Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wknight94 (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 22 October 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectrasexuality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 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

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

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]

  • Abstention 26600 Ghits may or may not be notable here.--Jusjih 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why not? SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find one third-party review of the group, although I'm a bit unsure about it being a reliable source. There is no indication I could find that this group is known outside of Seattle. -- Donald Albury 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they apparently have a few popular videos on sites like Youtube. And apparently they are 1 of 6 finalists competing for $10,000 on Jibjab.com's "The Great Sketch Experiment". Also, that source is from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the second largest newspaper in Seattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris1127 (talk • contribs)
 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]
  • Weak Keep The group has a good deal of local press linked on their site [1] but I'm not sure how well known they are outside of their locality. IrishGuy talk 21:53, 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

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]

  • Comment They're albums released online. Imban 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems notable to me. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the things listed under Discography are albums, as Imban commented. I thought his work was notable enough to translate from the French wikipedia, and add references from an Athens magazine- home of REM and the B52s. Tnfiddler 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mike | Talk 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Might be minor notability but notability all the same. Also, it's a requested article; [2] I'd rather see it expanded than squashed with the deletionist shoe. AuburnPilotTalk 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Imban is right. Also suggest speedy withdraw, as the nominator indicates that because of this fact, they will !vote keep. Daniel.Bryant 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. BrownHornet21 04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough I believe. LarryQ 19:54, 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. Punkmorten 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwe championship roll call

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

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]

  • Delete. One thing I think makes it clear here is a quick google search. Compare Barberton Chicken (1k) to Spaghetti (29m). If anything, it should be trans-wikied over to WikiBooks as a recipe and then deleted here. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. :)[reply]
  • Transwiki per User:BradBeattie to wikibooks as recipie. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Good idea Brad; transwiki it. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trnaswiki It seems like an awful waste to just delete this...--the ninth bright shiner talk 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't much "recipe" about it, so Wikibooks probably wouldn't like it. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems notable and has references. Two are used in the article, which could perhaps be augmented by the external links that are listed. (I'm a little worried about the way the best looking source is reliant on Google cache, but I'll consider that a secondary issue.) Everyking 07:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above commenet that this is not exactly notable, and anyway Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Some chicken dishes which have gained wide renown may deserve an entry (e.g. chicken Kiev) but not this. Emeraude 09:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References and has notability. Articles should not state their own notability. At what point do you think something like barberton chicken... which probably reaches a population over 100k people is not notable? Just because something is in the midwest or in a smaller geographic area, doesn't mean it is not notable, this is a keep on notability against WP:BIAS.--Buridan 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, it's the Midwest thing that got it nominated for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment well there does seem to be a bias against things that occur or effect smaller populations. it is part of the 'out of sight, out of mind' bias. --Buridan 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHas far fewer references than other significant articles deleted here. NN. Edison 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Call me crazy, but deleting significant articles isn't really the point here. I mean, isn't this argument like, "We've deleted more notable articles than this, so bombs away"? Auto movil 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first reference may be a bit dubious, but Attache magazine is a neutral source, providing verifiable information that this is a regional style of fried chicken. And although web forums are not considered a reliable source, Chowhound has discussions on this style of fried chicken. -- Whpq 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup - It seems notable based on some google searching, but in its current state it's a hard sell for me. Timbatron 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The notability of this is regional and unless there are reliable third party sources that deal with the chicken and not the recipe, this should be deleted or transwikied.
    • There is one already: the Attache article. Everyking 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultramega Keep/Carefully Move - Well-written, factual, Googleable. If 'regional' implied 'non-notable,' the article on bagels would be imperiled. Auto movil 17:16, 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. Punkmorten 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Armourae

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

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]

  • Delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep no different than having a List of Friends episodes or List of automobiles. Just because it has to do with a video game means it should be deleted? That makes absolutley no sense to me. It's information about the game in question, just like the list of episodes in Friends is information about the TV show.--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. Fictional vehicles in a video game are not comparable to an actual vehicle or even to a episode of a sitcom (though I don't like the episode articles either).Bwithh 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Battlefieldcruft. Also, WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is, to me, an issue of precedent, and precedent has shown that this article is of a type that is to be deleted. I worry about this precedent resulting in the future deletion of something that would be of actual use (List_of_Pokémon_by_name or suchlike) but this isn't. Imban 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to a Battlefield Wiki. TJ Spyke 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annihilate Big fat copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's enough info here to warrant a separate article. Certainly the info itself warrants inclusion. Everyking 07:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except every single word is copied-and-pasted from the link at the bottom. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? So why are we having this argument about game guides and such? If it's a copyvio, it should be speedied immediately. Everyking 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Copyvios aren't speediable unless they're fresh. ~ trialsanderrors 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if it's a copyvio, but I maintain that there is no need for any further discussion here now that we know it's a copyvio. This shouldn't have been made a question of notability. Everyking 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This really isn't a question of notability at all. This is a question about what Wikipedia is, and it's not a game guide replacement nor an indiscriminate collection of lists. And teh copyvios... If notability was the only criteria, the list would probably stay as information regarding a new Electronic Arts game provided the list were rewritten as to not be a copyvio. --Targetter (Lock On) 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How can it not be a question of notability according to what you're describing? If the issue regards the information, then we are making a judgment about whether that information is important enough to include. Everyking 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for consistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2. Punkmorten 10:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too specific information about too narrow scope. Wikipedia is not a game manual. JIP | Talk 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyright violation. NauticaShades 17:17, 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 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Car Brands to Australia

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]

  • Delete silly, frivolous article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completley pointless, violates WP:V among others.--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see the use of this article especially as it is really referring to models rather than brands. Both Fiat and Dodge are brands that have had fairly long histories in the Australian market. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as per reasoning of Capitalistroadster.-- Longhair\talk 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but I question KojiDude's logic. Verifying whether something as large and obvious as cars are being exported to Australia seems as if it would be easy, so I by no means see how this is not verifiable. Imban 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was that there is nothing in the article that verifies the information, like citations or ect.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above -- Chuq 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep if changed Jeffklib 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As per Capitalistroadster and the nominator, there's no need for this article. James086 Talk | Contribs 23:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Incoherent topic. --Elonka 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and my "three strike" rule. I think three tags to Wikify, recategorize, and link constitute a rogue article.--WaltCip 13:17, 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 speedy delete, CSD-G7. --Interiot 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Nothing

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]

  • Speedy Delete per nom.--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Very wierd, it has a lot of editing history, the last of which the author deleted the entire text. =Axlq 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G7 blanked, marked as such. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been blanked. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although, I must say, there's something apt about clicking on a link to The Creative Nothing and finding, well, nothing. GassyGuy 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mike | Talk 04:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete article, speedy close AfD - G7. Daniel.Bryant 06:18, 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

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

  • Delete per nom. Though maybe not spam. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It looks to me like this article may have been created to avoid a red link in the High-end audio article. I'd say a lot of high-end audio manufacturers aren't "notable" because they serve a niche market. =Axlq 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Compare a Google search for "AuZEN Luxury Audio" with a Google search for Avalon Acoustics, another "high-end" audio manufacturer. AuZEN draws 63 unique hits including Wiki-mirrors, Avalon draws 56,500. Magnum Dynalab draws 164,000. Cardas Audio brings 38,300. Even among its peers, AuZEN is of limited notablity. Consequentially 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mike | Talk 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unotable. NauticaShades 17:18, 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

