Knowledge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable neologism. The article is uncited; the talk page also mentions "the term is not in widespread use". Kimchi.sg 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism with no citation. -- Vary | Talk 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from being a neologism, the article almost qualifies as patent nonsense. Resolute 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — to P-Funk mythology. It's only nonsense because it's describing P Funk's fantastical lyrics, and has been around since the 70s, so its not a neologism. JChap2007 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge per JChap. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:26, 19 August 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 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just another generic blogtool. Despite its alleged popularity, it has no Alexa ranking. Fails WP:WEB. Crystallina 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Still in beta. Fails WP:WEB? SynergeticMaggot 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it has just come out of beta.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. I notice the author was careful to remove only the main text of the article in the blanking, which probably means he really wants it gone. Kimchi.sg 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fails, WP:BIO. No assertion of notability beyond designing a ceiling fan for Eliington. 35 G-hits. Deprodded by creator. Reads like a personal vanity web page, blog or advertisement and is a link farm. Not encyclopedia under WP:NOT. :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN entity. Dionyseus 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page -Elmer Clark 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom and above. Page blanked by author here, and reverted by me of course. SynergeticMaggot 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Given that the page creator is basically the only person to have edited the content of the article, wouldnt his blanking of the article qualify it for a speedy-G7? Resolute 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I have tagged for neutrality per discussion on talk page -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

the article is very POV and I don't consider it an argument for an encyclopedia (it's not an important fact); see more explanations in the talk page piero tasso 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The wall is real, it is controversial, and it deserves an article. If you feel that the article is currently POV, why not make it balanced instead of trying to delete it? Dionyseus 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • that's the matter, I don't think it deserves an article; it's presented like the new Berlin Wall, seems to be important and scandalous, but it's not so --piero tasso 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • An article by the Guardian Unlimited disagrees with you. Dionyseus 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Padua. Wall has received media attention from non-trival publications, so mention of the wall should be given. However, a full article is probably not needed. — NMChico24 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You actually mean reliable publications, yes? Uncle G 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In stating non-trivial publications, I was implying reliable as well, of course. — NMChico24 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I added a few references to the article, including the Guardian Unlimited article. There is a lot of coverage but unfortunately it is in foreign language media. If there is an article on the problems of immigrants in Europe on Knowledge, perhaps it could be merged there. To my thinking, Padua is an example of the problem but the issue is not Padua so it would be inappropriate to merge it with Padua. GBYork 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Knowledge:Reliable sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, we prefer English language sources, for the convenience of editors and readers (although at the same time we prefer originals to translations, in order to eliminate sources of error), but non-English language sources are definitely not excluded. Bear in mind that {{cite news}} has a language parameter. Uncle G 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - irrelevant comment above. Doesn't have to do with topic. STYoto 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep — Controversial topic covered by major daily newspapers JChap2007 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Padua article. Controversial or not, subject is not large enough to merit a separate article at this time. Lots of topics covered by newspapers do not merit articles. SteveHopson 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment BBC News has an article about the wall. TimesOnline has an article about the wall. Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the wall. Certainly there's enough information out there to expand the article, and certainly as time passes there will be more news about the wall. Dionyseus 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I added those references to the article. Now it has plenty of good references. GBYork 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - If I have enough time (it may take more than a month) I should write an article about Via Anelli (not only that wall), I've just to see if I find something really interesting. I'll write in Italian, of course, but then I'll ask someone to translate it for me :-) --piero tasso 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remark: I'm admin on de:, and we decided to keep this article (AfD discussion). Sarazyn • TALK • DE 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't understand German so I would like to userfy Via Anelli Wall for myself in case it gets deleted. Is that allowed? NLOleson 12:54, 24 August 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 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not notable Khatru2 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Please consider using proposed deletion instead of AfD as a first measure for articles like this. Kimchi.sg 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--PremKudva 09:26, 19 August 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

hoax or OR - I've never heard of this or its allegedly notable author, and Google produces nothing except mirrors JQ 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Dionyseus 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "notable economist Scott Baker" is not notable enough for a Knowledge article it would seem, and neither is his theory. No evidence of notability given. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. NN and possible WP:NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• All three editors above are missing the point. The notability of the author is wholly irrelevant. The relevant criteria are mentioned in the first three words of the nomination. The article cites no sources for this purported economic model, and, like John Quiggin, looking I can find no sources. This article is unverifiable. That is the policy per which we delete hoax theories. See WP:HOAX, which explains this. Delete. Uncle G 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:HOAX, some sort of pseudoeconomics nonsense. --Kinu /_c 20:53, 19 August 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 merge to Spider-Man villains - Bobet 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is about character who does not have a name and only appears in one context. Article should be deleted; merging would be redundant as this idea is central to the origin of Spider-Man Chris Griswold 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the character reappeared later, I think Amazing Spider-Man #200? And has a daughter, Jessica Carradine. I don't know if that's enough to make him worth a page, but he does have more than one appearance. -HKMARKS 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Hasn't he appeared in many other issues as well, in flashbacks? wikipediatrix 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes. But as I said, only in one context: The origin of Spider-Man. He is a detail in another character's story; he has not notability otherwise. Nor a name.--Chris Griswold 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into into Spider-Man. At most he should be a mention in the Spider-Man or Peter Parker articles since there is very little info on him and unlikely to be more in the future. TJ Spyke 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Spider-Man villains would probably be a better merge destination. Spider-Man is a pretty hefty article with a lot of ground to cover. -HKMARKS 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Spider-Man villains. This seriously does not require a separate article. Resolute 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, he reappeared in #200 (and cameos leading up to it) after he finally got out of prison. He finally died. His daughter Jessica Carradine later got to know Ben Reilly. And yet he was never named. Merge into Spider-Man villains. Doczilla 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Spider-Man villains per HKMARKS -Markeer 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. This info deserves to be available somewhere on Knowledge, even if it doens't deserve its own article. Zagalejo 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. We should not remove the info completly. --Edgelord 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, but please don't refer to him as the "Burglar" (capital "B"), that's just silly for a no-named character. BTW, I heard he was Joe Chill's cousin. -- Dyslexic agnostic 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can we call this consensus to merge? I think we can. -HKMARKS 06:17, 21 August 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 speedy delete CSD A1 - no context. Kimchi.sg 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

appears to be total nonsense and in any case is unverified Blood red sandman 01:44, 19 August 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 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unmaintainable list which violates WP:NOT. Jesus is a bit of a recurring theme. You might as well have a List of songs about love. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete List of songs about lists. --IslaySolomon 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt the list is complete even, its unmaintainable. Far too common. The list of songs about love analogy works pretty good too. Kevin_b_er 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Far too broad where the criteria are concerned, but anything narrower would end up as a list of religious songs, which would also be a massive list. BigHaz 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What's next, List of songs which refer to Buddha, List of songs which refer to eggplants, and List of songs which refer to gerbils? wikipediatrix 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintanable and potentially huge. KleenupKrew 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, oh boy is this unmaintainable. Gazpacho 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable. Every church hymn would have to be included in this list. --Ageo020 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per all of above. Wikipediatrix: You forgot to list Rudolf Hess as well. = P --  Netsnipe  05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--PremKudva 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too lengthy if it were to be accurate. Maybe if narrowed down, it could work. --E Asterion 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom. Doczilla 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu /_c 20:55, 19 August 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. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary duplication of the much further expanded Master's degree article. Please see related AFD discussions: Professional Bachelor's degree and Professional doctorate. As with both of these articles, there is little or nothing in this article to merge to Master's degree that isn't already covered there. — NMChico24 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Agent 86 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a professional degree is different. There are distinctions made in the academic world. As for the other Afd's the nominator mentioned: the Doctorate was deleted correctly and so was the bachelor's (all three delete votes). Nickieee 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not convinced that this is an encyclopaedic concept. Further, it is POV as to which degrees are included. BlueValour 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24

• Delete per precedent set by other two articles -Elmer Clark 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing here that is not seen in article Master's degree will381796 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listicrufts. List masquerading as an article, but subject matter already exists as indicated by nominator. Ohconfucius 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--PremKudva 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikispam -- a lot of the text is verbatim from the text at . At the very least, this article requires a substantial rewrite; while I can see how the topic might merit an article, as it stands, it's just an ad. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam unless someone can find reliable sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but COMPLETELY rewrite, including the external links It is a well-known product. "Trikke" gets 548,000 Google hits, the second of which is a link to TIME Magazine naming it one of the best inventions of 2002. In fact, I seem to recall that the accompanying image was the lead photo for the "Best Inventions" section of that issue. They're also sold by reputable businesses such as Amazon and Modell's. Most of the G-hits I saw related to the product, so the high # of hits (and that 722 of the first 1,000 results are unique) certainly indicate that, at the very least, these things are sold everywhere. -- Kicking222 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting concept, but these things aren't exactly crowding bikes or roller blades off the sidewalks at the present moment. — NMChico24 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It isn't just an ad anymore. Actually searched it here to get more info on just what these are.Sabar 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There aren't many of these about either, but they're notable enough for an article. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep something named invention of the year by Time is good enough for a keep. -- Whpq 14:10, 19 August 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 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No claims of notability have been provided in the page. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. It was tagged for speedy deletion (although that was invalid), and nominated, and deleted, via prod; some days later, the original author came back and contested the prod by recreating the page, so, I'm taking it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Softpedia is thataway. Kimchi.sg 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Igotnothintosay 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) What's wrong with the page???

