crackpottery. Nevertheless, it's one of the more notable crackpot organizations. JamesMLane t c 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Some may feel it is pseudoscience, and I myself expect it is, but it claims 35,000 members, has been around 33 years, and publishes a journal. As for vote solicitation, I just ran across the following: Found 10/27/06 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre: "Final decision: Communication regarding polls: 5) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on. Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)." The users notification was in the form "There is a discussion going on about xxxx. Your participation would be appreciated." It is not prohibited to notify people who have participated in a topic that there is an ongoing AfD or AfD review, although mass spamming is prohibited and it is best to notify both sides, without urging a vote on one side or the other.Edison 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkley High School

[edit]

The article doesn't say why this school is notable, and there is very little information about it. jd || talk || 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the Carnegie Hall invitation, so I changed my stance to Neutral (I could have changed to keep, but I'm reluctant to accept that singing in Carnegie would grant notability to the entire high school rather than to (and solely to) the respective choir).--Húsönd 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: No wonder I didn't notice, Carnegie info added afterwards. Good work anyway.--Húsönd 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to delete, Carnegie grants notability to choir, not school.--Húsönd 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep The carnegie element is some assertion of notability with some merit if barely. JoshuaZ 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak Delete Many schools get similar opportunities. JoshuaZ 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Carnegie Melon visit is not notable but high schools are notable. Note this page is subject to frequent vandalism from bored students.Zudduz 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Secondary schools are not inherently notable; Wikipedia is not a directory. —ptk✰fgs 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is expanded and shows how it is notable erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It meets my personal criteria for notability. — RJH (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep and discount the irrelevant commentary by ptkfgs. Wikipedia is not a directory, just as this is not a directory article. Silensor 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable large high school. Please stop nominating these. bbx 07:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please show me what in this revision, and possibly the current one, makes this school notable? Please also show me where it says that I am not allowed to nominate secondary school articles for deletion. Thanks. jd || talk || 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Many people think (justifiably, in my opinion) that all secondary schools are inherently notable. You are perfectly at liberty to nominate them, but endless previous AfDs have shown that this is generally a waste of everyone's time, since they will be kept. But, as long as people continue to nominate them, considerably more people will continue to vote keep. Hopefully eventually the deletionists will realise it's futile and get bored and we can all go back to devoting our time to building an encyclopaedia (that means adding articles, not deleting them!), which is why most of us (I hope) are here in the first place. -- Necrothesp 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Improving the encyclopedia means refining and improving articles more often than it means creating new ones. Once we have a stub for every secondary school in the world, what will we have accomplished? We'll have a directory of secondary schools, and the handful of articles on notable schools will have suffered as a result. —ptk✰fgs 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Good medium sized high school, good choir this year. Many schools get invited to go somewhere and do a concert. That is why Band Candy was invented. Not that far above the pack in anything I see in the article. Could use some better verifiable claims to notability. A paragraph in the article on the town would be adequate coverage, with a link to the school's web site.Edison 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Porter

[edit]

non notable Nick Catalano contrib talk 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay potatoes

[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC by a longshot. Daniel Olsen 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Disregarded from socks --Ezeu 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyTestBook

[edit]

WP:CORP OscarTheCat3 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this article is nothing more than an advertisement for a website service. I orignially requested speedy delete when the page was listed at Online Practice Tests. Please see article talk page and article history for records of the debate between myself and the page author. OscarTheCat3 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OscarTheCat3, you asked me to change the name. And that's what I did. I also explained why I wrote this article. This article is not any different from other Math web sites i.e. Math_Is_Fun listed in similar catrgories. Spnashville 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caesura, Can you please see if the updates meet your expectations? Spnashville12:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the article no longer qualifies for speedy deletion, but the subject of the article just doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. Is it the subject of multiple non-trivial, published, independent works? Has it won a well-known, independent award? Is the content distributed through a well-known, independent venue? Keep in mind that if the article is deleted now, it can always be re-created when the site reaches these standards of notability. —Caesura(t) 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability, the site is a top-76,841 website according to Alexa (not bad for a K-12 test website). Site is listed in DMOZ and various school websites all over the world. It has been published in various local news atricles since its inception. On a school day there are over 14,000 visitors. The site is well respected for its content. Spnashville 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel BT