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]

  • Delete per nom. Merge Actually, that was the initial argument. •NikoSilver• 00:50, 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]
    • The article was created 8 whole months ago, and since then, no notable fact or source has been added to it. As Hectorian pointed below, it would be more legitimate to have 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. This article is a narrow POV selection, both geographicaly (should be Ionia), and as a timeframe. Those 3 lines of text should be part of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922, or Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). •NikoSilver• 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was not me who created it 8 months ago, i rewrote and sourced it only a few weeks ago. If your critcism is that it is not substantial enough, then this not a valid excuse for afd. That can be expanded in time, what is important is both the tite and the content be notable enough, and this is more than substantiated by third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mu! See also straw man. •NikoSilver• 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with User:A.Garnet. It is possible that there might be more to say about the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir than is already covered in the Occupation of Izmir into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article but that has yet to be shown. I do think NikoSilver's argument is a valid AFD argument. If A.Garnet can at least outline how this article can be expanded, I would reconsider my vote to Merge this article into the article on the war. --Richard 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NickSilver, you are the "nom", so voting again to say delete per yourself is excessively senseless. Imban 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ? Don't count my vote double if that's what you meant. •NikoSilver• 09:33, 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]
  • Delete. (comments below) Hectorian 06:51, 22 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]
    • Well, this will definitely prop that merge, won't it... :-) •NikoSilver• 20:43, 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]
  • Rename and possibly reshape. It's a topic that's notable enough to deserve it's own article, but I guess we can change the title and/or content. Khoikhoi 05:37, 25 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]
  • Delete. I had posted a comment above, but had not voted so far.Hectorian 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution, Hectorian, you're voting for the second time. You already voted as "Delete. (comments below) Hectorian 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" See above. Regards E104421 21:24, 27 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]
  • Merge and Redirect to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). At the present moment this appears to be by just a fork, repeating material already present elsewhere.--Aldux 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename it as "Invasion of Western Anatolia". E104421 02:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete: POVFORK, OR and anachronistic usage of "Izmir". Miskin 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it seems like a good article to me, Just summerise it on the main page and put a link here Armanalp 18:32, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Independent News Group

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

  • delete not notable-only 205 ghits. The related Lisa Guliani below is much more notable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable conspiracy theorist group today! Article comes complete with POV statements in practically every sentence and patent nonsense misrepresented as fact in the rest. Imban 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Imban. Montco 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Imban -- although it may make us part of the "Great Conspiracy," I frankly don't care. The POV in this article is truly amazing. --N Shar 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Oswald said on In Living Color, it's a C-O-N.....spiracy! Wildthing61476 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Imban. NauticaShades 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and would someone go through the see also bios and nom those which should be deleted? JoshuaZ 02:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Imban. BrownHornet21 05:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above; non-notable and heavy on the POV. (Who names a group like this with fringe viewpoints WING, anyhow? It's just begging to have "nuts" added...) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 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. Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsung Zeros

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

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]

    • Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Victor Thorn (patriot). The text is identical except for the names. =Axlq 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing on Google News [6] while there is something on Google News Archive but mostly not from reliable sources ie Conspiracy Planet. [7] Girlfriend of so-called patriot Victor Thorn see below. Not notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guliani has been very critical of others in the alternative media and the mainstream media field he calls shills or government operatives." Copy-paste sex change? Sounds like a delete to me. Imban 01:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Risker 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Montco 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable conspiracy theorist. 2 of her co-authored books on Amazon.com Dirty Secrets ranks 924 thousandsths and Illusion ranks in amongst the 2.34 millionsth Ohconfucius 01:37, 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. Punkmorten 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Thorn (patriot)

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

    • Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; notability not established. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Hello32020 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. He has self-published two books see [8]. He doesn't meet WP:BIO for mine. If kept, should be renamed to an NPOV title of author. Patriot is a very POV title. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete The entire article is one part POV - including the title. I would suggest that the eleventh prime minister of Luxembourg was a patriot of his country, as well! Also, this article is just plain short on factual information - including, for example, that Victor Thorn is the pseudonym of Scott Makufka. The other part? Patent nonsense and misrepresenting a conspiracy theorist's rants as fact. Imban 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Imban. Risker 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. TJ Spyke 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless I'm missing something, even the title is laughably point of view. In what sense is he a "patriot"? Pascal.Tesson 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patriotically delete this conflict of vanity which egregiously overboldifies. -- Hoary 05:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-publication of two books don't eastablish notablity.-- danntm T C 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if only for using the term "patriot" to describe him. The title of the article alone is a major NPOV issue. --Hemlock Martinis 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, danntm, and Imban JoshuaZ 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. NPOV and not notable. 6 books on Amazon.com ranking from 261thousandsths to 2.34millionsth. No sign of any independent reviews as required under WP:BIO. Not convinced he's notable as a journalist either. 278unique Ghits for "Victor Thorn" + IRS, mostly point to babel, federal observer, wingTV, and some blogs. Ohconfucius 01:55, 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 CSD G11 - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPGOnline

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

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]

  • Delete. Article certainly doesn't assert any sort of notability. Imban 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! This has been around since last November?! Looks like a sandbox experiment saved by accident. Delete. Edeans 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give the article back to Michael Kunze (writer). The links to this page [9] refer to him. The current subject of this article is just some guy who works in IT. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:04, 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

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]

  • Delete Full list would be extremely long. Category works better Bwithh 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which films make the page isn't subjective at all; it's a list of British films. While the original author may have been subjective in hir choice of films, films are not subjectively British. Listing every notable British film would be an extremely long list, but probably possible with the help of IMDB, too. Imban 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, unmaintainable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Make a category for it. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. TJ Spyke 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this list. - Mike | Talk 04:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of every British film ever made? Poppycock.--the ninth bright shiner talk 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. Delete. The list is too subjective as it stands, and if it were made complete, it would be far too long. --N Shar 04:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, much better as category. Andrew Levine 04:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe most of the contained infomation is repeated in other articles. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has no inclusion criteria and would be ridiculously long (as well as inviting numerous nn additions which would be hard to control). Do we have a category for British films with articles? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re Imban above: It's not that simple. Films don't have nationalities. Are we meaning films made in Britain (with US stars, director, producer, writers, money)? Films made by British directors with British stars in Hollywood? Films filmed in UK studios and on location in other countries, by American directors?. It's all too complicated to bother and would produce an unmanageable list. Emeraude 09:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bit of a ridiculous list to have. --Alex (Talk) 12:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if its good enough for a category, its good enough for a list. Jcuk 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before voting/commenting I went and checked some the relevant articles and added, where appropriate, (I got to 1980's if anybody wants to continue) to Category:British films, many of the wikilinks are incorrect -going to books plays, characters etc, films are being added which aren't British (I used IMDb for definition - which refers to UK films, which also has it's own category), So unless supporters of the article want to do a complete re-write, I think deletion would be a kindness. --Richhoncho 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got to this page searching for "list of british films" so it would be nice to keep it, at least redirecting to the category page(i don't know if it's possible), other reason to keep it is that it's classified by year (witch may be useful).
  • Delete Why have a list where a category will suffice? Already, wiki has problems ensuring categories are correct and up to date. Admittedly, it's easier to create a list to modify all the entries in one go, but it defeats to whole purpose of wikicategories to have properly maintained lists and not categories. If it's useful for people to know which decade a film is from, I think that subcategories of for example '1980s British films' could be created. Ohconfucius 02:25, 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. Yanksox 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Lion Television

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]

  • Delete as per nom. Sorry, kids. Bwithh 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 34 google hits. Not-notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how any public access TV show could be notable enough to deserved an article here. TJ Spyke 03:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well written schoolcruft, but still schoolcruft. Edeans 10:29, 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

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

  • Comment Doesn't look like one to me. Looks like it could be copyvio instead, but The New Scientist isn't in the business of printing advertisments. Imban 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rewrite, Transwiki? It does sound like an advertisement or copyvio, but it's still something. We could just rewrite it, or toss it over to Wikinews.--the ninth bright shiner talk 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs tidying perhaps, but not an ad. Emeraude 09:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sort of. I think this should be rebuilt as an article on Power Paper the company, not the product. If it is to remain as a product focused article, it should be renamed (e.g., Ultra thin printable batteries) and worked over to discuss the technology in generic terms. As it stands it reads like an advert. Power Paper the company appears to pass WP:CORP QuiteUnusual 11:41, 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.