  It fails WP:SOFTWARE like the nom said, Delete. Shinhan 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable software. plus copyright problems on using the name of NCIS on the software. --Ageo020 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Not noteable

Betacommand 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu /_c 20:56, 19 August 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 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article about future convention. Not notable. 1000 g-hits. Reads like an advertisement. :) Dlohcierekim

• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 02:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, crystal ball. — NMChico24 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Dennette 05:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? This is in no way, shape or form an encyclopedia article. I can't even begin to say just what it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Please also see related discussion: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Snowclone (2nd nomination) — NMChico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOLE completely sums up my views on this one. And yes, WP:HOLE is generally used for biographies, but the point is that I have no clue in hell what anything in this article is saying. -- Kicking222 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Dionyseus 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary list. Doesn't make much sense. — NMChico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense -Elmer Clark 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• It looked like nonsense at first to me also, but then I finally wrapped my head around it: it's a neologism to describe common phrases that often get variations made of them, like "Does the Pope (blank) in the woods?". However, by rendering the list in faux-algebraic format, and ordering the examples in chronological order throughout history, the author of the article makes it extremely and unnecessarily hard to read. Having said all that, I still say Delete. wikipediatrix 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Vast list of OR. Crufty danishes and melted gummy worms. SynergeticMaggot 03:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the best to Snowclone and delete the rest. The existance of this page didn't do much to help Snowclone's case I don't think. Irongargoyle 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete double you tea eff. See above. will381796 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - the examples of snowclone in the list are neither "patent nonsense" nor a "hole in the ground" -- just because a subject is unfamiliar to some readers does not invalidate it. This list article has been referenced in numerous places across the Internet. Please see, for example: Literal minded blog; Tlogmer's Knowledge blog; Crayz.org; Cheek blog; Aidan McGlynn blog. See also the extensive discussion of the term's origin at the UPenn linguist's Language Log It would not be appropriate to (re)merge into snowclone, as this article was, in fact, split off from there precisely because it had grown too long. Obliga-note: I was the one who reorganised this list into its present chronology; this was intended to present its information in a more encylopaedically accessible form, by allowing it to be verified and found more easily. Another option, organising by source or media (i.e. print, film, TV, advertising, music, etc.), was not attempted because at the time, there were far fewer entries. Chronology makes sense to show (1) longevity of certain elements; (2) development over time; (3) connection to historical (pop)culture. I've attempted to regularly prune the less notable examples, but likely it could do with a bit more trimming, and clearer explanation of the term snowclone at the head.--Leflyman 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not very compelling sources, especially when one of them is a Knowledge blog. wikipediatrix 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, providing Snowclone survives its own current AfD nomination. If there is to be an article on snowclones, it makes sense to provide a list of them for illustrative and explanatory purposes. The list shouldn't be (or try to be) exhaustive, and it should be sourced as much as possible (which would in practice limit it to only the most notable examples), but it does seem to me worth having. I admit the list could be merged with Snowclone, but that seems like an unnecessary combination of two different types of article to me. (Disclaimer: I've added one or two to this list myself.) Terraxos 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Leflyman and Terraxos. The Strength of the arguments for keeping both this list and the associated Snowclone article are quite persuasive in both cases and have changed my mind. Irongargoyle 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Leflyman and Terraxos, assuming that Snowclone passes AfD. —Aristotle 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are serious problems with the list as it stands, but it is certainly not "nonsense." I don't even see how someone could mistake it for nonsense. --Iustinus 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merging whatever is salvageable. Deltabeignet 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I read the Snowclones article, came here, read the list, understood at once what was going on. The algebraic format is perfectly comprehensible. The list is far from perfect (eg., off the top of my head I can add "See A B" from the old "See Dick Run" story books; and "Can you say X?" from the Mr. Rogers TV show) but the concept is appropriate.Network20 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep also as the two above. It makes an excellent companion to the snowclone article.
• Keep per above. _└  / _talk  22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Eyu100 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Please see related discussion: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones — NMChico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The word gets a lot of G-hits (16,200 total; 322 of the first 1,000 unique), but I have to move for deletion 1) because the word (even as defined by the article) is a neologism coined 2.5 years ago, and 2) per WP:HOLE. -- Kicking222 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment citing WP:HOLE is a little unfortunate as "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground" is quite likely a snowclone of "I wouldn't know him from Adam" MeltBanana 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, nonsensical (or at the very least extremely hard to follow and basically without point. — NMChico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's really just a statement that there are popular phrases out there that often get spun into new variations (duh), and it tries to be fancy about it by expressing it in neo-algebraic terms. wikipediatrix 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per above reasons. SynergeticMaggot 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems well sourced beyond anything otherwise unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. This seems well sourced. It is confusing, but most of the math articles on wikipedia are way more confusing than this (I teach college statistics and even I can't understand most of them). Definitely seems notable and verifiable. Irongargoyle 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neologisms are not acceptable Knowledge articles. But then, Badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, but this is more than some neologism article, it has plenty of reliable sourcing and is more than just the meaning of the word. WP:NEO is about as vague as you can get as a guideline, but this article seems to surpass what's expected for deletion there. As for my habits, I can point out hundreds of articles I don't "vote" keep on, so I'm not sure if that swipe is necessary or accurate. I only "vote" keep on what I believe should be kept, not "everything." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think that's precisely what WP:NEO says, Zoe. If neologisms are discussed as a phenomenon (and not merely used without discussion), they are acceptable for inclusion in Knowledge. Irongargoyle 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a new term, but it's been discussed or at least defined in the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as on NPR's Talk of the Nation and in a book reprinting essays from the linguistics blog in which the term first appeared. In Knowledge:Avoid Neologisms, the only two reasons given that articles on neologisms "may not be appropriate" are that they often lack reliable secondary sources, and are often no more than dictionary definitions. This goes beyond dictionary definition -- it's an article about the linguistic phenomenon the term was coined to describe -- and there are sources. Sounds like the article needs quite a bit of work to be clear to an encyclopedia audience, but that's not a reason to delete it. —Celithemis 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Doing the research, I've come to the same conclusion as Celithemis. The problems with neologisms that are relevant here are that the concepts that they embody are unverifiable and original research. The concept embodied by this neologism is verifiable (There is quite a lot of discussion of it to be found.), not original research (The concept having spread far beyond its original creator.), and there is plenty of source material to work from. However, I do wonder whether this is simply a new word for the existing concept of a cliché. ("Snowclones are the new clichés, dahling!") That's a matter of merger, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd vastly prefer to see this article merged into cliché than to stand alone. wikipediatrix 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article has already survived one (or was it two) AfD's and what went before AfDs already. I much agree with Celithemis. As for cliches, cliches don't change while snowclones do. Snowclones are relevant for translation-research as sometimes it is possible to translate it into a different snowclone in the target language, and if not possible the translation can't be direct and might even need a footnote. Kaleissin 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did those previous AfDs go? They didn't show up when I tagged the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, original research, non-notable. Try Urban Dictionary. Deltabeignet 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TJ Spyke 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. The term may be an acknowledged neologism, but since its adoption by linguists at the Language Log in 2004, it has been widely used, with over 15,000 Google entries. This article has been referenced around the internet, including:

• ScienceAdditiction.com
• CacophonyAndCoffee.blogspot.com
• Cuesta Library blog
• Tlogmer's Knowledge Blog
• Media Resources for book Far from the Madding Gerund by linguists Mark Liberman & Geoffrey K. Pullum. --Leflyman 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Celithemis and Leflyman. hateless 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not convcinced mere novelty is the same as non-notability. For obvious reasons neologisms are going to tend to be non-notable, but then their articles can be deleted on that basis. The article itself doesn't look like original research either, it looks like it's a description of what went on at Language Log. Surely we're not going to require that every article be copied and pasted from somewhere else to avoid running afoul of WP:NOR.--♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NEO doesn't mean that newness alone is grounds for deletion, and if it does, then it needs to be considered a much more prominent Knowledge policy. One of Knowledge's natural advantages should be that it can document subjects more quickly than a top-down source could do. The suggestion that all newly coined terms belong in the Urban Dictionary is silly; this is a scholarly, non-humorous subject. Maybe a misunderstanding comes from the fact that some of the examples are irreverent, but these can be switched with more mainstream examples if somebody wants. Agree with the reasoning from Celithemis and Leflyman. IEdML 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.Jxg 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: it may be a neologism, but it describes a clearly defined linguistic concept which definitely has its place in modern culture, particularly on the Internet. The idea it describes ought to have a name, and 'snowclone' seems to be the accepted one. I agree that it could use a rewrite to make it simpler and easier to understand, though. Terraxos 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. —Aristotle 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. / Peter 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I really don't see what the issue is. --Iustinus 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Now frequently used among linguists. CRCulver 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there is some better name for the concept then rename the article, but it's a real article on a real subject. It would not be proper to delete an article for want of a name.Barticus88 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. Regarding WP:NEO, this is not a protologism, not a mere definition, and not original research, which are the reasons WP:NEO gives that a neologism-titled article may be undesirable. Rather, this is, per Barticus88, 'a real article on a real subject' that happens to have acquired a name only recently. Put it this way: Personal names may also be neologisms, but we don't exclude discussion of a person merely because said person has a name. Duh. eritain 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. Ruakh 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. —Nightstallion (?) 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. — Jéioosh 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. _└  / _talk  22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a perfectly valid topic, for which "snowclone" is the most noteworthy term. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:18, 25 August 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 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable Subwayguy 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Local news broadcast of little note outside its local area. — NMChico24 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WTXF-TV per the above. —Whomp t/c 03:57, 19 August 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 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. NN real estate company. Fan-1967 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...is that Spam I taste? Akradecki 02:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Possible violation of WP:AUTO. — NMChico24 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per the smell of spam. SynergeticMaggot 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Discuss. I am going to write the use of internet technology in hong kong property market. And It is the first one who has won the Hong Kong Productivity Council award. Or how should we edit it so that it does not look like an advertisement?Frankycho 11:35, 19 August 2006 (HKT)

• Comment Editing will not help. Knowledge only has articles (not advertising, which clearly this is) on notable companies per Standards for notability of corporations. Clearly this company does not qualify. Fan-1967 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just Delete it. The company gives no indication it passes WP:CORP, so no real grounds for an article. Ohconfucius 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--PremKudva 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has no discussion about the mall's notability. It's just a run of the mill mall. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral or Weak Delete Not too sure how to go with this one. Many malls have articles, including some in my city which are I do not think could be considered unique or important (North Star Mall). I would delete, but there seems to be a precendent to include malls. will381796 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, unless comeone can come up with a good reason why this mall is so special. There are hundreds of malls in every town and city these days. Ohconfucius 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Malls do not come under the purview of CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Troy, Michigan. It's probably quite a significant place in that town but probably doesn't need a separate article based on the article's current contents. JYolkowski // talk 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, or at least merge with Troy, Michigan. I think sizeable indoor shopping malls are borderline notable, given the important roles they play in their communities. Zagalejo 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks to be a fairly large mall in the Detroit area. Malls of significant size are notable enough as important community landmarks. Needs expansion desperately though. Kirjtc2 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A mall is a significant place of employment and community activity. If a redirect was given from Oakland to Troy, Michigan, that may be okay. Nlsanand 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So is a Wal-Mart. Should we have an article on every one of those? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wal-Marts are all pretty much the same, but each indoor shopping mall has its own distinctive architecture and ambience. Also, the larger shopping malls often play host to mini-concerts, celebrity appearances, and assorted games and tournaments, so they tend to be more versatile than the standard big-box stores. Just my two cents. Zagalejo 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Malls are businesses that rent space to retail stores, the way office towers rent space to companies needing an office. There is no evidence of this mall meeting the standards at WP:CORP. GRBerry
• Keep. After looking at Category:Shopping malls in Michigan, I think this needs to stay. A project-wide consensus on all these articles needs to be reached, not the deletion of this one article. Rmhermen 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge but do not keep. There is nothing notable asserted in the article. Vegaswikian 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a very notable mall in the metro Detroit area that has been around since the 1960s. --musicpvm 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is notable in the detroit metro area we need project wide consensus first Yuckfoo 22:09, 28 August 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 Speedy delete (A1 & A7) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

nn Companies, Spam? Ilyong 03:11, 19 August 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 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