[edit]

Dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary (where it doesn't really belong either, but that's their problem). WP:NEO violation; I can't find any evidence that the term is used anywhere outside of the few Australian forums mentioned in the article. Aaron 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the Google hits I looked at were all forum links; no reputable sourcing for this phrase. jd || talk || 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. Lunis Neko 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)#
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consenus. --Ezeu 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ingram

[edit]

Artciel does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made the article, Jeffrey Ingram as an article for examples on amnesia. I will not edit amneisa until Jeffrey Ingram is an article that will stay.--WhereAmI 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (moved from AFD Talk page)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm voting "keep" but I want to comment on your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The process of collaborative editing means that, inevitably, you will sometimes be displeased by the results. If you can't deal with that, you won't be happy here. That applies regardless of how this particular AfD comes out. Some of your edits to Amnesia may be disputed or reverted or edited mercilessly by other Wikipedians. I hope you'll stay here and contribute to that article and others, learning to shrug off the times when you don't get your way. JamesMLane t c 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an important article detailing an amnesiac case. WP:BIO talks of "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". This case was all over the US Cable News networks for days. It does, however, require a cleanup. Jpe|ob 01:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Edward Wakelin 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless other sources and clean up is done. Arbusto 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Badagnani 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Encyclopedically non-notable amnesiac case. Amnesia is not a very rare condition, and this person has not attained renown or notoriety for this. News coverage, even by major sources, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability as news outlets have very different inclusion criteria from encyclopedias (just as a lot of material from an encyclopedia isn't newsworthy, much news content isn't suitable for an encyclopedia).
See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and the subsequent deletion review.
The main sources for this article is does even qualify as a straight news story, as the news broadcast primarily involves the subject using the news media to help his own situation Bwithh 03:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In journalism, News Directors and Editors choose what goes on, not the subjects. --Marriedtofilm 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I emphasized in the my first comments on this, news outlets have very different criteria for content inclusion than encyclopedias. My second point is that this kind of public appeal for help may be sensationalism acting in the cause of public service, but is not substantive journalism. Bwithh 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of news coverage of this subject being "not substantive journalism" is POV and you're entitled to it. --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news report database Bwithh 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see my comments above Bwithh 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments before I typed mine. In case you want to see my comments, I've now followed your lead by underlining the important bits. --JJay 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The subject used, and was used by network TV to find his family. I don't care which way around it was. I'm happy there was a happy ending, but there is nothing inherently notable about this individual, the before, or the aftermath. I see Goma as different. He was made famous by a monumental cock-up at the BBC, and was seen around the world. it was the nature which makes it a memorable and notable event; there was cock-up after cock-up. Newsworthy enough for the BBC to report on the booboo in later bulletins. Goma is now a sought after commentator ;-) Ohconfucius 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject's notability resulting from media coverage was ephemeral, but I accept ephemeral notability as a basis for keeping an article. JamesMLane t c 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This is a news story that will become obsolete as soon as the dust settles. Bytebear 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your prediction that this case will be obsolete is noted. Some might think that this case will be of interest to anyone interested in amnesia long after the dust settles. --Marriedtofilm 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Bytebear, the page you cite (WP:DUST) was evidently not accepted as policy or even a guideline. Would you delete such articles as Douglas Corrigan? I think it's valuable to have a record of old newsmakers who have since become "obsolete". JamesMLane t c 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I did see that WP:DUST has been determined to be non-policy, but I think the concept still has merit. What did Ingram do that was significant? What has the news said about him lately? Should we have an article for every person who has been on national television? 15 minutes of fame does not warrant an article. I can go streak down Santa Monica Blvd, and it would probably make national news (well, maybe not in LA), but is it significant, particularly in the media hungry environment we now live in? Bytebear 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. [194] says he has had dissociative amnesia before in stressful suituations. Not that unusual. Put a brief mention in the Amnesia article. Hope life goes better for him, but this is an encyclopedia, not the weekly news. I can't see how his news story will last like those of Judge Crater, Steve Brodie or Floyd Collins. Edison 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, many non-notable things receive coverage in major news outlets. Like, for instance, this fellow. Lord Bob 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable documented case of amnesia --RedBirdI55 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and move to Pseudoskepticism. —Mets501 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathological skepticism