Michael Graeme Berman

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]

  • Speedy Delete this hoax and fix the Michael Berman disambiguation page. Sigh. Imban 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, which is what I should have nominated it for in the first place, rather than AFD (it's WP:CSD 1.1. Sadly, this hoax has been on wikpedia since June 2006 :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Imban. I really dislike hoaxes -- they seriously damage the credibility of WP. --N Shar 04:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW - people generally seem in agreement that this could have been speedy deleted so I've done so - it's a clear hoax. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:35, 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. Punkmorten 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petz community

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

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]

  • Delete Nope, it doesn't. Sorry, Pommy. Imban 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be useful to have an actual Australian confirm whether this guy is notable or not (instead of us foreigners deciding one way or the other based on Google hits or some such). The Maurie Awards are the main Australian comedy awards. --Charlene 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral   I'm very tempted to vote delete but per Charlene I don't feel qualified to judge of what cultural importance the Maurie Awards are... an Australian's input would be interesting... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I'm going to change to weak keep for now, per Longhair's reasoning (below) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notability. Edeans 10:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am Australian. I've never heard of him, or of the Maurie awards. While I'm sure that there are notable Australian comedians I've never heard of, I suspect Pommy Johnson is not one of them. I've added this debate to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, we'll see if anyone else knows more than I do. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I'd never heard of him before this AfD, but he does appear to be a notable comedian who toured during the 1990s. He has released at least one DVD of his live works [12] and also starred in a 1991 anti-smoking television commercial for the Quit campaign [13]. -- Longhairtalk 11:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Need some more evidence of notability.UberCryxic 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised more people haven't heard of him. I think he's based in the UK now, but was in his prime about ten years ago. Hasn't really had much TV exposure apart from the Quit ads, but pretty big on the Australian and UK stand-up circuits. I've never heard of the Maurie Awards though (named after Maurie Fields I presume). --Canley 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Longhair. Cnwb 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google News Archive indicates that he is a working comedian with tours and a DVD to his credit. [14] He also seems to have played shows in the UK. The Maurie Awards appear to have been held at the Comics Lounge in Melbourne see [15] although the website is no longer working.Capitalistroadster 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS A Melbourne Age article from 2002 confirms that they are named after Maurie Fields with a full name of the Maurie Awards for Comedy Excellence. They were decided by public vote on the website. [Age, The (Melbourne); 15/03/2002 via EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand Database. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per canley and also longhair the comedian is notable meets bio Yuckfoo 02:13, 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 deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaxy

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]

  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's add WP:WINAD and WP:NFT to the list of offenses. It's tempting to vote speedy delete per WP:SNOW just to save time. --Daniel Olsen 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete per nom. and Daniel. TJ Spyke 03:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above, WP:SNOW. Consequentially 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I ran across this when it was speedy-tagged and thought it was an obvious chuck-in-the-wastebin-to-save-everyone-time. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedy deleted since it's clear this article carries no encyclopedic value and will be deleted as a result of this discussion (WP:SNOW as someone mentioned above). Why give it further exposure? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:27, 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. — TKD::Talk 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear timeline

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]
  • Delete clearly it's what the people want eh MIB? †he Bread 06:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki. If we can't keep it here, then how about a transwiki to wikibooks instead. Jagged 85 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Interrobamf 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dammit, You beat me to it, I'd just posted the exact same thing but got edit conflict! But yes, that is exactly what I was going to say and so I stand by my delete opinion. The Kinslayer 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant/salvageable information into the main Metal Gear article if feasible or keep the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:52, 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 100% delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Considering the list has all of one charity, I would almost think this is a spam vehicle for that charity. In any case, it would probably be difficult to provide verification of anything that would be listed here. Montco 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess this is a list (of sorts) that could much better be served with a category... if there were more than one entry. As is, this is unverified, redundant information. --Daniel Olsen 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible WP:COI vio, as this article is Hippypink's only edit ever to Wikipedia. --Aaron 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently exists only to promote the claims of the list's only element, a claim that has itself been called into question.[16] Robertissimo 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, unverifiable, unnecessary. Resolute 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its also a claim of dubious valueJasper23 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like advertising in its present form. If kept, should be a category or "List of" but maintaining such a list would be hard to verify, and of dubious encyclopedic value └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in this form the article is useless. JIP | Talk 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mike | Talk 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable, unverifiable, unrealistic (i.e. only volunteers ok, but following the 100% reasoning, serving coffee to those volunteers, or printing fund raising materials would already disqualify the organisation). Arnoutf 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list that seems impossible to populate with a ridiculously unsearchable title. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even make sense. The example used, Smile Train, says in the article that the charity board of directors pays for admin. So some percentage of financial contributions to Smile Train does go to admin. Bwithh 19:52, 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!

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]

  • Delete and merge any relevant info into ABS-CBN. TJ Spyke 03:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable service. Existence and genuineness (is that even a word?) are insufficient to prove notability, which is what is important for Wikipedia. --Charlene 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing special about service. --Polaron | Talk 02:07, 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. Dakota 04:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pruyne

  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]

  • Delete - A quick Google search reveals no evidence that the book is notable [17], nor the author himself [18], so no evidence that this article meets any notability standards. Fails WP:V, at least. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Your Google search spells the book title wrong. The actual title gets 27 hits; the shortened title ("Sports Nicknames") combined with the author's surname gets 196. It also doesn't fail WP:V, because it has an Amazon page with lots of info. --Masamage 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, hmm, that's what I get for quickly copy-pasting from the article. My mistake. Still seems to fail notability guidelines though. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My father was given this book as a gift, and we have it in the library of the school where I teach. Someone may want to look him up if they come across the book, so I'd leave it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.207.141 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 21 hits for the name? 196 with the book? Clearly non-notable. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The book is not even close to meeting WP:BK. Also, this is a blatant copyvio of the Amazon review, actually so blatant that the copyright was copied along with the rest! Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Also, everything but the first paragraph is a copyvio - copied directly from the amazon.com website. The Booklist review is clearly copyrighted (c) the American Library Association.[19] --Charlene 04:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the copyvio text and added some references. What tipped the scale for me was the Booklist review's summary: "This is a specialized but comprehensive reference source for all libraries that can afford it." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only assertion of notability I see is "authority on sports nicknames" - cool thing to be, but not so much an encyclopaedic one. GassyGuy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable; only book scores Amazon sales rank 1,750,000; not very notable either Arnoutf 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terry Pruyne also contributed research for the Hyperion book, The Gospel According to ESPN: Saints, Saviors & Sinners, edited by Jay Lovinger. Check this link to Mansfield Universtiy where he taught English.