His present position is an appointment and he has not been elected to a state-wide body. Plainly a meritorius individual but has not achieved enough, yet, to gain notability. Delete. BlueValour 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete holds a minor political position, and gets only 32 unique Google hits. -Elmer Clark 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks promising, maybe up-and-coming, but not there yet. Fan-1967 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I nominated it for a speedy delete after it was created, and I stand by my original reasons. Not that he doesn't sound like a great guy, just he's not notable. -GamblinMonkey 17:55, 21 August 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 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable slang Dsreyn 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kim Possible, where the term is most often heard. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The claim in the article is that it's an invention of Jawbone Radio. Dsreyn 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Outright in Kim Possible , the saying is What's the sitch. this slang hasn't reached public minds and is not as notable as May the force be with you. --Ageo020 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's a whiff of WP:VAIN here, too. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Not related to Kim Possible, agree with WP:NEO--Kisai 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod, which stated: Knowledge is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page regarding nominating articles for deletion that are already prodded.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom -- Whpq 14:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom -- Dennette 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How can you have a prod and an Afd? The term form Kim Possible is What's the Sitch, so no redirect. WP:NOT for something made up in school one day and ripped off of a tv show. -Royalguard11 22:34, 22 August 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 speedy keep. BlueValour 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another article submitted as an obit. A worthwhile career with a number of achievements but none sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He was chairman of the management committee of Goldman Sachs, "one of the world's most prestigous global investment banks," for fourteen years . I've added that citation to the article as well. -Elmer Clark 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: investment banker and chairman/senior partner in a leading firm, director of several important corporations, and a trustee of Princeton University and a large university hospital in NY, has endowed and given his name to an academic research center at the University of Delaware. Google also discovers a "John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy" at Princeton University. He seems to have been considered important in the real world, outside Knowledge. up+l+and 07:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the University position was one that he endowed not one he held. BlueValour 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• That was my point (as should be clear from the punctuation).up+l+and 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn - the fact that he chaired the Goldman Sachs management committee is enough. Also, I have cleaned up the article. BlueValour 08:24, 19 August 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod, which stated: Knowledge is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• An Ardeltion (which is a neologism coined by me 15 seconds ago meaning "article for deletion"). Tonywalton  | Talk 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:13, 19 August 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. Socks/meats and SPAs aside, vanity press publications are not reliable sources, nor are nonexistant or one-line entries in magazines.  RasputinAXP  01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Nomination also includes near duplicate HOT ROD SURF.

Started as potential vanity page. Very little asserted notability and none established. Was prodded and supported by another editor but contested and removed. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Hot Rod Surf has been featured numerous times in the internationally renound Hot Rod Magazine BURN OUT from Japan, local San Diego press including Gernade Magazine, and Revolt. Hot Rod Surf is known to almost every younger hot rodder and greaser as well as universally hated by older fake hot roddres who don't built, drive or own 1930's steel hot rods but wish they did. There is a 150 page book just on HOT ROD SURF coiming out this next month which is availble around the world. Wickpedia is for counter culture definitions people should know about if they want to—like what’s HOT ROD SURF! (Jmcrownpoint 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD A7. Non-notable motorcycle club/shop/brand. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: go look at what Hot Rod Surf is and has done for the living kustom kulture and then try and label it 'non-notable'! If someone wants to know what HOT ROD SURF is they should be able to find out at Knowledge. To deny HOT ROD SURF is to deny the reality of the hot rods and the lifestyle that are very real and contemporary.(Jmcrownpoint 2:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Why is it that when some one dosen't know about something they claim it's not notable or not established. The fun of wikipedia to find out what things mean that you didn't know about. Clearly in this case it is Hot Rod Surf. Keep Hot Rod Surf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: Despite the fact that this is really original research and theory, Knowledge operates on a burden of positive proof system. Not everything deserves inclusion. And the burden of proof is on the authors of the pages to show that it should be included. This is also why we have Articles for Deletion instead of Articles for Inclusion. As well as a speedy deletion criteria that says, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We don't just go around yelling yee-haw while we nominate stuff for deletion. We take the time to investigate, using many resources. And, searches all say that it's just not notable. If you think it's notable, prove it. If something is notable, there will be plenty of independent verifiable proof out there that can be cited and presented. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Or, put another way: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this shop satisfies the criteria for inclusion laid out in WP:CORP. (The 150 page book that is being published "next month" does not count, by the way.) Please cite the newspaper feature articles that you claim exist. Uncle G 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The majority of User:Jmcrownpoint's edits have been to add external links to this Hot Rod Surf site to other articles, not all Hot Rod related. Google search shows that many of the hits for "Hot Rod Surf" do not refer to this particular commercial enterprise (for example, it seems to be the name of a music style). -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Being a real counter-culture phenomenon Hot Rod Surf has not courted any mainstream news outlets. In many ways MWM believed that this was a waste of time of explaining instead of living. It’s time to bring the truth to light. The book HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine ISBN 0-9786756-0-6, and the second book by MWM about pinstriping is ISBN 0-9786756-1-4 who ever doubts the books should go and order them and can do hours of ‘verification’. The Blue Dream 1931 Ford roadster built by MWM and dripping with the HOT ROD SURF style is featured with a pin-up in “SDMUSIC MATTERS”reliable source ‘local music for local culture,’ June/July 2004 pages 22-24 (four full pages). Look at the rod in the magazine and on the official Hot Rod Surf website. HOT ROD SURF is featured in “Revolt In Style”reliable source magazine September 2002 (p.12), “Car Culture Deluxe”reliable source magazine, issue #9 year 2003, (page 71), one of the Hot Rod Surf parties is mentioned in “Revolt In Style,” November 2001. HOT ROD SURF was also featured in “Grenade Magazine”reliable source (since changed it’s name to Krown mag) Vol. 1 Issue 1, Spring 2003 with a ‘san diego Kustom Car Kulture’ full article (page4) featuring the Hot Rod Surf parties and the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and style. Hot Rod Surf has also been featured in BurnOut reliable sourcemagazine numerous times (check the news and events on www.hotrodsurf.com) there is a picture of the founder and publisher of Burnout. Contact legendary counter culture artists Marco Almera reliable source, or Nash’s BurnOut blog verify with them about HOT ROD SURF.(hotrodsurf 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • No books with those ISBNs are listed on any of the book sources that I checked. Please check that you gave the correct ISBNs. Uncle G 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ISBN 0978675606 - HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine (Published by HOT ROD SURF PUBLISHING)
    • ISBN 0978675614 - Basic Hot Rod Pinstriping Techniques with Hot Rod Surf (Published by ?, Written by Mark Whitney Mehran of Hot Rod Surf)
    • These DO NOT meet verifiability criteria of reliable and reputable sources. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: GO CLICK ON YOUR OWN LINK to the books and you will find them! The books are are real as the original article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
  • I did, and they weren't there. I notice that Amazon now has the book listed. Investigating this, I find that the listing is solely because a seller has put up the book for sale second-hand. Investigating who the seller is, I find that xyr Amazon name is "hotrodsurf", a new seller as of the 20th of August 2006, the day after I wrote the above. Uncle G 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:The books are on the first edition and printing, it takes some time for them to show up in the data bases. The first edition is officially released for distributors and reviews September 1st. To further ‘verify’ try and contact 'Harley' the lead singer of the band Deadbolt . Deadbolt has played numerous shop parties and Harley owns and drives a genuine Hot Rod Surf hot rod built by MWM. Next we will hear Deadbolt and Voodoobilly doesn’t exist despite their 8 plus full length original albums and world tours?! Harley has seen an advanced copy of the HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine book, his band and hot rod are in it. (hotrodsurf 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — A self-published book still is not a reliable source. None of the other articles that are mentioned above appear to discuss the shop, but just its cars, so HRS is not the subject of those articles. JChap2007 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the articles discuss the shop, the style, and fully support the definition of HOT ROD SURF as described in the original article. (hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: An importantpart of the Hot Rod Surf phenomenon is the true DIY spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep: 'appear'! Go find the articles and contact the proper people and obtain the articles. All of the articles support the definition presented to Knowledge. Go to BurnOut magazine or find a copy of the original Grenade magazine. Better talk to some one like Harley from Deadbolt or Marco Almera. Yes, the Hot Rod Surf hot rods and choppers are a very important part of Hot Rod Surf. The beauty of the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and choppers are that they are undeniably in physical REALITY and are driving all around the United Stated and the world. Unlike, text, articles, or comments which are just that text.(hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note: All 3 of the above votes, in addition to an earlier one above, by User:Hotrodsurf. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, they "appear" to be so per your summaries of them, mate. JChap2007 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis is great all sorts of people are learning about what Hot Rod Surf really is! (hotrodsurf 1:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep: Non-notable?! In who's opinion? I and many others I've known have found the cars and motorcycles built by HOT ROD SURF and appearing for the last couple of years upon their web site, dvd's, and in various car culture magazines to be inspirational and an influence upon the lifestyle that I and others live. Non-notable? Hardly. By removing HOT ROD SURF, wikipedia displays it's arrogance, it's limited vision and thereby makes itself Non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note: above vote is user's only edit. -- Infrogmation 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:Hot Rod Surf has been featured in BurnOut Magazine on numerous occasions including issue #10, 2001 (pages 16-17), and issue #13, September 2002 (page 38). HOT ROD SURF has also been featured in the Japanese car culture magazine Cal Magazine in the 15th Anniversary edition, April 2002 #4 (page 87-88), as well as the German magazine Street Car & Bike issue Nov./Dec. 2005 pages (18-19). (Jmcrownpoint 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note:To be more specific the #10 issue of BurnOut is also called the Makato Issue vol.3, no.4 and has HOT ROD SURF BBQ listed on the cover as a feature article. (Jmcrownpoint 2:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hot Rod Surf is a lifestyle for me and my friends and it should be included in Knowledge. It represents the contemporary beach and hot rod scene here in Southern CA. I’ve been to there parties and seen them featured in some mags and zines. (hotrodjohn 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Hotrodjohn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Above vote is user's first edit. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis article is a good start for something that means alot to myself and means alot to buddies of mine, and there's alot of us. Hot Rodding, Kustoms and Surfing are things that have been passed down to guys and gals alike for many of years now. These are all things that we hold close to our hearts, tradition is something that you dont throw to the waste side, and articles like this one are showing that we are out there and we do care about more than just the fashion show and fashion cars side of things, and hot rod surf is now part of that tradition for alot of us from so cal and beyond. I Thank you for your time. Jimmy Von Surf
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. --Satori Son 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As a result of multiple consistencies of habits, voting, and usernames in this AfD, a complaint has been filed at Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It is clear that the 'User talk: JJJJust' has a pattern of selecting articles and marking then “unverifiable” and then when the verification comes 'User talk: JJJJustuses'uses more technical earmarkings like ‘sock puppets’ to try and disregard the verification of a Reality which he first complained and reported. Notice how 'User talk: JJJJust'never really talks about the articles he marks and files complaints against. Articles and text should be about the article and definition in question for Knowledge not a technical game of ratting.(Jmcrownpoint11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: More technicalities... Knowledge has a policy against personal attacks. Read it. And you're right, I do have a pattern of selecting articles and marking them unverified. It's called New Page Patrol. But, the thing is that, when I do that, and bring articles such as this one to Articles for deletion, a large majority of independent users with no connections to the articles whatsoever agree with me and concur with my findings. Oh, and the second and third sentences on this page, are about the article(s) of which I complained and reported. Once I've said it once, I really don't say it again, unless something like this happens. And, yes, I don't have much to say about the text of the articles. Mainly because the articles I forward here do not have problems with the text, they may be factual and nicely written, but, have other policy problems. I'm not really a front line guy, I'm a back room worker. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the sources that discuss this seem reliable, but the article should be written with those in mind, not how it's currently written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What sources are you referring to, and how can you say they "seem reliable" without having read them? Or do you mean to say that you have actually read their self-published book or the articles from obscure magazines that allegedly mention them?? Also, their suggestion that personally asking the guy from Deadbolt for "verification" obviously fails WP:RS as well. wikipediatrix 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Typically speaking, we'd use published sources as sources in articles without much question. This seems entirely reasonable in this case, and I think we're letting the sock parade blind our ability to objectively look at this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you take our Knowledge:Verifiability policy a lot more seriously. A book that magically appears for sale on Amazon, by an Amazon seller named "hodrodsurf", the day after I mention that I couldn't find it listed, that is autobiographical according to the prior discussion (Please actually read the prior discussion.) and that hasn't been published yet (Please actually read the Barnes & Noble listing given above.) is nowhere near being a reliable source. It isn't even a source at all, because it hasn't been published yet. As for the magazines, I conclude that the answer that you didn't give to Wikipediatrix's question above is actually "No, I haven't actually read any of them.". I conclude this because I have made attempts to check these sources. The only magazine that I've been able to even find so far, Revolt In Style, doesn't have an accessible archive of back issues where I can check what was in the September 2002 edition. Uncle G 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I take it very seriously, actually. Whether the book "magically" appeared at Amazon during this discussion isn't really all that relevant. We're still talking about a published book that no one would ever question anywhere else. There are a number of sources we use in articles all over the place that I simply have not read, either. I'm not going to start removing books willy-nilly because I haven't read them, I'm going to assume good faith that the books are being sourced properly. Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that? Finally, I have a pile of books in the next room over that are technically "not published." While there are certainly some vanity issues we need to deal with on the editor side, his ability to have a prerelease version of something doesn't automatically eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
          • With regard to the books and only the books, they both were written and published by the corporation in question. That makes them unusable as sources as they cannot be used to establish notability, which is what they were being used for and notability and verifiability are probably the largest sticking points here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
            • From where you linked: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following." It meets "the following," so they're fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Two operative words that you are repeatedly overlooking: "published" and "notability". The notability criteria in WP:CORP specifically exclude published works that are not independent of the subject. This non-published book is an autobiography, as was explained by User:Hotrodsurf above. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Uncle G 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm more bothered that WP:CORP is being used to trump WP:V in this case. If it comes down to a disconnect between a notability guideline and a verifability policy, I'm going with the latter. This isn't me not paying attention, it's making a value judgement on the sources and the article's worth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • The set of things that are notable is a subset of the things that are verifiable, so yes notability criteria are more restrictive than simple verifiability. (There is a patch of unremarkable grassland next to my house that is verifiable.) Your acceptance of an unpublished autobiography as a source is not a "value judgement". It is simply not applying any form of judgement at all, and not taking verifiability seriously. Uncle G 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • "We're still talking about a published book" — No, we are not. This was stated right at the top of this discussion, is stated in the Barnes & Noble listing, and was stated by me in the very text that you are replying to. Please take our verifiability policy more seriously, and please pay closer attention to the discussion.