[edit]

Non-notable term; Google shows the phrase "pathological skepticism" practically unheard of outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy web sites. Almost all the references in the article point back to a single article written by a sociology professor in a self-published journal, and the few that don't simply show that somebody, somewhere, once used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in print somewhere way back when. Beyond the notablity problem, the article is overwhelmingly POV. This might deserve a line or two in Skepticism or Debunker, but that's about it. Aaron 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep -- Marcello Truzzi was a highly respected Professor, at Eastern Michigan University, who wrote many articles on the subject. The subject is verifiable from reliable sources. The phrase "pathological skepticism" is verifiable in a number of other sources, [195][196], as is pseudoskepticism,[197][198]. Wikipedia NPOV Undue Weight tells us that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." It is not against Wikipedia policy for an article to be "POV", only if the article is non-NPOV which is not the same thing. --Iantresman 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iantresman. I also think it would be in good taste to open a discussion on the article talk page before listing for AFD. Potentially could save everyone here a lot of time. Given that there are many articles the subject, I don't see why it can't grow. I also don't see why it would necessarily need to grow anyway to merit an article. Derex 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ScienceApologist. Delete nothing worth keeping. An attack term made up by one person isn't notable. Arbusto 02:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less than 1200 google hits[199], eight for google scholar [200], of which two seem to be irrelevant (the ones on law and film). Ian argues that Marcello Truzzi is notable but I only see about 16,000 google hits for him.[201]. POV is definitely a concern as well. GabrielF 04:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Jim Butler's analysis below: 18000 hits for Pseudoskeptism. Harald88 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The irony! Deny the article first, ask questions later, never (see the first characteristic of Pseudoskepticism). A reminder that pseudoskepticism is not skepticism. It would be like suggesting that we merge pseudoscience with science. As for room to grow, yes there is much that could be added, such as Truzzi's motivation for developing the subject, examples of the various characteristics with respect to specific subjects, and comments from other commentators. As for the notability of Truzzi, he is the author (or co-author) of a number of books,[202] and many articles in reputable journals,[203] --Iantresman 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pseudoskepticism is no more a critique of skepticism, than pseudoscience is a critique of science. Pseudoskepticism is a false skepticism, ie. it is not skepticism. --Iantresman 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Pseudoskepticism is a label invented by Truzzi to criticize certain skeptics. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the term is Truzzi's version of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is "pseudoscience" also No True Scotsman fallacy, and should be deleted? Obviously not. In my opinion, this whole discussion reeks of double standard. If it's bad for "believers" to mess with the Pseudoscience entry, then it's just as bad if "skeptics" try to censor the Pseudoskepticism entry. I don't believe for one second the listed reasons for deletion. If they were true, then where are all the calls for deletion of "pathological science" and "pseudoscience," on the grounds that these other terms are inherently POV, or are nothing but no-true-scotsman fallacy, or are nothing but smear tactics? Should we delete "Creationism" because the term is inherently POV? Of course not. In fact, NONE of these terms are inherently POV, fallicious, etc., and all are useful and in use. Be honest now, and admit the actual reasons why this term needs to be hidden: Truzzi created a powerful weapon now being used by creationists and other believers, and it can be weilded as an effective rhetorical ploy to make the skeptic side of any debate look bad. This must be stopped!  :) Delete it from WP! (Yet the same issue is true of the words pseudoscience and pathological science. Perhaps a Creationist group should mount an attempt to delete the Pseudoscience entry. Get a big enough group working for months, and they can do it. Heh. They won't have to work very hard, since they can just copy all the "skeptic" arguments being used on this page!) --Wjbeaty 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the misunderstand also stems from (a) the misconception that non-NPOV is POV (b) That a POV requires an opposing POV to make an article NPOV. See WP:POV --Iantresman 12:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself to very much be a skeptic, and I defend the inclusion of this topic here. (I happen to be the ringmaster for the Skeptic Ring and the Anti-Quackery Ring, so I think I have a bit of understanding on the subject.) It is a real concept used in the real world, and therefore Wikipedia should cover it. I really doubt that many skeptics are totally free from occasionally giving way to pseudoskeptic tendencies. Who doesn't get a kick out of an occasional ad hominem attack on true believing