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 His work is specialized but noteworthy. The article needs some expansion to feature its worth. Stormbay 00:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)
    • The argument, as stated several times above, is that WP:N makes it less worthy. 'Randomness' definitely isn't the issue. --Masamage 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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

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

  • Delete. There's no verification and even if there were this would be stunningly trivial. -- Hoary 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, its wrestlecruft alright. Delete Edeans 10:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wrestlecruft. AgentPeppermint 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I added the article I did it with intent of including Dotson who did work for the company in a security position he wasn't a full-time wrestler. Info Fan October 27, 2006.
  • Delete per nom. Radagast83 22:36, 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 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KUNG-FUzion

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

  • Delete Self made YouTube videos and a Myspace page does not establish notability. Until notability for artists is met I say delete.--Jersey Devil 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The only words I can come up is, L O L. YouTube fame does not meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Apparently the article was recently blanked by Kungfuzion. Peter O. (Talk) 08:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone should also include Dazed and KUNG-FUzed in this AfD ... that's User:Kungfuzion's other contribution. (And isn't "deleted by author" one of those "Speedy Delete" categories?) —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G7 author-blanked. Anti-Vandal Bot should probably be more careful about pages tagged for deletion. --N Shar 16:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per N Shar. Danny Lilithborne 00:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also fallows criteria for {{db-bio}} it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. --Ted87 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we do not need this one as above Yuckfoo 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant conflict of interest, and lack of reliable sources. Ohconfucius 02:49, 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 Merge & redirect to Jake Brahm. --MCB 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mess With Football

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

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

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]

  • Delete per nom. To make matters worse, it's written in the first person which brings up copyvio and spam concerns. MER-C 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do I get another vote? I'm not actually the nominator. --Brianyoumans 06:24, 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]
  • Delete └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. Various parts are copyvio from the references. --N Shar 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This article has point of view problems. It should be rewritten by someone who is not a member of the church. --F3meyer 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to notability and possible copyright issues --NMChico24 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Crabapplecove 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons above... It's actually written in 1st person, I think this is the first time I've encountered that. It's ad advertisement/essay likely lifted straight from the churche's materials. --The Way 07:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No use of independent sourcing to claim notability. I looked at it while prod was live and decided that leaving the tag untouched was the right thing to do. GRBerry 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn church, parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 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.

Ex-Lion Tamer

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

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?

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

  • Merge anything that can be verified to Tere Bin. Delete the resulting redirect. MER-C 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete redirect per MER-C └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason for this separate article to exist outside the single. Content has been moved and cleaned up. I just hope that I correctly got the meaning, as the English was ambiguous. Ohconfucius 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable information into Tere Bin as previously stated. Radagast83 22:38, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan 176°

No information was given at all as to why this particular vodka is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 22 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - to Vodka. Although the alcoholic content makes this brand unique, an entry on the main vodka page will be more seen than an independent entry. -bobby 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - to Vodka.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Vodka is far too busy on it's own; notable for unusual alcohol content. Unfocused 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 02:08, 6 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 okay, that's better. Notability properly asserted, article expanded - it's now a keep. DS 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Calero

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]
  • Keep. However, the article needs to be dramatically expanded to reflect the assertions of the author. --N Shar 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean the notice can be removed? And can this article be locked from being deleted for the time being, or can someone tomorrow decide to start the process all over again? Thank you. Ughmonster 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notice stays up for a week, so that people can bring up any new information. (It doesn't seem likely that new information will make it more likely to be deleted, but it could turn out that Calero is someone's pen name or a hoax or something. Not likely, but possible.) In the meantime, we're going to add the information needed to keep it from being deleted speedily (that is, without a discussion). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion will go on for up to 5 days. Once consensus is reached, the article will either be deleted, or the notice will be removed automatically by an administrator. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --NMChico24 05:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Where can I can to learn about adding things like pictures? Ughmonster 05:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He seems notable to me. Google, for instance, turns up all kinds of info on him. Stephen Day 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article cannot be appropriately rewriten after three tries, it is time to give it a rest. You may be quite right that Dennis Calero will become notable any month now. Wait a year or so, and then write an article that clearly states his notability (for all, or at least most, to see). For now, give it a rest. Bejnar 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Benjar, simply because the previous iterations of this article may have been prematurely deleted and the original authors didn't care to contest it, doesn't in and of itself, speak to THIS articles deletion. Dennis Calero has done more work and mroe significant work, award nomiated work, than many of the other comic artists listed currently in wiki. In fact, the fact that three seperate people (or at the very least two) have tried to put up articles concerning this artist should SPEAK to notability, not against it. Ughmonster 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable artist working on notable books, and the Harvey Award is a pretty big deal within the industry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 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]
  • Delete, notability 4.18GB 12:33, 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]
  • Keep, Encyclopedia's have short entries. Not everyone needs to be Todd McFarlane to merit an entry. --Mild Mannered 18:18, 23 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 please seems notable and defintely not qualified for speedy erasure Yuckfoo 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: the artist has emailed me, very nice, that he would prefer not to provide me with copyrighted images to put on wikipedia. Can I grab shots from websites if they are meant to be promotional (like his Star Trek poster?) --Ughmonster 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in the comic book world. The article needs work, though. --Marriedtofilm 04:29, 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

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

  • Delete as per nom. Everyone's A Wally doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Starblind's references of notability. Thanks for the research! We should probably put these into the actual article. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see nothing wrong in this article. JIP | Talk 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - WP:SOFTWARE is not a guideline, merely an in-progress proposal subject to change without notice. Most of the cases where I see it raised, there's also obvious conflict of interest or spam issues, but in this case, we're talking about a historical program for defunct machines, so that's clearly not the case. I think the early days of personal computing are underdocumented (especially on-line, so ghits is not a reliable measure), and of great historical interest, so, while I would prefer to see more assertions of notability and verifiability, I think it would be reasonable to merely mark this as a stub for now. Xtifr tälk 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mike | Talk 12:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep Very notable game, successful (there were three more sequels!) and widely-reviewed in its day. It was also technologically innovative, as the article notes. There are at least two different current attempts to remake Everyone's A Wally on current systems! For what it's worth, it easily passes WP:SOFTWARE, as it was reviewed in all the relevant magazines of the day, and I still see it now and then in mags like Retro Gamer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone needs further prrof that this passes WP:SOFTWARE, it took me all of maybe 5 minutes to find multiple published reviews of it. Here is one from Zzap!64 magazine. Here's a quote: "...the first arcade adventure to feature multi-character control." And here is one from CRASH (magazine) who call it "...probably the most awaited game of the moment...". And here is an interview with the creators from Sinclair User magazine, which states tht not only did Wally top the sales charts, but "It surpassed our initial projections faster than any other program". There was even a Mike Berry song about it! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 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 speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. GRBerry 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You See The Trouble With Me