            "I'm going to assume good faith" — This is not a question of assuming good faith. This is a question of an application of our verifiability policy that is so lax that it includes books that haven't been published.

            "Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that?" — Once again: This book has not been published. It is not a published source. Uncle G 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

            • Again, our disagreement on these issues is not me taking WP:V at a different level of seriousness - we disagree on the sourcing, and we disagree on the application. We're both longtime, reasonable people, and can disagree on this one. I hear what you're saying, I simply disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
              • It is not taking verifiability seriously, because the fundamental point of verifiability is that readers can check articles for themselves. Clearly, a book that has not been published isn't a way for readers to do that. It is a simple rejection of the entire basis of the policy to argue that such a book is a source. It is a complete mischaracterization to state that this is a disagreement on how verifiability is applied. What it is is not applying verifiability at all, in any form. Uncle G 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
                • As I said, we disagree. Your continued assertions that I fail to take WP:V seriously are without merit, so please cease it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of nearly every "Keep" vote on this page is either a repeat, or an unestablished user; or, on the basis that the article is in such bad shape from a Knowledge standpoint, it deserves another try at another time by an editor who understands NPOV and notability. -- MyWikiBiz 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn per WP:CORP. Self-published books don't count for notability. Moreover, the page content is not encyclopedic in style. Han-Kwang 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hot Rod Surf has proven they have valid sources outside of the books, Just two easy examples are Burnout Magazine and Krown magazine both can be found on their websites. The source are valid. These magazines are completely unrelated with each other or Hot Rod Surf. Hot Rod Surf is proven to be recognized by published media. Hot Rod Surf is a unique part of Hot Rod culture and should be include in wikipedia. Sources:
  • http://www.krownmagazine.com/krownmagazine/past-issues.html
  • http://www.detroitjunk.com/BURNOUT.html
  • http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/custom-carshot-rods/hot-rod-surf-rat-rods-119872.php
• User:HunterIrrigation 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: HunterIrrigation (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Actually, the purported articles cannot be found on their web sites. Krown magazine just has a gallery of its magazine covers on its web site, as does Burnout magazine. But at least you've told us where the magazines are to be found, now, which is better. Jalopnik has its article on its web site, but the amount of information in that article amounts to no more than 1 sentence: "Hot Rod Surf of San Diego builds old-skool hotrods.". This is Knowledge, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need more than "mostly harmless". Where are the sources for all of the other content of the article? Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Hello, I am new to Knowledge but not to the Kustom Culture, Chopper and Hot Rod scene. I am here because the Kustom Culture scene is misrepresented and not understood by many people. It is a rising movement in American history and is recorded in many of today’s popular media. The modern era of Kustom Culture is changing rapidly with many independent press only covering accurate accounts. I am happy to see many other Kustom Culture stars on here such as Robert Williams, Juxtapoz, Jesse James, Von Dutch and so many more. This is an encyclopedia to stay onto of the current definitions. The outside sources of magazines, books and website clearly follow the WP:CORP definition for a company deserving inclusion. I would like to work on making the write up to standard and not deleting this company since this these type entits along with the above mentioned stars are what someone looking up hot rods, lowbrow art, rat rod, choppers or custom culture want to learn about. Give us critique on the description of Hot Rod Surf not trying to delete. Thanks to all the editors who care to contribute not delete this great site of important relevant information.(HunterIrrigation 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. It takes upwards of 3-4 weeks for Amazon to approve and list a book for sale on their website, and I say this as a self-published author. Silensor 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not accurate. Check out the link: . It is not actually being sold by Amazon, but only listed by Amazon Marketplace as being for sale by hotrodsurf. This type of listing, and its Product Detail Page, can be completed immediately, and does not take the usual 3-4 weeks. Amazon.com says, "Once you submit the product information, Amazon will create the product page right away so that you can list your Marketplace copy on the newly created page." --Satori Son 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, having two books with and ISBN number is not an overnight activity and I find it extremely disturbing that an long time editor of Wiki would discount independent books or act as if books are created out of nowhere. The books are not the only sources you keep leaving out the other sources they have provided. Magazines and news sources provided they have clearly made an accurate case to be included according to the WP:CORP.(HunterIrrigation 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
    • Please do not misstate my position. I do not "discount" these two vanity press publications, I just do not believe they qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V, and thus are not a valid reason for a "keep" opinion from Silensor as he/she states above. --Satori Son 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello once again the other third party sources are being ignored the magazines Burnout, Krown, Reviewer, Revolt in Style, Street Car & Bike and Jalpinx. There are three links above where you can find the magazines and you can find past issues at selected counter culture newstands. I personaly have mulitple BurnOut mag with Hot Rod Surf included from back in 2001, 2003 and in the current issue 2006. I am a long time subscriber of BurnOut mag publsihed in Japan and distributed world wide heavly in Europe and America. These thrid party mags completely follow inline with the WP:CORP. This is a noticalble company that people into Hot Rod, Choppers and Kustom Culture want to know about. They are well documented in Hot Rod magazines. Why is it people who don’t follow the major current builders in the Hot Rod scene are trying to delete Hot Rod Surf after third party evidence has been delivered? (HunterIrrigation 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
      • They aren't being ignored, for the simple reason that you aren't actually citing them in the first place. We need more than just a laundry list of magazine names. How are editors and readers to find the articles that you claim exist from just that? See Knowledge:Citing sources. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the page can be cleaned up and a lot of the POV terms removed I might be tempted to change my mind, but for now delete. Wildthing61476 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepHi all! I have gone over the page and worked on the writing to make it in encyclopedic style. I have also got rid of all POV. As suggested by Wildthing61476 and Han-KwangI would like to have a side picture of one of the radical hot rods included on this page but don’t wait to take their photos without permission. This page has now proven to be ready for inclusion, cited sources and no POV. It should now be taken off the articles for deletion. HunterIrrigation 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no sources cited in the article. What's the source for the information given in the article's third paragraph, for example? Neither this discussion nor the article gives any clue. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello User:Uncle G, Hi the cited source were in the talk section but a mister User:MER-C deleted them. I would like to understand why someone would delete vailid source instead of adding to disscusion. It looks like a personal attack on this page. I did put them back for you to see. Thanks for the input. HunterIrrigation 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The sources are in the Hot Rod Surf talk page not this discussion talk page. Since learning that I have added to this discussion talk page. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah. Thank you. I'll have a look. Uncle G 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No reliable sources, no notability established and it's still an ad, even after the rewrite from this new, single-purpose account. JChap2007 12:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • User:JChap2007 please state why it is still an ad, if you gave me something to work with I would like gladly take your comment serious. Multiple 3rd party sources have been mention from magazine dating back 6 years ago, to website to book listed at Barnes and Nobles. At this point I think your are not paying attention to what has been mentioned before or adding any new contributions. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems a bit crazy that there is all of this back and forth about Hot Rod Surf which should be a good, positive, fun and legitimate gateway article about the reality of the contemporary hot rod and kustom kulture scene. Each and every detractor and skeptic of the original posted article has not helped define, or add any original text to the expansion of the ‘hot rod’, ‘kustom kulture’, or ‘Hot Rod Surf’ articles? Let’s keep it positive with informative contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Hello Satori Son, I have added all my own contributions to this page signed. I have no control over the post above or what any other fan of hot rod surf does. Please ask me any question or contribute to this post. It seems as a personal attack to be call a stock puppet after working so hard to contribute and listen to other responses. Feel free to contact me or post a vaild wikipedia agrument.HunterIrrigation 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• For those interested, please see my talk page for response and sockpuppet discussion. --Satori Son 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, and maybe even WP:OR. A self-published website is considered a primary source, and hence doesn't fill the V problem - visit Knowledge:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline for this being precident, and then the Deletion Review reaffirming this judgement. The rest a results of this. Daniel.Bryant 13:33, 26 August 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. Yeah, I know... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my prod, which stated: Knowledge is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — neo JChap2007 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom with a whiff of WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 20:16, 19 August 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 merge to Marc Morrone, no reason not to mention it there. - Bobet 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