idiots? (How was that for an example?....;-) Why do we love Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" program? Because we find it perfectly appropriate, in the name of humor, to make fun of our antagonists. Skepticism and pseudoskepticism abide side-by-side in many of us, and it is only our higher self that intellectually recognizes and attempts to suppress the tendency to sink to the same level as many of our antagonists, especially when involved in serious discussions (which Penn and Teller don't pretend to be doing, although they still are spot on much of the time). The same principle is involved in racism: much as we'd like to think we are totally free of racist tendencies, we actually often harbor them in one way or another. This is human nature. I still support a strong keep, but only after renaming to the much more common expression "pseudoskepticism." -- Fyslee 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak ... whatever. The article was more POV before the layer of edits that I did immediately before the AfD was initated. An article like this should not be written in a way that suggests we support the theory that there is such a thing as "pathological skepticism" or "pseudoskepticism". The claim that this is a real phenomenon is intrinsically POV. However, the claim that such a phenomenon has been perceived by Truzzi and that this pejorative expression has been used by Truzzi and others to label it is objectively correct. If the article is retained, it will need to be policed for POV, and if that doesn't work the inherently POV nature of the article will have been evidenced. For the moment, I have no clear opinion either way as to whether it should be deleted. Metamagician3000 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iantresman. No more POV a term than pseudoscience or cult: controversial, yes, and worth keeping for that very reason. Such articles should be retained and improved, not deleted because some editors dislike the subject matter. On notability, Googling for Boolean variations on "pseudoskepticism" turns up in excess of 18,000 hits[205] , compared to the 500-odd yielded by "pathological skepticism"[206]. However, as with the terms "pseudoscience" and "cult", "pseudoskepticism" is used in a variety of ways (cf. Google Books[207]). The "meta" approach taken at cult offers a way around the POV problem of covering only a single definition (i.e., Truzzi's). (Such an approach is still needed at pseudoscience, btw). -Jim Butler(talk) 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GabrielF/911TMCruft notes: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." --Iantresman 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep but rename to Pseudoskeptism in view of the 18000 Google hits (see Jim Butler) and because it's a less strong term. The article needs to be expanded though, currently it's too much focussing a few people. Harald88 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Adjusted preferred spelling and changed to Strong Keep in view of current expansions as well as the good potential for a more content-based article, similar to pseudoscience. Harald88 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-the term exists, and thus someone may want to look it up on wikipedia to see what it means! I think wikipedia is *quite* capable of provide a concise objective article on where the term originated and what it means. If we have to instead go around hysterically deleting articles because they might lapse into POV, we might as well all pack up and go home!--feline1 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now cites uses of the term "pseudo-skepticism" from 1869 and 1908, and has consequently grown in size by 40% since the AfD began, and demonstrating use of the term outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy, and its notability in philosophy. I should also note that I am one of the primary authors of the article. --Iantresman 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look through the citations, you'll find that all the Truzzi references come from his paper "On Pseudo-Skepticism", of which the 12 references [3]-[14] all details Truzzi's "Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism" by noting the context. These references could be replaced with a single general reference to the paper, but we'd loose the context. Of the remaining 8 citations, Truzzi is referenced twice, not bad since he probably contributed more to the subject than anyone else. --Iantresman 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles about pseudoskepticism appear to be attributable to Truzzi. If you can find others who wrote about pseudoskepticism, please include material you consider relevant, or list the source so others can assess it. --Iantresman 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, as I said, perhaps the granularity of this article is unsupported by the narrow context in which the term is applied, and the narrow body of work in which it is described.