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]
  • Keep - stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't "being a hit in the UK" (specifically, being #1 in the UK, as well as #25 in Australia) a good way of being notable per WP:MUSIC/SONG? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 22 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]
  • Comment. Verified it being at least somewhat regonized [20]. That being said, most of the songs on that album don't have their own article, but their artists might. I'd vote to merge and redirect to Black Legend, but there's no such article at the moment. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1 in the UK is good enough for me. Resolute 06:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia, even the English language Wikipedia, has gone to great lengths to avoid having a US centric world view. Notable in the UK = Notable. - Richfife 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides the Black Legend version (#1 in 2000), it was also a UK hit for Barry White (that's the sample to which the article refers, #2 in 1976) ... both of those versions make it pretty darn notable. Article needs to be expanded and moved to comply with proper capitalization standards, though. GassyGuy 07:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but appreciating the amusing absurdity of the logic: "Except for [insert major claim to fame here], subject is entirely non-notable." Everyking 07:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for being a big planet with humans and lemurs and stuff, Earth is not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Settle down, guys. - Richfife 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable UK=notable Arnoutf 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF Strong Keep #1 hit UK single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep otherwise we'd have to start deleting some beatles songs M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep charting #1 in the UK, being a band's biggest hit, making charts across Europe and Australia, yeah, that certainly counts as notable.-- danntm T C 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • absolute incredibly ridiculously strong Keep. What next? Beside being a hit in the US this song is NN? I dont THINK so. Jcuk 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because purple monkey dishwasher. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rescinded All right, I see the error of my ways. I'll rescind my nomination. GinaDana 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep besides being notable this is notable the argument makes no sense at all for erasing Yuckfoo 02:08, 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. Dakota 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Simon

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]

  • Delete I'm sure his glass sculptures are nice, but he doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 05:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Edeans 10:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. QuiteUnusual 13:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — not notable; WP:VAIN. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per blatant conflict of interest. Not certain he's all that notable either. I get 148 unique Ghits for "Aaron Simon" + glass. Most are for other Aaron Simons (writer, footballer), then there are a few links for the sale of his works, and the inevitable bunch of blogs and geneology sites (none of which relevant BTW). Ohconfucius 03:39, 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, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Lamenessing Engine

It seems to not meet any of the criteria under WP:SOFTWARE. GinaDana 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though WP:SOFTWARE is a still-evolving proposal, not a guideline, and should not be treated as an actual guideline yet, this article fails any reasonable test of WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. see below Xtifr tälk 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is still quite new (far from complete). Subject is GPL software used in many Linux and FreeBSD distros. Not clear how it should be categorized. Could be as Software Application or as Software Component, as it is both a stand-alone command-line tool and a compiled-in part of ImageMagick

  • Keep Neutral (see below), I didn't recognize the package because I've never seen its name spelled out before! As ALE, however, I'm quite familiar with it. It is indeed a standard component of a wide variety of systems, and as such, fully meets at least one WP:SOFTWARE criterion. Xtifr tälk 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps relist this to get a more in-depth discussion about the article's notability now that a more common name for it has been established? GinaDana 08:46, 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, Titoxd(?!?) 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a reference can be found to backup the Linux/FreeBSD claim. --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote but some data points: I checked the status of "ale" in Debian. It exists there, but in an old version that has not been updated in 2 years. No popular outrcy at this has materialized, save for a single polite nudge from a single user [21]. The Debian "popularity contest" statistics, based on about 18,000 users who vonlunteer automatic information about their installed packages, estimates that the "ale" package is used regularly on 30 of the 18,000 systems. There are about 5,700 packages in Debian that have higher estimates. Among packages with with similar scores we find nn, slashem and sendmail. (For comparison, a small program which I hacked together 9 months ago to scratch a personal itch and never advertized widely, certainly not notable, ranks at 8,400 with an estimated 12 regular users). The Imagemagick packages in Debian show no traces of including "ale" as a compiled-in part. Henning Makholm 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ah well, in light of that, I've changed my vote (again) to neutral. It has been around for a long time, but I haven't used it in years, and it sounds like nobody much else is using it any more either. It might be worthy of an article for its historical interest, but I can't offer any references or sources, which is really what would be needed to justify saving it. I know I read an article about it once, but that was long ago, and I can't say where. Xtifr tälk 09:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well, many ALE users (including myself) compile it from source to get CPU-specific optimizations, so popcon isn't particularly useful. popcon is especially useless since the package is that far out of date. ALE is still useful, and I know a few people who use it regularly (including myself) -- it just seems that nobody writes about it when they do. 21:28, 2 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Resisters' International/Links

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. Am I correct in saying that main space articles shouldn't have "/" sub-articles? If so, does anyone have a link to that policy? --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:01, 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]
  • A couple of policies/guidelines are relevant. First, to answer BradBeattie's question, the relevant guidleine for subpages is at WP:SUBPAGE, which states in part, "Do not use subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository of weblinks or indiscriminate information. Thus, I must recommend Delete.-- danntm T C 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Last sentence rewritten for grammar.-- danntm T C 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a link respository or web directory. -- Whpq 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per danntm. Thanks for the policy info. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:54, 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 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Task Force on Palestine

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]

  • Delete as per nom. Also note that article is over 2 years old. Edeans 10:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and amazed that this wasn't identified before now :). Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 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 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

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

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]

  • Delete, verging on Crystal Ball. Doesn't follow the same format of all other years, apparently because there is no information to fill the subheadings that all other notable years do. Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering that many future years have their own page at the moment (2132, 2207, ..., 2301) it would seem odd to have an empty hole at 2099. However, WP:WINI states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and doesn't require an article about any future year with speculation as to what may or may not occur in that year. It just seems there's a bit of a precident to keep those dates at least within the next hundred years. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment. I just noticed that the year articles start dropping off in consistency around the 2300s. If 2099 ends up getting deleted, we'll need to take a look at pretty much all the years there-after. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguate as per User:IslaySolomon. Sorry, I did look at the pages, but didn't notice that they were redirects. Oh, the shame. :( --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Er... 2132, 2207, ..., 2301 don't have pages of their own, they're all redirected to their respective century or decade, perhaps you should have looked at them before putting them in your comment. The last year to have a page of its own is 2065, as I said before. Philip Stevens 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brad. - Mike | Talk 12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Merge and redirect to 2090s. - Mike | Talk 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect it's too early to have a separate article for this year.-- danntm T C 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because 2099 may be searched for by people looking for the Marvel Comics series, and I'm not sure a straight redirect is a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with links to the decade 2090s and the comic book series Marvel 2099. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2090s. A merge shouldn't require an AfD. — RJH (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra delete merge and redirect Two of the so-called "events" the article cites are not events, but rather fictional comedies/comics. --WaltCip 13:18, 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 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and North Korea - a new threat to the world

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.