More a trailer than an encyclopaedic article on a notable programme. Delete. BlueValour 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article definitely has the potential for a scholarly article. Alex 07:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see how Alex can say that with a straight-face. Rangek 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there's an article Marc Morrone where the information could be posted - no need for a separate article. Camillus (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - with Marc Morrone. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:44, 20 August 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 speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of subject's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

stated purpose of the article is to be a profile of a business for purposes of his clients, also the page has been deleted once and recreated Bookgrrl 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "page has been nominated for deletion once" and the author (who is also the subject of the article) removed the flag. --Bookgrrl 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no free web host. Gazpacho 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete blatant misuse of Knowledge -Elmer Clark 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If the user is desperate to have his information out there, it can't hurt to have it on his userpage. BigHaz 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 03:49, 19 August 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 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article provides insufficient context. The majority of the information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited to the article which leads to suspicion of being Original Research. -- 3:16 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Low Google hittage, and he was only an event promoter. wikipediatrix 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a train wreck. Daniel Case 03:59, 19 August 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 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

nn game. The website has no alexa rank or information at all. There are zero google hits for "Subpoena Power, Save the Republic" and only 28 hits for 'Subpoena Power" "Save the Republic" game'. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sounds like a joke. Daniel Case 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, and possibly WP:HOAX doktorb _words 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (/_{fix me up}) 08:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Send to BJAODN. Ace of Sevens 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:17, 21 August 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, it was templatefied by Reinoutr and is probably better served in that fashion. The article's text concentrated on the individual players, not the family itself. The history isn't necessary to keep since the only thing in the template is a family tree branch. - Bobet 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The information is certainly noteworthy, but not in its own article. It's also rather improper (IMO) to title an article something as general as "Allen family" and be so specific, since there are clearly more Allen families than just the one that the article refers to. fuzzy510 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If the info seems important (and I know how those football fans are!) then perhaps a rename to "Allen family footballers" or "Allens (Reading Football Club)" ? Or a merge with Reading Football League ? --Bookgrrl 04:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly back renaming it along the lines of Allen family footballers. I created the article and the reason for it was to include the family tree and to avoid replicating the information on each of the separate player pages. To my knowledge, no other family in English football comes close to having so many members play at a professional level, let alone represent thier country --Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neither renaming nor merging requires listing this on AFD. Talk:Allen family is still a red link. May I suggest withdrawing the nomination and discussing this there? up+l+and 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion Make a template and put it in all the biographies. Catchpole 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. —Michael Hays 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see why this can't simply be on the players pages. As Catchpole suggests, a template would be good. JPD (talk)
• Delete and comment; I have created a template containing the family tree and added it to all family member articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 28 August 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 Speedy deleted by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. BryanG 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Contested prod. Author's only contrib. Author disputes claim that this is an advertisement, but even if it isn't, it's a neologism, it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, it's largely original research and not verifiable, and it's also not neutral POV. Are these divas really invited to "everything, everywhere, all of the time?" How much money is "too much" to spend on shoes and clothes, and what constitutes a "fabulous" night out? Delete with extreme prejudice. VoiceOfReason 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as promo. Daniel Case 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as blatant link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:02, 19 August 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone's cute joke AFAICT. Doesn't even cut it as a dicdef (I was hoping this would be a band, as it would be a cool name). Probable BJAODN. Daniel Case 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — or Merge to Non-alcoholic beverages so long as its verified. SynergeticMaggot 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think with some things you just know they're not going to be verified ... but there are about 866 hits out there; however most seem to be forum posts. Daniel Case 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keeping would be like us going to the article for water and saying that it is also known as an aqueous martini if you put an olive in it and serve it in a coctail glass. Obvious neologism or joke. will381796 05:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious joke -Elmer Clark 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Water, with Adam's ale as precedent. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of fictional beverages, where it should be pointed out that the Aqueous Martini is a joke in The Ersatz Elevator. Confusing Manifestation 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, therefore kept. - Bobet 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this "article to even exist". The information should be part of the article about The Amazing Race and not an out of context list. I placed the information from this list in the main article where it belongs. This article violates Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a directory and Knowledge:What Knowledge is not. Displaced Brit 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: the involved networks could be included in a subcategory of Category:The Amazing Race. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete if this were kept it would generate a horrible precedent to spawn thousands of nonsensical lists Anlace 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge most american sitcoms or serial's articles do have the network in which it is aired in foreign countries.--Ageo020 05:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Amazing Race, purely for GFDL reasons as the list was merged into that article, where it probably belongs. BryanG 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into The Amazing Race in prose form. (For example, it shouldn't take seven separate lines to list all the places where AXN airs this program.) --Metropolitan90 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to merge contents into the main article; its inclusion exceeds recommendations from Knowledge:Article size. Note that other television shows and televised events also have a separate article on international broadcasters (Broadcasting of The Simpsons, List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases, Live 8 broadcasters, etc. --Madchester 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above reasoning. --CFIF ☎ 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposed. Broadcasting of The Simpsons is a prose article, not a list. I'll be glad to nominate the Smallville list. Gazpacho 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or failing that, merge into The Amazing Race. A list of foreign airings of a US TV show is enyclopedic. Kirjtc2 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete outright, no merge, no redirect. If someone wants to include the info in the main article, go crazy. If there's not enough room, then the article was too fracking big to begin with and should be trimmed. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the main TV series article, which appears to be the general rule of thumb for this type of list. 23skidoo 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is separate from The Amazing Race for pure size reasons. Please look at the article you're proposing to merge it into - there's not much room! Radagast 15:59, 21 August 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 Speedy keep per A1. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another list article that has no reason to exist. The information should be part of the article about MyNetworkTV and not an out of context list. The information from this list belongs in the main MyNetworkTV article and the indivdual television stations belong article in a category. This article violates Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a directory and Knowledge:What Knowledge is not.Displaced Brit 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep useful and sourced. I'm not allowed to say anything else or this user will harrass and stalk me. --CFIF ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per CFIF. If you delete this, several more articles go with it. Though a category exists as well, this also includes ownership and digital subchannel items. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This list is highly useful and all sources are cited. This list is the work of a hundred editors who worked hard to compile a credible list of affiliates. Every item on this list has been confirmed by B&C magazine and other reputable sources, and contrary to user:Displaced Brit's earlier nominations, this list does not have a brief introduction; there is clear context. Additionally, D.B's claims that the items in this list belong in the main article make no sense, as the items in this list would cause the page to exceed the recommended page size. This nomination is a clear violation of WP:POINT, judging from nominator's background (check out user:Displaced Brit's talk page for details).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ignoring what appears to be an ongoing conflict, my gut says to merge this into the MyNetworkTV article, and I was going to suggest this as it seems to touch on some of the major points of why the network was created in the first place. I need to sleep on this to come up with a solution to suggest. This is really a tough call and needs some thought, despite what may or may not be a spiteful nomination. TV Newser 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If you deleted that you would have to delete List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of FOX affiliates, List of ABC affiliates, etc. TJ Spyke 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a perfect example of where a list can do more than a category, and it's way too big to merge anywhere. BryanG 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. --Daniel Olsen 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep per above — SterlingNorth 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• further comment to my vote above -- I remember a quote from somewhere: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I also remember a rule that says to ignore all rules. There are 155 stations in this list. That means this list spans 9 pages on its own. Merging it into the MyNetworkTV article would make that article unwieldy. This page is handy for reference as the stations are listed by market, rather than by alphabet which is useless for seeking out stations where the letters may not mean anything at all (and every station begins with either a K, a W, or an X), which is how it would be listed if it was left to the category system. Furthermore, it has information which would be harder to find if the proposal to delete is approved. Many of these stations are either secondariry affiliated with MyNetTV or are placing it on a digital subchannel. This list easily gives that information -- the category doesn't. And lastly, it's actually easier to use this list to aide in checking the accuracy of the individual articles and categories, by fact it provides a brief description of each MyNetTV station (call letters, market, owner, type of affiliation, etc.) This table has helped me correct a number of mistakes in individual articles that may have gone uncorrected. SterlingNorth 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• one additional comment -- from Displaced Brit's link on what Knowledge is not contains this statement: "Knowledge also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I believe this article constitutes a "reference table" which is allowed here. — SterlingNorth 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong & Speedy Keep - Sources are correct for all stations, list is comprehensive and #1 Google search under the term 'my network tv affiliates' (which will be very important come the week the network starts and thereafter), and would way be too unwieldy to merge within the main MyNet article. This article has been up for months and has strict quality control, and I think this and List of CW affiliates are great examples of what happens when multiple editors work to create a great list that many people will find of interest to them. Nate 09:59, 19 August 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. - Bobet 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another blloody list related to American telvision! This one lists guests on Martha (TV series) and most likely should be merged in with the meagre article about the programme. As with the majority of these lists, it violates both Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a directory and Knowledge:What Knowledge is not. Displaced Brit 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: if this were around for a while, the list would go on. It is TVcruft. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom Anlace 05:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Park3r 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I really don't see how this is a directory in any way. It's a list relating to a notable entry. If you don't believe this should be in its own article and should be merged, then AfD is not the right place. It seems you have a vendetta against lists (see User:Displaced Brit) and against those who oppose you (see User talk:CFIF). Lists are not all directories, if you have an issue with them then you should discuss it at Knowledge talk:Lists, and not just nominate lots and lots of lists for deletion. --Daniel Olsen 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Weak Keep Would it be possible to use this list to create a article catagory? ex: "Person who has appeared on Martha (TV Series)" Alex 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a list would be better to link to from the Martha article. If concensus goes toward deletion however, someone should hurry and do what you suggested. --Daniel Olsen 08:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that would be considered crufty as well; we had Category:Celebrities who have starred in an episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor on CFD the other week. Guest appearances are a dime a dozen, and not really category-worthy IMO. -- nae'blis 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's one for Ellen (TV series), Category:Ellen (TV_series) guest stars Alex 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for finding that. Nominating on CFD now. -- nae'blis 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It is crufty and would set a bad precedent for other similar articles. For my domain, Live with Regis and Kelly, a list of guest co-hosts is notable because viewers of the show usually expect Regis and Kelly to co-host the show, and a guest co-host can sometimes generate a lot of attention. If this article is kept, I could write an article called List of guests that have appeared on Live with Regis and Kelly, which I am not inclined to do at this point. Tinlinkin 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in case my comments above weren't clear enough. -- nae'blis 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, well we just kept List of one-time characters from The Simpsons, so how could this (and others) be far behind. Either we put together a well-reasoned approach to these "minor characters" and "guest appearances" lists or we'll look like a popularity contest rather than the collective authors of an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Martha is a talk show. Many guests who appear on a talk show are part of a circuit that takes them to other talk shows to promote their latest project (at least in recent trends, I don't know the whole history of this). Therefore, many guests who appear on a talk show are not worth noting. Categories would also probably be inappropriate and unencyclopedic (imagine an actor, say Samuel L. Jackson, to have categories for appearing on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Live with Regis and Kelly, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, The Daily Show, etc.). However, mentioning the most frequent guests or guests that made a big impact in the talk show would be notable in the talk show's article.
  • With game shows, people are not usually going to be notable if they haven't won big in the game show's history (at least in my view of the current consensus). For example, I have raised Craig Westphal for deletion because he's just not notable at this point in time.
  • As for other TV series, if the minor characters or guest stars were integral to the series' storylines, I think that's a basis for inclusion in Knowledge. But that may be subjective to the popularity or the coverage of the series, which may be systemic bias. That's something I don't want to live with. Tinlinkin 07:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Borderline computercruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info, self-reference starts article. This is actually the second article I've nominated that starts with a self-reference: the other is Politics of Wallonia, and that has since been expanded. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The OpenDocument article lists some external sources, so the software is notable enough. Lists (or tables) about notable subject are also notable, in my opinion. --Daniel Olsen 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Daniel. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - logical section split from OpenDocument - several other tags would be more constructive than AfD. Ace of Risk 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - OpenDocument is one of a class of similar standards. While this article is never going to teach anyone how to read OpenDocument on it's own, it's useful for documenting the technology and heritage of the format. AlexHudson 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. --Czj 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per AlexHudson's comments. It is also a good launching point for those that do wish to get more technical knowledge of the spec. --User:Minion_o'_Bill