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This logic sounds a little like "heads I win, tales you lose". WP has articles on other memes originated primarily by one person (e.g., selfish gene). Truzzi's ideas aren't nearly as famous as Dawkins', but they have been picked up by others, and Truzzi himself was notable by WP standards. I agree with Iantresman's point below re WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (WP not paper, OK to represent even tiny minority views adequately in articles about them). -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truzzi was Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University with a good track record of books,[208] and articles,[209]. He also help found the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and became editor of its journal, The Zetetic (later to become The Skeptical Inquirer). I think it is fair to say that Truzzi is not unfamiliar with the subject, and the article information attributed to Truzzi is verifiable. Again, if you have other sources you feel are relevant, please include them. --Iantresman 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying Truzzi is not noteworthy, nor am I implying that he was not an expert on the subject. I'm implying that since he seems to either be the only expert on it, or at best one of a tiny few using the definition he codified, perhaps it is not as notable as you assert it is, and certainly not notable enough to carry an article by itself I am not against its mention in Wikipedia, it's covering one man's theories in this much detail that I'm opposed to.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept appears to have been around a long time before Truzzi. I do no dispute that Truzzi may have been the only person to write on the subject seriously. That there are articles mentioning the subject,[210] and thousands of Google hits,[211], I think makes it worthwhile. Wikipedia is packed with articles I personally consider non-notable; but I recognise that they be be notable to others, and they do me no harm. I am reminded that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper."WP:NPOV#Undue_weight --Iantresman 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- or rename to pseudoskepticism with mention of pathological skepticism and continue to bulid the article in a NPOV manner. Pseudoscience, pseudoskepticism, etc. are all fields related to the philosophy of science. Surely even rational skeptics agree that the phenomenon described by Truzzi exists. Lets just continue reporting what these experts are saying. --Dematt 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dematt raises a good philosophical point. The phenomenon described by Truzzi exists in the same way that "pseudoscience" does: a pattern that the speaker wishes to highlight by critically differentiating it from another pattern (with which another speaker has perhaps erroneously identified it). There are cases in which some people may not believe that such differentiation is meaningful or important (e.g., nontheists who don't care about identifying various heresies). Still, if the meme is significant enough, I think WP should cover it. -Jim Butler(talk) 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge It is not notable, but in this case being properly sourced, clear and concise trumps notability. Has the author tried to get a similar article into wiktionary? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "pseudoskepticism" and keep per Dematt. The current title is used much, much, much less than "pseudoskepticism." It is also an awkward expression that is unnecessarily pejorative -- pseudo is bad enough, and it is accurate. The phenomenon exists and few can claim to be totally free of it. If they do, they need a different mirror.....;-)
  • Comment: Google results show great notability and common use of "pseudoskepticism"
  • Keep but rename to pseudoskepticism by analogy with pseudoscience (and mention that analogy in the article), per Dematt. It's a real philosophical/psychological phenonemom (it can be observed operating here on Wikipedia) and surely must have been studied by other academics under some other name. CWC(talk) 08:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added to the article, details of (a) a University of Colorado course (b) a University of Arizona department, that studies or researches pathological skepticism. The article has now grown by half since the AfD begun. --Iantresman 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. The POV that "certain forms of skepticism are excessive or damaging" is certainly notable and merits coverage in the article on Skepticism. Conceivably, if there's too much material on that aspect to be accommodated in the Skepticism article, it could be summarized there and elaborated on in a daughter article, but the latter would be something like Criticism of skepticism. It wouldn't be titled with this nonnotable term. I agree that Truzzi was notable (there's been no AfD on Marcello Truzzi), but that doesn't mean that every term he discussed needs its own article. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to pseudoskepticism. Merge "abuses of skepticism" into "pseudoskepticism." "practically unheard of outside of parapsychology and UFOlogy web sites." No, I've heard the term commonly used among member scientists at meetings of Society for Scientific Investigation (SSE) and used in their journal, and also used in online and offline discussions of the psychology behind various science controversies. It's a useful shorthand term, same as "pathological science." In my experience, pseudoskepticism is certainly a genuine behavior-flaw analogous to pathological science (also analogous to "flamer" or "troll,") and it's not merely a smear tactic. In fact, is it not a smear tactic if someone labels "pseudoskeptic" as purely POV? Should we also delete the entry for "pathological science" because it implies bad things about certain people? "Pseudoskeptic" is just as POV as "pseudoscientist," the former being coined based on the latter. Both can be used as