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]
  • Keep WP:MUSIC states that individual albums by a notable artist are notable. Category:Upcoming albums seems to show that articles about upcoming albums, if they are from notable artists, merit inclusion. --Daniel Olsen 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Daniel Olsen. WP:MUSIC says Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the band that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't specifically refer to upcoming albums, but there's a strong precident set by Category:Upcoming albums. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I agree with both of the above statements, neither is applicable when the speculation isn't reliably sourced. GassyGuy 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yeah, I see your point on that. If we could get some sourcing for this article (verify the content somehow), keeping the article would be good. Otherwise, I'll change my vote to delete. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GassyGuy. I've tried to track down a source or two for the speculation, but there's not much out there that I can find. Thus, it becomes unverifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipediarules2221 01:15, 23 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

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

  • Speedy delete, that would be I - zero google results and judging by the opening alone it is either non-notable, nonsense or falls under made up in school one day. ––Lid(Talk) 06:43, 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

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

  • Delete smells like a big hoax. A google search for "Sam McDonald" tallest brings up nothing. --Daniel Olsen 07:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, Sam McDonald appears to be an actual person. I haven't found anything about him exhibiting himself, but he appears to have been real, and fairly notable in his time - see, for instance this link at the National Portrait Gallery. --Brianyoumans 08:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 6'10" in those days very remarkable, but not in itself worthy of Wikipedia entry. BUT, height plus National Portrait Gallery pictures plus royal connections does it for me. Emeraude 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep sorta notable - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable enough. --Alex (Talk) 12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emeraude M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the {{hoax}} tagger, boy is my face red. But I have to go with neutral for now, as I'm not convinced that he's featured in multiple non-trivial reliable sources. I don't know whether the clandonald.org source provided by Brianyoumans is reliable, and I can't decide whether the source I just found and added to the article is non-trivial. Pan Dan 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the BBC text is based on the other sources, from the content. The etching of "Big Sam" is different from the one in the NPG, perhaps that one is the Kay etching that was used on the recruiting poster, mentioned in the Clan newsletter article? There must be more sources on him, probably off-line. --Brianyoumans 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, here is a better view of the Kay etching from the BBC link. It also gives a tiny bit more info, mostly that there are 3 Kay etchings of Sam McDonald. --Brianyoumans 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish people wouldn't nominate saying "unverifiable" when what they actually seem to mean is "I haven't heard of him so he can't be notable". He seems to have been notable enough to have been mentioned in several sources. -- Necrothesp 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem here was that "Sam McDonald" was a very common name, and much of the info in the article was not verifiable (or at least I have not been able to verify it.) What worked for me initially was searching on the name and the dates, which were correct as it turned out. --Brianyoumans 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this one is notbale and not really a hoax Yuckfoo 02:05, 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. DS 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vespene gas

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]

  • Merge to Starcraft articles, but with a strong trimming. FrozenPurpleCube 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge & redirect to Gameplay of Starcraft). I must say I don't feel very strongly about this, but if this is deleted then probably all the other StarCraft related articles should be deleted. I play the game and I don't know what Talematros is (well, I just read the article, so now I do). It seems that the StarCraft universe is considered to be notable enough for some articles. I would say that the most notable things in that universe are Terran, Protoss, Zerg, minerals, and Vespene gas, and these deserve to be kept. I'm not sure if this is true for Talematros or Psionic technology or the Umojan Protectorate, but with those articles still uncontested I think we should keep this one. --N Shar 17:08, 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]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Once you cut away the speculation (where in StarCraft does it talk about having to store it as a liquid?) and in universe story all that's left is a few details already covered by StarCraft. Mitaphane talk 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't even game guide material, it's just an article about something that's nothing more than a game device. What's next, an article on gold and wood in warcraft? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete StarCruft.--Húsönd 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't think you can delete this without contesting articles such as Umojan Protectorate, as N Shar said. If that, even less informational article is there, this has to stay also by default.
    • Comment: AFD is handled by arguging why the article in question does, or does not, violate wikipedia policy. Arguing for defense of an article based on the existence of similar articles doesn't say much about why it should, or should not, stay according to wikipedia policy. In this case, just because Umojan Protectorate has not been put up for deletion doesn't say much about why this article doesn't violate WP:NOT.—Mitaphane talk 22:59, 23 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. This gas is just an arbitrary fictional resource type to increase the depth of resource gathering. It's no more or less notable than spice or tiberium or mithril or any of the other fictional resources used in RTSes for the exact same purpose. GarrettTalk 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Starcraft if applicable, Derktar 04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Starcraft, if there's anything salvageable after the original research and speculation is removed. --Alan Au 09:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally pointless article. Keeping this sets a bad precedent for articles on a single games resources. The Starcraft article already covers this to an acceptable standard. The Kinslayer 11:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And then some. The Kinslayer is right about the precedent issue -- it's already taking shape up at the top of this discussion. This article is little more than fan spectualtion, plot regurgitation, and guide-material from the manual, three things that Wikipedia is not. Do any of us honestly want to see Wood (WarCraft) or Munny (KingdomHearts)? Consequentially 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kinslayer Chevinki 11:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebong

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

  • Delete Non-notable parody (you can see it at Google Videos). Edeans 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is an internet parody. No assertion of significance here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - funny series? Yes. Notable for Wikipedia? Probably not. --tgheretford (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to Spongebob Squarepants, where it's already listed under "parodies." It's notable enough to be listed, but not notable enough to have its own separate article. --Elonka 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite clean-up and keep. I cleaned up the article a lot and it is a very popular, viable parody. 67.83.14.49 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: This comment was made by user:marikun not logged in.) The preceding comment was added by 67.83.14.49 (talk · contribs) at 20:01 on October 25, 2006. This is a possible single purpose account.[reply]
    • In order to verify popularity, the article needs to include references which prove the subject's notability. Has it been written up in any magazines or newspaper articles? Right now it has nothing. Please review the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Elonka 07:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Plate Scare

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

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

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" [22]). 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 [23]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-22 07:46Z

  • Delete as unverifiable. There'd be a question of notability even if verifiability were proven, I feel. Strange use of "ethnic group" in the article, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a hoax. Delete Edeans 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if real, this seems to be an article about an only marginally-notable group. The article also seems to be a magnet for vandalism. Unless some other verifiable sources can be provided which prove the subject's notability, I agree that we should just delete the article and move on. --Elonka 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In checking other articles that link to Albanian Boys Incorporated, there seem to be other unreferenced articles in the same vein, such as Alex Rudaj and Ljusa Nuculovic. I'm not sure if they shed any light on whether or not ABI is a hoax, but I thought I would bring them up. I am also tagging some as {{originalresearch}}, as they may also be eventually worth nominating for deletion, themselves. --Elonka 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of Googlable info on those is also very suspicious, however I just found [24]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-27 03:31Z
  • Delete. Incomprehensible. (Founding an ethnic group?) Pcu123456789 21:08, 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 tedious delete. DS 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osism

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]

  • Delete Looks fake, smells fake, probably is fake. Only online ref I could find is here Raffles mk 08:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gooda have ordered that this unfunny practical joke be expunged. Delete Edeans 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all in favor of founding new religions—I've founded several—but I don't try to list them on Wikipedia. (Although I think Javacrucianism could do well if I really pushed it.)  :) Xtifr tälk 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the record, I did not delete the speedy tag when I added the prod tag, though I'm not 100% sure why I added the prod when it was already tagged speedy... Must have been a little sleep-deprived when that happened. --JaimeLesMaths (talk|edits) 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this article was obviously written by a heretic, who gets Osism wrong in important respects. I know, because I'm the high walla-balla of true, orthodox Osism. Pending my preparation of a valid article on the subject (which will take some time), wikipedia should remain silent. --Christofurio 14:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's funny. it's not heretic in any way. it's not presenting any false information. KEEP IT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.219.224 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 October 2006
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bollocks made up in school one day . -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack against "Alyssa", who clearly is a real person that the creator of the article villifies. Otherwise just delete as ridiculous hoax and thing made up in school one day. --N Shar 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupid religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Author removed AfD notice from the page. Replaced. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack. I've tagged it as such. -- Scientizzle 22:28, 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. -- Steel 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmigaOne