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article's subject is a non notable comic artist who miserably fails the google test.Delete. Deyyaz 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom and no sources Anlace 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Daniel Olsen 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — '"Aaron Doty" Pigeon Coup' gets only three unique Ghits, other than WP articles. "Aaron Doty" gets 1380, but many of these seem to be other people than him. JChap2007 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd say redirect to Pigeon Coup (comic), though the importance, if any, of the comic isn't made clear in its article. -- Dragonfiend 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Knowledge:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect: Recommend redirect as per Dragonfiend, however google test is not WP:WEB guidelines nor WP:V policy.

--Kisai 08:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the comic page, as was done with Clone Manga's consolidation. Add the bio info to the comic page, as well. Xuanwu 09:13, 22 August 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 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

630 Google hits, most of which are forum derived or from wikipedia mirrors. From the website of the "movement": In early 2001, fed up with the decadent political system, two young American college students decided that a change was imperative to raise public consciousness in support of ideals for a greater America. To wit: WP:NFT & nn. Eusebeus 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. Note that many or most of 156 google hits for "American Fascist Movement" refer generically to fascist movements in the pre-WWII period. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:Not for Fascism made up in school one day. Camillus (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no press coverage, apparently just a personal front. Gazpacho 22:04, 19 August 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 redirect to Panathinaikos, I don't see anything useful to merge. If someone disagrees, the history is still there. - Bobet 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ok to delete since no notability or sources Anlace 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable fanclub. --Daniel Olsen 06:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think. Someone who reads greek may want to go over the links I added to the article, but they seem to be notable in a multi-national, regularly scheduled riots with lots of lovely property damage sort of way. I'm not sure I want to be on record voting against them. - Richfife 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless you can provide independent, recognized news coverage of their participation in multi-national riots. Just linking to the groups homepage does not establish notability. Leuko 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply If you do a search of the name in Greek here: , you'll find they regularly do fan stadium demonstrations that involve the participation of hundreds, if not thousands of people. The "Articles" section of contains hundreds of entries. - Richfife 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If all the sources of information are in Greek, perhaps the article should be moved to el.wiki? Leuko 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply There's presumably a separate article there already. The English Knowledge is striving to avoid an English centric viewpoint, even though it's written in English. - Richfife 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Granted, but it makes it hard to verify claims of notability if everything is in Greek. On the Google search, all I found were (what I assume to be) nn fan sites. I did not note any reputable news sources making mention of the group. Leuko 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment According to reliable sources, an article consisting of solely foreign language sources is allowed, but not preferred. ColourBurst 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable if they are up to the standards of WP:RS in terms of quality. I don't believe a few fan sites qualify. Leuko 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but needs more info. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable organization. Daniel's page ☎ 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Panathinaikos. Fan clubs for sports teams should be discussed on Knowledge, if at all, in the team's article. Since Gate 13 is a one-sentence article, it should be easy to merge. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Metropolitan90 --Huon 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above - the external links can be added to the main article as well. -- Roleplayer 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as above; if anybody wants to find this, that will get them there. JCScaliger 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect A Google search for "Gate 13" shows this subject, but as far as I can see, no individual article is needed. I'm not sure what there is to merge. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in someone can expand. Otherwise I support tariq's redirect rationale. Williamborg (Bill) 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What's so notable about it? It seems a bit local, and nothing to substantiate its claim, and even if it is substantiated, so what?? What has it done? The english site is down as I write. I see no point in redirecting. "Gate 13" is a pretty generic term, and probably exists in every airport and bus depot in every city.Ohconfucius 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTE. Doesn't even deserve a merge. Daniel.Bryant 13:31, 26 August 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 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable porn star with only about 41 films to her credit. Fails to meet WP:PORN BIO. I doubt that large breasts are notable enough. will381796 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I love Alexis, and she has some great breasts, but she doesn't seem to meet the requirements. Hopefully someone can find out if she's won some awards. TJ Spyke 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:31, 25 August 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 speedy keep

The article sounds like an ad for a website, and even assuming that all the claims in the article are true, it does not assert notability close to the level of WP:WEB, in my opinion. Wmahan. 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It seems that if what this article says is true, then it's notable enough to stay. If interpreted strictly, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." would lead one to assume this site is not notable, but having content and authors quoted by the many news agencies listed in the article should make this notable enough. --Daniel Olsen 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable website. 82 citations from Google Books

136 citations in Google Scholar and indexed by Google News. Capitalistroadster 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well-known website, Alexa ranking of 6,136 as of this morning. NawlinWiki 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable website. hateless 07:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 1ne 21:58, 20 August 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Only claim of notability is an appearance in one porn film. Appears to exist pretty much just to advertise website. Only two sites link to her website. -Elmer Clark 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PORN BIO. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion, author's only WP contribution was this article. NawlinWiki 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. will381796 22:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This model is notable in the transsexual porn movie circuit. Unitedroad 11:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject does not meet our proposed WP:PORN BIO guidelines. If they are notable in a niche circuit, verifiable evidence needs to be presented. Yamaguchi先生 00:52, 24 August 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would PROD this, but this is a really bizarre situation. User:Jonotoes initially created this article at Kristina Paulsen (), and it was about an entirely different person. He then slowly edited it and moved it, and now it is a geneological entry about someone completely different. Kristina Paulsen looked as if she may have been notable, but Christian certainly is not. I would just revert it back to Kristina, except the same user who created it altered and moved it. This is really confusing. Either way though, I think this ought to be deleted per WP:NN -Elmer Clark 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:BIO. No claims of notability. --Daniel Olsen 06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Completely non notable. Was tempted to label this a hoax, given the metamorphasis of the article, but instead found that the text was lifted verbatim from here. Resolute 06:27, 19 August 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 all, after discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Knowledge 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}}.

Non-notable independent film company. Google search for ("MTD Studios" -wikipedia) returns 512 hits (mainly directory listings or self-referential). No 3rd party press mentions or reliable sources. Fails: Knowledge:Notability (companies and corporations)

I also suspect that this article is a vanity article self-writen by the head of the company Michael Thomas Dunn, since both these articles along with those for his films were all written by the same user Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) or anonymous IPs. So in light of this evidence, I'm also nominating the following for deletion:

• Alone and Restless - Google hits for ("Alone and Restless" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 168
• Black Zone - ("Black Zone" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 81
• Midnight Conflict - ("Midnight Conflict" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 174
• Steel Legends ("Steel Legends" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) 64
• The Standoff - ("Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 107
• Vixen (film) - ("Vixen" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 51

Most of the returned links are either directory listings, or self-promotional (eg. YouTube trailers). Fails: Knowledge:Notability (films) since none of these films have:

• "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers"
• "has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"

Most importantly, Fails: Knowledge is not a soapbox. --  Netsnipe  05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.