neutral labels, and both can be hurled as ad hominem or smear tactics during fights. If "pseudoskepticism" should be deleted because some people use it as derogation, then we must also consider deleteing "pseudoscience" and "pathological science" entries as well. And delete "flamer" and "troll" for good measure. The first step in understanding a new phenomenon or concept is to give it a name. Truzzi is not the first to notice it, but is one of the early ones naming it. Others independantly gave the same phenomenon different names currently in far less widespread use, e.g. "pathological skeptic," "scoffer," "skepto-path," and "abuse of skepticism." I've been a member of local skeptic groups and debated on both sides of "believer/skeptic" issues, and over the years I've met a significant number of people both online and off who call themselves "scientific skeptics" but who constantly fall into the misbehaviors that Truzzi points out. Pseudoskepticism is a sort of mental flaw very much similar to "flamer:" there are some people who are unrepentant shameless flamers, and some who are unrepentant shameless pseudoskeptics, and many others covering an entire spectrum. But among the population of skeptics, the habitual pseudoskeptics are certainly not in the majority, yet they certainly have a significant impact. Carl Sagan directly and repeatedly cautioned skeptic groups against pseudoskeptic behavior, but without giving a succinct label to the behavior. And CSICOP split off from JREF partly because of just these issues (today JREF is very pseudoskeptic-tolerant, seeing little wrong with laughter and ad-hominem, while CSICOP has gone far in distancing itself from such things.) Would it have been better if skeptic groups coined the term? They did. Truzzi himself is a long time skeptic, and he debunks irrational beliefs as well as aiming skepticism at Skeptic groups. The term "pseudoskepticism" had its birth in the self-criticism within the CSICOP group, and only later was it employed by Creationists during evolution flamewars, etc. And finally: just as pseudoscientists try to distort or delete portions of the WP pseudoscience entry, the pseudoskeptic fringe would love to see this entry removed. I strongly suspect that this current deletion attempt is no way innocent, and may very well be disingenuous in that the reasons listed for the deletion are not the actual reasons leading to this deletion review. --Wjbeaty 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue is not whether the term exists nor whether the term should exist but whether we have enough information to write a WP:V and WP:NPOV compliant article. As for the comment about the SSE- the SSE is somewhat on the fringe of things. JoshuaZ 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could have fooled me. The initial comment regarding simply show that somebody, somewhere, once used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in print somewhere way back when is making an issue of whether the term is in common contemporary use. Perhaps you personally don't see this as an issue, but others here obviously do. If the terms aren't being used in forums, journal papers, skeptic magazines, etc., then deleting the entry has no important consequenc. About Google hits: beware, since a large number of hits are simply mirrors of WP entries appearing on other sites. A better gauge of the level of usage might be to search Usenet Newsgroups at groups.google.com. About Truzzi: this WP entry started out referencing other websites and not Truzzi's paper, and was tarred with the brush of being unprofessional. Now that it references an actual publication, it's tarred with the brush of being Truzzi-centric. Damned if you do, damned if you don't (the important thing to those disliking its use is that it remain tarred, eh? Stigmatize it so it may be ridiculed and dismissed without fair consideration and without their needing to leave the political-emotional-beliefs mental state.) And shouldn't we be deleting "Cargo Cult Science" too? It's obviously just a Feynman-centric conceit and a ploy to sell Feynman books. And about SSE: the membership of that group is professional scientists. Unless things there have changed, members of the public cannot join as members, but may subscribe to the journal as "associates." The SSE is "fringe" to the extent that the group is in the business of giving fair invesigations of odd phenomena, whereas skeptic groups make the assumption (usually unspoken) that paranormal events, alien visitation, etc., aren't occurring. To a staunch disbeliever, the SSE certainly looks like a bunch of idiots --67.136.141.97 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pathological skepticism: "I am a scientist and I know the truth, so don't try to change my mind with facts," is seen in many scientific fields, not just applied to pseudoscience. There is much good, thought provoking material in this article, and I will leave it to the editors who follow the subject to use the editing process to maintain NPOV and to document their statements in the article. Edison 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat tangential suggestion: If we keep this article, perhaps we should make it clear in our policy and guideline pages that labelling a wikipedian as a pseudoskeptic (or whatever name we settle on) is not a useful contribution to wikipedia discussions. Just a thought, CWC(talk) 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy keep, nomination withdrawn. GRBerry 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rhodes