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

  • Added references: commerical magazine articles (Micro Mart) --Svenof9 11:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very important concept in the Amiga fandom, and was covered everywhere in the Amiga media when it was first announced. JIP | Talk 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added some more references to prove the existance of the AmigaOne line, which are still the only pure PPC-based Amiga line ever produced. 80.176.86.110 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of 3rd party references, seems notable to me. Also note it would not be good to merge to Amiga, as that article is 32k, on the verge of the suggested max article size, so we are trying to trim sections out into sub-articles. Mdwh 14:11, 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:

[25]

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 - Notable series of mainboards. — A.M. 06:46, 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

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 [26]. 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 [27] Thestick 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Till I brought it to their attention??!! Chesdovi 16:54, 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
  • This is actually a fact, it’s human nature – but your entitled to your view Chesdovi 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
  • Rawze-e-Sharif, Afghanistan: The link may be dead –(did you also have a hand it that?) but the information is there and recorded for eternity! Chesdovi 13:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Issue is needy of cleanup, but is nonetheless pertinent and has potential. 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. Improve through edits, but keep this interesting article. Elizmr 12:59, 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. [28] 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

  • So let Al Aqsa be called the third site of pilgrimage, why insist on “holiest” when the word doesn’t even appear in the hadith? Chesdovi 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 --> [29] 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! [30] 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.[31]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]
  • Keep informative, i have not been convinced of its lack of merit for inclusion. --Striver 15:28, 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 [32] 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 [33] 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. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] 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 [41]. 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 [42] 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)

  • Keep content dispute is not a good reason for deletion. Beit Or 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[43]]) 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). [44] 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]
  • Keep The reasons stated for deletion are unconvincing. This seems like an attempt to use AfD to resolve a content dispute. Isarig 04:47, 27 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 [45]! I think the purpose this article is badly written for POV purposes is really evident from this [46], and this [47] 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.[48]. 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]
  • Keep per Chesdovi Avi 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dear Beit Or, I will counter your opposition by a strong opposition for your attempts to Jewdisizing Wikipedia by including biased sites that explains Islamic issues about Islamic sites from an un-neutral point of view.Aboosh 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stongly Delete Third holiest site in Islam is the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Siddiqui 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your own POV... Chesdovi 14:48, 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 [49] Time Magazine[50] Al Jazeerah[51] Al Jazeerah[52] Gulf Times [53] The Hindu [54]Middle East times [55]
Moment Magazine [56] BBC [57] BBC [58] FOX News [59] Times of Oman [60] IslamOnline [61] Yahoo News [62] SpiritHit News [63]
CNS News [64] CBC Canada [65] IslamicNews.org [66] ABC News [67] Lycos News[68] Presence TV [69]
Ma'an News agency [70] Sudanese Times [71] Middle East Times [72] Jerusalem Times [73] CBS4Boston [74] IOL [75] LA Times [76] Associated Press[77] MSNBC [78]
Federal News Radio [79] Global Security [80] International Herald Tribune [81] WorldNet Daily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34776] Boston Globe [82] News24 [83]
Realtime News :[84] CBS 5 [85] The Guardian UK [86]
Public Broadcasting Service [87] Public Broadcasting Service [88] MSNBC [89] Townhall [90]
Some research journals :
[91] [92] [93] - 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 [94] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [95] 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 [96] 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 [97] and that al-Aqsa Mosque was ordered to be managed by Jews [98] 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 [99]? 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[[100]]. 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 [101] after this info was used by Amoruso on September 7th [102]. ?!?! 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 [103].

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]
  • It's not just the media, it's also obvious from Islamic doctrine that the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site. thestick 23:46, 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 [104] and this [105]. 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 [106]. 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 [107], on images [108] [109] [110] and used sock puppets [111]. 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 [112]. 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]
  • Sorry, (I was feeling sleepy) but let's not deviate of the topic Chesdovi 13:25, 29 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]
  • Comment I beleive Aboosh has voted twice: 26 October 2006 and 29 October 2006 Chesdovi 12:54, 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 or reorganize into a "List of Islamic holy sites", possibly with information about the "rank" - all information about the actual sites should be contained in the respective articles. Str1977 (smile back) 17:22, 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 [113] 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[114], 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]
  • STRONG DELETE per nom a whole lot of Muslim POV. Thamizhan 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 12:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there is confusion here between notability and verifiability. The fact that claims about the topic can be made using source material, good or bad, is separate from the issue of notability assertion. Sourced statements can be made about the copic of the article, but the topic itself seems to be unencyclopedic. Dekimasu 15:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dome - Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building

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)

    • Do tell me who this editor is and how I may contact them to defend myself. -- RHaworth 09:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    • There doesn't appear to be any. And notice that this article is the result of the removal of this text by editors from Royal Exhibition Building. Uncle G 13:34, 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

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[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. utcursch | talk 09:00, 22 October 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). 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]
  • Keep - Rajput is a martial caste. Nearly all of these people are in the government or the army. Its either a harmless list or caste based categories (which sadly to say have already been created).Bakaman Bakatalk 16:32, 22 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]
  • Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:14, 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. This is a case for cleanup, not deletion. --Ezeu 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Jats

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[116]. 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]

  • 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). 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[117]. 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]
  • Good Keep, I am afraid I don't agree with utcursch subjective opinion (sorry :-)) but the list a good keep.--Pethj 11:56, 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 article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Keep I don't see anything really wrong with the article. I think all it needs is abit of a cleanup. The points raised against it are POV at best, its a solid article, the alteration by Ohconfucius only makes it more solid. James smith2 01:11, 27 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)
  • Keep Please clean up and add referencesRaveenS 19:09, 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. 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

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[118].

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]
  • (1)(Just like Devan Nair (the former President of Singapore) is Singaporean. That doesn't mean they (Mira Nair and Devan Nair) are both not Nairs)Justice4us 22:17, 29 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]
  • Delete No way to verify the list. Almost 500-600 people are there on the list and most have red links on them. I would rather prefer this was categorized as Category:Nair peole or anything like that. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Strong Keep So a Jew wants to delete our page. Impossible. Don't underestimate Nairs. Delete List of Famous Jews first. Dakshayani 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Note: The user has a total of 3 edits.[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]
  • To Dakshayani: Please see WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). By the way I'm not a Jew. utcursch | talk 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC[reply]
  • what is racial is asserting (on a space provided to create an encyclopedia) the right for a state to exist on the basis of religion on illegally occupied lands.Dakshayani 07:01, 30 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]
  • Comment List of English people or any other nationality or religion related lists are quite easy to verify. Most people stay in their own mother countries, or were born there, or talk about it all the time. Eg:Scientologists. But verifying Nairs will be a nightmare, since most people don't talk about their castes at all. Delete by Wiki Verifiability--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 03:14, 24 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]

  • The existence of one article doesn't always mean that similar articles should exist. See WP:INN(This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.Ivygohnair 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)). utcursch | talk 03:06, 23 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 [119] 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]
  • I vote for Keep because I don't think the "Nairs" should be singled out for deletion while other "lists" remain.Ivygohnair 06:26, 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]
  • Keep but only on one condition: Clean Up the page! This can be done in a jiffy by just deleting all people with red links!Chandrannair 06:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and add references. Thanks RaveenS 19:07, 31 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

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[121]. 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]