ResponseAll of these objections are wrong -- here are some 3rd Party Sources that prove most of these objections incorrect (Alone and Restless, Black Zone, Out of Time, etc.): -DodgeM4S

However, I do believe the "Vixen" title should be deleted. That film was supposed to start filming here in July and it never happened. It should be deleted and I tried unsuccessfully to do so. -DodgeM4S

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per given reasons -Elmer Clark 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, nonnotable films/studio NawlinWiki 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Another wonderful Netsnipe collection. GBYork 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Since Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) has not contributed to Knowledge since 19 May 2006, notice of this AFD has been emailed to <marketing at sinisterfilms.com> --  Netsnipe  17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not Michael Dunn. I am DodgeM4S (John White) and the author of this content. I did copy images off the official sites and cited them. While MTD Studios is your judgement call (don't really know what defines non-notable), the feature films "Black Zone" and "Alone and Restless" are significant films shot in this area (Central Florida). I also believe that Dunn is a rising star. I submitted these articles to Knowledge and the links to other Knowledge pages (that seemed to annoy). Sorry if I ticked anyone off, but I still believe these articles are relavant... and I believe not a single article violates the wikipedia agreements: every submission was written in the most neutral, approriate, accurate manner that I was capable. I don't believe I violated any copyrights and the content is significant info for the regional film industry (Orlando, Florida). I will add additional content or edit my existing contributions to meet your criteria if neccessary. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

rm incorrect use of Template:db-author by Dodgem4s (talk • contribs)

• Keep As a primary author of the content, I will make whatever changes to make the content appropriate for Knowledge. But again, to reiterate -- there are already many links to third party sources that are listed within these nominated page for deletion that confirm the accuracy and significance (and violate no Knowledge guidelines) of the respective submissions. All of these contested projects are currently listed on The Internet Movie Database (a third party source -- and the world's most comprehensive movie database). It was one of the main sources of my research and cite it throughout. The company also meets the Company Notability Guidelines (companies and corporations) -- it is currently among the most productive studios within the Southeast United States. And an objection was made to Michael Thomas Dunn being referenced as a notable alumni of the University of Central Florida wikipedia page. Well, Officially from the University of Central Florida Film Program web site (http://film.ucf.edu/links_webpages.php) he is listed as a notable alumni -- so I am going to once again add his name to notable alumni on the UCF page. Not only is it a third party source, but its from the official site of the College mentioned. I think this is all just a mistake or someone's personal agenda. But the content belongs on Knowledge. I think I have proven every objective wrong or moot. He also fails to prove that it violates "Wiki is not a Soapbox" as there are no political slant listed in any of the documents.Dodgem4s

• keep As a UCF student, I find it sad that the person who signed this AFD has contributed no content of his own. Instead he joined wikipedia to simply delete other contributions. If that doesn't raise warning bells, I don't know what else does. He's just a troll looking to flame people.¶

— Possible single purpose account: Jennyangel97 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Don't Delete I have added some content to the sites in the afd so its not just from one source. over time i contributed as anonymous...... since people are getting so upset about anonymous contributions i just registered sorry :(

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldenknight07 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment: I am appalled by the use of single purpose accounts to remove the comments of other editors: Jennyangel97 (diff) and Goldenknight07 (diff). Do you honestly think you could get away with such underhanded tactics? You have been warned repeatedly not to remove comments. Consider this is your FINAL warning. Further removal of comments may lead to bans. --  Netsnipe  08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I talked about this AFD on the UCF talk forum and have also invited my friends to get involved -- but I have no control over what they choose to do. So let's debate -- still no responses from any of my rebuttals. reliable sources. PASSES: Knowledge:Notability (companies and corporations) -- Orlando Business Journal, Arizona Republic Newspaper, New York Times, and the Hollywood Reporter all prove this accusation wrong. Passes: Knowledge:Notability (films) since none of these films have: "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers" -- These films are listed on IMDB, AllMovie, MSN Movies, etc. etc. etc. Most importantly, PASSES: Knowledge is not a soapbox. Not once has any political slant been quoted from any of these pages mentioned in the AFD. Dodgem4s

• Reply: Before I go on, please follow the established formatting. It's a pain having to clean up comments every time when you cut other people's comments in half and indent in random places. And use 4 '~' in a row to sign so your comments are timestamped. OK. Now to the meat of things, where are the links to "Orlando Business Journal, Arizona Republic Newspaper, New York Times, and the Hollywood Reporter" in the article for MTD Studios that explicitly mention the studio and not just your name? So far you haven't produced an article on "MTD Studios". All I've seen are syndicated listings and synopsises from the All Movie Guide which has a self-submission policy and disqualifies it as a method for determining notability. As for WP:SOAP, Knowledge is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising (note the bold part). --  Netsnipe  17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reply: Fair enough, the Arizona Republic Newspaper Article/Interview is no longer listed on their web site since it was published more than 90 days again. The Orlando Business Journal Interview is located here (you need to scroll down to the second page for the Michael Thomas Dunn interview entitled " Indie drama to feature multiple technologies" -- a story on Titan A.E. is on the first page) ] The Hollywood Reporter Article is here (requires membership): ]

The New York Times Brief/Review is here: ]. Most newspapers seem to delete their articles after a couple of months so there aren't a lot -- and the mainstream media sources don't generally cover a lot of independent film. As for the "Soapbox" comment -- I don't see the listed films are advertisements/They are synopsis content pieces. DodgeM4S (talk

• Delete per nom. Tsimshatsui 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reply Please post a reason why -- since all your previous complaints have already been discredited. DodgeM4S 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd also like to add that all these flagged articles were not written to stand by themselves. These are all supplemental articles written for the comprehensive history of the Florida Film Industry that I also authored. DodgeM4S 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reply: I would like to make a very important point. The WP:CORP guidelines do not even apply to "MTD Studios." It is a place, not a company or corporation. Perhaps I didn't word that properly in these wiki pages or the IMDb listing has lead to some confusion -- but there is no company with that name. It is a shooting location much like the city of Orlando or Miami. I think it is a notable landmark in Lake County, Florida -- since it is the only film production site in the county. I'd also like to point out, 4 individual production companies have production offices located there -- including Gator animation and Velocity TV (none of the 4 companies are listed as individual pages on wiki -- so not a single instance that violates the WP:CORP guidelines). Again, I will make any corrections deemed necessary, just let me know what needs to be fixed. -DodgeM4S 06:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alone and Restless was the first feature film produced by MTD Studios in 2004. That implied to me that MTD Studios was more of independent film company than a facility. In my honest opinion, all the separate articles on the movies should be deleted since they have haven't received enough coverage or critical acclaim in the press to be considered notable. However, I would be willing to endorse keeping MTD Studios as part of a series of articles on the Florida Film Industry which to me would be a notable article. I suggest that you could probably merge all the above listed movies into a section on the production history of MTD Studios. --  Netsnipe  13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Yeah, it was a little unclear -- it should have read: AAR was first feature produced at MTD Studios.

As for merging the articles: I think it is a great idea for most of the individual shorts/documentaries. I will begin the process of merging Steel Legends and The Standoff. However, I think the 2 feature films Alone and Restless and Black Zone may deserve individual coverage (these were large projects in the area). Although, I think the Midnight Conflict short might merit its own article (at least for UCF film program background) since its success prompted the program to allow Digitally Shot (DV) projects in their curriculum -- which had previously been excluded (the film school used 16mm film exclusively until 1998). Here is the updated MTD Studios with the merge. -DodgeM4S 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)<

• Comment: I've cleaned up the merge a bit. So now, I believe these three pages should be deleted:

• DELETE: Steel Legends - Redundant Content with MTD Studios
• DELETE: The Standoff - Redundant Content with MTD Studios
• DELETE: Vixen (film) - Film Has Gone Into 'Turnover' -- Future Production Info of a Cancelled Project
  

I think the other pages are satisfactory. Does anyone see any obvious problems with the other pages? -DodgeM4S 11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Knowledge 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}}.