[edit]

He might be the CEO of a fortune 500 company, but as an individuial he is not noteworthy enough to warrant his own page on Wikipedia Piuro 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete -- csd g-11 (blatent advertising). Nuked Black Hole Gaming too. Once that article was mentioned, the advertising intent became obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawning

[edit]

This page is extremely POV, and seems to be more of a marketting technique than any sort of article. If not delete, at least clean up.Rayonne 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. This was a copy of quantapus which was deleted five times by different admins in the last few days. -- RHaworth 09:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe lagoon

[edit]

This page is actually about the quantapus, which is apparently a creature. Google returns exactly 0 pages for quantapus, leading me to believe this is a hoax. Natalie 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been put under the heading horseshoe lagoon because that is where the quantapus lives.

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

The result was speedy deleted. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take me for a walk

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I personally believe it is also under CSDA7 by "An article about a...band...that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, you're right - if an article about a non-notable band can be speedied, then there's no reason that a song by them that is equally non-notable can't be. I've deleted the article. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. From deletion log: "13:13, 23 October 2006 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) deleted "Carowhina" (attack page)." -- saberwyn 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carowhina

[edit]

No encyclopedic value, non-notable, purely incendiary DukeEGR93 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Ezeu 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is a perfect example of an indiscriminate list of information, so it violates WP:NOT. Also, the guidelines in WP:AVTRIV recommend incorporating relevant trivia into the article rather than making a list. This article is kind of like throwing an old, broken refrigerator into your backyard because you don't want to pay to have it hauled off.Mr Spunky Toffee 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The article Moloch is substantially related to the historical deity while this list is a deviation away from that; a separate sort of thing. While popular culture references are also interesting and in some cases important in their own right, they deeply distract from the scholarly content of the original article. It was previously the one of the most frequently edited sections of the article and most of the time, the additions to this section are related to video games and monster movies. So it seemingly has a high interest area as a separate concept. As part of the article I agree that it may violate WP:AVTRIV, but rather than delete the items of interest to some, I felt that it would be good to give it its own list article. We have articles on all kinds of "crufty" sorts of things like video game details, so this list should not be that bad. I see no harm in having separate articles with links to each other and while I feel that both articles are improved by being separated, I think this is particularly true for the article relating to the cainanite deity. --Blue Tie 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to quote something you wrote on Talk:Moloch: "Gero, your add was ok, for that section but the section itself is worthless. It should go. What possible reason can exist for that virtually useless collection of information?" --Blue Tie 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Mr Spunky Toffee 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but my views that it is useless information may not be shared by everyone. I find it especially bad in the article, but perhaps not so bad in a separate article by itself. I do not want to deny others an opportunity to add to the knowledge base, but I also do not want to adulterate the article by keeping it there. Does that make sense? (But yeah, I think some of this is really crufty and I accept your criticisms). --Blue Tie 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed to keep. It seems there actually is some precedent for these types of articles. There are other articles nearly identical to this one that seem to serve a purpose, but I wouldn't rule out a future AfD. AuburnPilotTalk 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that it is easy to control in the main article. --Blue Tie 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Moloch While some XXX in popular culture articles are more then appropriate, many, if not most entries in this particular page have nothing in common with Moloch then his name. What next, a list called John in Popular Culture featuring all instances of the name John showing up? I say merge the more relevant examples of Moloch in popular culture with the main article. Ghilz 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford L. Gottesman

[edit]

Subject is not notable. Claims to notability include that he is a local businessman, on a federal board, and father of George Bush's personal aide. Not really encyclopedic. Grouse 00:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being the father of a friend of the President doesn;t really qualify you as notable. Montco 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The individual fails WP:BIO; His indivudual efforts are not noteworthy, nor is being related to someone who has an article here. Furthermore, a google test shows 40 non-wiki results. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an individual of interest (he is notable to me, which is why I created the article), who is verifiable. His individual efforts are noteworthy, and articles are not deleted just because they are stubs. It clearly needs to be expanded. — Reinyday, 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. On her userpage, User:Reinyday indicates that the surname Gottesman (for which she created an article) is important to her, along with a number of other specific genealogical topics. I would submit that what is notable for Reinyday in this regard is different from the rest of Wikipedia. Grouse 06:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22&oldid=1234118968"