  • Comment I am not able to understand why this is not verifiable.  Doctor Bruno  13:52, 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]
  • Comment article now renamed, "famous" has been dropped per wiki naming convention Ohconfucius 06:16, 26 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

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 [122], 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)

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]

  • Delete no assertion of significance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exists westinghouse high school pittsburgh&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off (somewhere down the page) and has an interesting structure per WP:SCHOOL M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the article was a stub, but a little fiddling (after some minor research) has improved the article to address the concerns of the nominator and our ex-Soviet delete voter above and beyond the basic WP:SCHOOL criteria for retention. The school has several notable alumni, which together with the school's programs and curriculum confer explicit notability. The school is almost universally referred to as "Westinghouse High School" (without the "George") which would help in Google searches. SuperDT, please contact me and I will be more than happy to help you create articles for all of the high schools in your city, as appropriate. The more people working together to create new articles and improve existing school articles, the fewer of these AfDs we will have to contend with. I'd have to see that with these improvements, the article may be almost as wikiworthy as Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two and List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies. Please revisit the article and reconsider your votes. Alansohn 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alansohn has improved the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I don't think I can change my vote, since I nominated the article, I would change it to Keep. I guess I still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia... SuperDT 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is my preference. It meets my personal criteria for High School notability. — RJH (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not per WP:SCHOOL which has no consensus or such but per having many notable alumni. JoshuaZ 18:04, 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

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

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]

  • Delete WP:NFT QuiteUnusual 13:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Edeans 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.Edison 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT zephyr2k 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What happens when you don't touch the 30-yard base wicket with the flag? Oh sorry, wrong nonsense sport. Caknuck 00:04, 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 Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable movie screen

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]

  • Keep. A useful article. Just cleanup the spam. - Mike | Talk 12:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM. Doesn't look notable if cleaned up. QuiteUnusual 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete spam, and expand if possible Arnoutf 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above--MonkBirdDuke 09:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but shouldn't the copyright notices on the images be removed if they have licensing for Wikipedia? Article could use some explanation of safety in high wind gusts.Edison 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment obviously the article needs wikification, but how would a merge to Projection screen sit with folks? I certainly think that content should be referenced there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narutofang

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]
  • Speedy, still A7. --N Shar 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Article doesn't assert any importance. It was created this year, so it couldn't even hope to pass WP:WEB. And lastly it's WP:SPAM; the article was created with summary "(this is the ultimate naruto site)" Mitaphane talk 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB for notability and is spam. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NeoChaosX. Danny Lilithborne 00:14, 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 - 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

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]

  • Delete as per nom. Edeans 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; nothing here which demonstrates notability per WP:BIO, namedropping appears to be aiming for notability-by-association, but that won't do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:30, 23 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

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]

  • Apologies, I didn't mean to delete your post. I only edited it because we were talking about it on MB. on the other hand, I think it deserves to stay in a sense because it is one of the biggest Music forums currently in use, and I have added a link to it on the page. Pehaps there is a better section for it? I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not familiar with it's workings, but MB is definitely not a "totally non-notable site" --Morndas 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per CSD A7. Claims of being notable seem to be the argument "we are" rather than any actual sources. –– Lid(Talk) 13:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't completely delete it. If anything make it a broader topic such as music forums and anything with atleast 100,000 posts in the music part of the forums is considered note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.251.111 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete per Lid. Leuko 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, do we really need an article for every nameless website on this internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.122.182 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, unsourced, etc. Another article on a forum with a listing of moderators and former moderators. At least this one didn't give us a rundown on every banned member. ergot 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ergot. --Metropolitan90 07:20, 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 Redirect. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it real

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Businessbib

Blatant product promotion. Author rmvd my prod tag. Two sentences in NYT could be devoted to any kind of oddball product. Remember Sea Monkey ads? This is similar, but far more expensive. Also see Photoshopped picture in history of this "article." Ling.Nut 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for offending the rules of Wikipedia, but I have nothing to do with the company that creates the product and do not intend on advertising it.Head-doctor 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the article now passes the requirement for multiple nontrivial mentions, since a trivial mention is defined as something like a directory listing, and the New York Times article has a byline. Youtube is normally not a reliable source, but in this context it's evidence that something was mentioned on national television in the United States. I commented out the Channel 4 reference, but it can be restored if a more precise citation can be added. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictdef. Edeans 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a type of clothing. Uncle G 10:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "article of clothing" will cease to exist in four months. Why burden Wikipedia with adcruft? --Ling.Nut 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many things have ceased production but Wikipedia is burdend with their slaverish stories. Head-doctor 19:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Corporate vanity policy enforcement:shoot on sight" doesn't mean that we are supposed to delete articles about demonstrably notable topics. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:38, 3 November 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, Ezeu 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand the sea-monkey analogy. Sea-monkey is a very notable article. This is not. If it becomes even a little popular then, of course, add it.
  • Strong Delete - something some people made up. Get it out of here unless they add substantially more content. Chris Kreider 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, very few sources and seems to read like a hoax. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:47, 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. —Cryptic 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southview Camping

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

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]

  • This sentence has been in the article from the beginning: "Given his Spanish crew pronounced “j” as an “f”, Mutajucher preferred the nickname of Cap’n Brownhand." Hoax. Delete. Skarioffszky 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brought up almost entirely on sauerkraut, and the constant gas from it was a great motivator in his life? Obviously a hoax, but could also be speedied under db-bio. wikipediatrix 16:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:SNOW. This is obviously a hoax. As long as we're all citing evidence for this, there are no tradewinds at the horse latitudes. --N Shar 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy He was able to guide his massive ship to the Americas with speeds of up to 40 knots Uh huh. Musta been some strong trade winds in them there horse latitudes. Tubezone 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yar, delete! At least this hoax made me smile. Caknuck 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this one please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks hoaxy. --Marriedtofilm 23:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerCinema

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]

  • Delete per nom 19100 Ghits do not seems notable yet.--Jusjih 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edeans 22:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFlix

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]

  • Delete for same reasons as RussArt, and very poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Edeans 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 15:03, 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 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

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]

  • Comment: Would this be a copyvio? It was an open letter, so obviously the writters want to get it distributed, but it was also published. —Mitaphane talk 17:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By its very nature this must always fail WP:NPOV. It is also totally non notable. QuiteUnusual 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outside of some proported notable signatories, no indication of notably in article. Edeans 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this should be retained. The authors are notable, as is the controversy over the Jyllands-Postens cartoons and the reaction in the Muslim world. dougjnn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

  • Delete: Appears to be a hoax unverifiable. Prod tag was added and removed but re-added - which is a no-no. Last prod comment was Appears to be a neologism. Not a single use found in Google. Asked original editor where the word came from, no response yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the original prod-ing editor. Not sure why I proded it twice; I know that's not supposed to happen. Nevertheless, this is still a neologism. I don't think it's a hoax. STGM (talk • contribs) was the creating author, and has plenty of legit edits under his/her/its belt. eaolson 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only google hits [123] are for this article. At best this is a dictionary definition for a neologism. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. No evidence of use of this term outside Wikipedia itself. --Metropolitan90 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Google scholar hit, tried different spelling. Pavel Vozenilek 17:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated; unverifiable and very limited, if any, use. AuburnPilotTalk 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems rather neologistic to me. I'm also not terribly inclined to put all that much stock in an article whose first edit is marked with the edit summary "coinage". Bearcat 08:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22&oldid=83009360"