Nomination on behalf of User Juro, who is unfamiliar with the AFD process in the English Knowledge. Article lacks content and context, and appears to be a neologism. Borisblue 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete--62.1.204.210 06:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The vote is from a sock of a permabanned User:Bonaparte abakharev 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a non-sense--81.30.98.18 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Only three edits abakharev 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--218.38.13.111 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only edit of the IP abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete must be deteled 210.233.102.70 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only other edit of this IP is vandalism abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Three quick votes from anonymous IPs seem to show that some sock/meatpuppetry is being used. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this crap--193.17.54.137 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Open proxy abakharev 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete this article --218.103.58.139 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only edit of the IP
• delete why not delete? --212.85.152.222 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only edit of the IP
• Abstain I'm just nominating this on behalf of Juyo. Borisblue 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, gets a bunch of Google hits, which proves that it's not a neologism. The article actually lacks content because Juro deleted 90% of it. (I see that Boris has now re-added most of it) If we have articles like Albanisation, Bulgarization, Hellenization, Kurdification, Turkification, etc. (see Category:Cultural assimilation for the full list), I see no reason to delete this one. It's definately a notable topic, used in relation to the Hungarians and Rusyns in Slovakia. See , , , , , , , , , , , , and . —Khoikhoi 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the word appeared in about 71 books. . —Khoikhoi 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As I already said on the talk page: if you look right on the first page of your first book search link, the texts are about deslovakization, reslovakization (explicitely or per content) or things like "Slovakization of Czech words" (in a purely linguistic sense) and one is about "natural" Slovakization (because Rusyn is very similar to Slovak). I still think this is one reason for moving this and similar words to the wictionary. Nobody denies that the word technically exists like for any other nationality or language. Juro 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. It could use some expansion and some sources though. --Daniel Olsen 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's got one source so far. As I develop the article I'll make sure to add more. —Khoikhoi 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I have explained my points on the talk page of the article, where I have also explained the problem with Khokhoi's google "hits" (and they should be at least several thousands, anyway). As a general short remark, I wonder how one can talk about "Slovakization" after WWII with respect to Hungarians, when the number of Hungarians in (Czecho-)Slovakia increased during that period, while it decreased in Hungary - their mother country - itself. (And Khoikhoi, given your permanent eagerness in Hungary-related issues, are you sure you are not a very carefully hidden sockpuppet of someone I know?) Juro 10:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Khoikhoi has two socks at least. Ungurul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Român (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vlachos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Moldavos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--222.124.24.117 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • IP's only edit. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Provisional delete; the article is not even 24 hours old yet, so maybe good verifiable, reliable sources will be added to show that this isn't original research. If that's done by the time this AFD is over, I'll change my vote to keep. Otherwise, delete it. User:Angr 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Keep now; article has been expanded and is well-sourced. User:Angr 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article had a source but Juro keeps deleting it on the basis that he thinks it's wrong. —Khoikhoi 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • • I KNOW it is wrong, as wrong as 1+1 is not 3. Visit the region and ask anybody, if you do not believe me. I will cite some sources when it is necessary, but currently this article should be deleted. That's absolutely beyond any doubt. And you will find no sources on the internet or in a US library, because Slovakia is very scarcely represented there. Juro 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) And am still persuaded that you are a sockpuppet of a well-known user. Juro 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because there is no relevant information in the article and existence of the phenomenon itself is doubtful. Tankred 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is now semi-protected because of an anon who refuses to let the article say anything at all. User:Angr 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Current version of article has sufficient reliable sources to write a verifiable article. JChap2007 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• The first source is factually wrong, the other sources contain the word in a general sense. Juro 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - every new article is of low quality and lacks information but that's not enough reason to automatically delete them. Slovakization exists as a phenomenon and also as a term. There is no reason to think that this stub won't grow to an ordinary article sooner or later. Zello 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it is impossible to write the article under these circumstances. There is no need for a second Magyarization article. Zello 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not read the article, there is only 1 sentence on Magyarisation and that sentence is very important. And yes, it is impossible to write anything here, because you have bothered to delete pure facts (statistics etc.). And the Magyarisation article will be extended. Juro 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is about Magyarization and the glorious minority policy of Slovakia. That's absurd. Zello 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are lying Zello, only one sentence is on Magyarisation. You have not read the text and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocricy on your part. The truth is that you do cannot support what the article contains. And be sure that I will extend the Magyarisation article correspondingly, now that these questions have been opened by your and your nationalist co-editors.Juro 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do as you want I won't work under these circumstances. Zello 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are lying Juro, there is more than 1 sentence on Magyarisation. You have not read the title and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocrisy on your part. The truth is that you cannot support the facts. And be sure that I will put a link to Slovakization into every Slovakia-related article, now that you and your nationalist co-editors have tried to own these topics... – Naturally, not half a word of this is serious, I'm just paraphrasing what you said above so that I can ask this: are you unable or unwilling to notice the disgusting personal attacks and unfair threats you are making? KissL 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, you are not telling the truth: Only the introductory sentence was about Magyarisation. Irrespective of this, even if 10 paragraphs would be about Magyarisation: as long as the information is relevant, you will not delete it. This is pure ch.... (leaving out "personal" attack). Juro 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading what I said again. I've added some emphasis to make it clearer. :o) KissL 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - No amount of trolling and vandalism should be reason enough to delete a valid article. If anyone insists on transforming the article into a second Magyarization, that person should be taken to RfC. It's as easy as that. KissL 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Valid stub with reliable citations. Any other concerns are not a matter for AfD but for cleanup. --Kinu /_c 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The occurrence of a word in a text is a valid "citation" for a dictionary, not necessarily for an encyclopaedia. You have not read the citations. Incredible. Juro 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons listed by user:Juro. --Dudo2 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article contains citations from reliable sources establishing verifiability and notability. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kinu, and block Juro if he continues to disrupt its growth/vandalize it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so like always one (Hungarian) vandal managed to manipulate the whole wikipedia. We will have the first article in the world titled Slovakization (original research by a sockpuppet user who has absolutely no idea about the topic and only knows that we have Kurdification so we have to have Slovakization too), In addition, in line with reality , however, the article will have to imply that no such organized process exists, rather the opposite. Neither the title nor the content will be correct, nevertheless we are going to keep it. Very interesting..Juro 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and fill the article with hard-core historical evidence to maintain credibility and scientific exactness. Árpád 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, since there is a magyarization page also, so it would be a racist double standard not to keep it. In fact in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries discussing Slovakization is more essential given the daily treatment of Hungarians in Slovakia (Jan Slota, who is part of the governing coalition, called for the "flattening of Budapest" by tanks). His inclusion in the Slovak parliament has made Slovak-Magyar coexistence considerably more difficult. Alphysikist 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody has called for nothing, Arpad. He said that - if you read the whole quote - for the case Slovakia would be attacked by Hungary, and he said that when he was drunk. Also, he was "included" in the parlament also in the past. Next, it is completely irrelevant what an individual person thinks or says, I have told you this several times. Postcards and novels (cited by you) are also irrelevant, fascist and nationalist sources (cited by you) are also irrelevant. Next, if you have deleted such opinions from the Magyarisation article, you may not add them elsewhere. And I am leaving out "personal attacks", although you are an obvious fascist (which is a fact). And permament creation of sockpuppets is another form of deception. Juro 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Zello. KissL 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was on the fence, but Joru's behavior and general attitude here prompts me to err on the inclusionary side. If it doesn't evolve into a better article, maybe it should be deleted later. Sxeptomaniac 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• This really could be an interesting article. I don't see why it should be deleted. Peter O. (Talk) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While the Slovakization (or Czechization, etc) was real and adopted as either explicit or implicit state policy by the new national states of Central Europe this article is just a spotty and incoherent coverage of Slovakian history. The facts about Slovakization are few to none. IME this kind of articles tends to attract warriors and to expand with ultra detailed coverage of irrelevant events. Deleting it and keeping the heads cool for a month would be the most useful act to reach some quality of the text. Btw. User:Juro is very valuable, long term Slovak editor whose opinion does matter here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is crap Martye 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Neologism. There are facts behind this article, but they should be covered History of Czechoslovakia. Also concur with Pavel Vozenilek. --Pjacobi 21:07, 28 August 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 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

non-notable business, fails WP:CORP, was prod'ed and removed by original author. Gogo Dodo 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavenly Bodies (strip club) is meets wikipedia's criteria for being a notable entity since it has been the subject of numerous articles in the local media.

• Rupa Shenoyr (February 2003). "Clubs Promise Path from Poverty". Chicago Reporter.
• Frank Main (2005-04-09). "Cops accused of hiding strip club income". Chicago Sun-Times.
• missingauthor. "missingtitle". ABC News.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Lisa_Lipps
• http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/943571.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhubbard (talk • contribs)

• Keep per Nathanhubbard. --Daniel Olsen 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment About the list of articles provides by Nathanhubbard, the first two are indeed valid articles. The third is a broken link, but the correct article is "Flames erupt at gentleman's club". ABC7. 2005-07-05., however, it is a four sentence article that says that there was a fire that broke out in 2005 at the club. The fourth link is a Knowledge article. The fifth link is a list to a court case, so really isn't an article. That leaves three valid articles, does that make qualify it under WP:CORP? Maybe, maybe not. -- Gogo Dodo 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is another article that discusses the arson angle of the 2005 fire Dan Rozek (2005-07-06). "Strip club fire looks like arson". Chicago Sun-Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhubbard (talk • contribs)
• Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. None of the sources above is really about the club, they are about a fire, some tax evasion, etc that happen to mention the club in passing. The sources do not verify the information in the article. If the fire is notable (which it isn't) the articles would be The Elk Grove Township Fire of 2005, Michael G. Wellek (famous suspected tax fraudster), etc. Weregerbil 08:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please re-read the articles weregerbil; the first two articles discusses the club very explicitly; you can possibly argue that the arson investigation at the club was notable if you like but $12 million in cash seized by the IRS is pretty notable IMO. user:nathanhubbard 04:29, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
  • Ok, after re-reading I still can't see verification of what the Knowledge article says. If a tax evasion investigation is notable (I don't think this one is) then there should be an article on that. Weregerbil 10:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article about tax evasion investigation of Wellek clearly verifies the tax evasion investigation and is the topic of the article. Whether the IRS seizing $12 million is "notable" or not, I guess is a matter of opinion! user:nathanhubbard 08:37, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
  • One of the Wikipeidia criteria of whether a company or corporation is notable is whether thatcompany or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. Clearly, there are multiple, independents articles about the subject. I guess it comes down to whether those articles are "non-trivial" or not. user:nathanhubbard 08:38, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
• Delete per Weregerbil. Nathan, your sources don't actually describe the "business"; they describe tax evasion and a fire. Additionally, your sources are largely local newspapers; this "business" has not received national or even regional attention. Neither have the fire or the case of tax evasion. Srose (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added some sources that describe the business a little better but I don't agree that something should be excluded from wikipedia just because its a "local" interest. Knowledge is filled with articles about people and events that are notable but local. user:nathanhubbard 10:35, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
• Delete — Per weregerbil, the club itself is not notable. The description could just as easily be of the Bada Bing. JChap2007 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As the author of this article - I also concur with the posts suggesting deleting this article and the valid points that they make. user:nathanhubbard
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:NOT a business directory, no multiple non-trivial WP:RS indicating any sort of notability. Possible speedy as a stub which essentially just restates the title. --Kinu /_c 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if there article were about the arson investigation for the club, and if that even were deemed notable, I could see keeping it. But right now, verifiability and notability are both lacking. No citations. Can this article now be speedy deleted due to the agreement of the author of the page, nathanhubbard? will381796 22:50, 19 August 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 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable variant of Mafia (game), Google search doesn't even indicate that it would be worth much of a redirect. Article creator CrU did many edits to it back in March, and I persuaded them to move them over to the MafiaScum wiki, but there's some subarticles here that need cleaned up. In addition, the creator hasn't been back to either wiki since April, so I think it's abandonware to boot. -- nae'blis 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Subarticles

• Doctor Livingstone MSM (now a redirect to MSM)
• Drevru Perez MSM
• Hento Kodjia MSM
• Trent Talor MSM
• Ricardo Perez MSM
• Jeffrey Almont MSM
• Richard Daumer MSM
• Lawrence Burkely MSM

• Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability -Elmer Clark 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, articles essentially about a group of friends playing a game. NawlinWiki 11:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Far too often these type of circular articles go undetected. GBYork 17:42, 19 August 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 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced, signed personal essay that admits the term "energy autonomy" has no specific definition. Opabinia regalis 06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete textbook violation of WP:OR -Elmer Clark 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elmer Clark. --Daniel Olsen 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — WP:OR JChap2007 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. will381796 22:53, 19 August 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 redirect to Alex Jones (radio), nothing to merge, no reason not to redirect. - Bobet 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable public access television show. Morton devonshire 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Merge. I missed the Alex Jones article. --Daniel Olsen 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Alex Jones article. Dionyseus 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep Morton is on a frikkin deletion rampage. Anything that doesn't blow sunshine up Uncle Sam's butt is on it's way out as far as he is concerned. This is Alex Jones TV show. It doesn't matter what anybody's political opinion is. It's just notable, that's all. Maybe just merge unless some substantial information can be added that isn't already in one of all the other Alex Jones related articles. SkeenaR 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, you crack me up. Friggin. Morton devonshire 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep InfoWars is quite notable. Whether a person agrees with it or not is irrelevant. It is still notable. Whiskey Rebellion 07:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Notability is an opinion, so what you think is notable may not be agreed on by other. See WP:N (an essay that I don't agree with, but is often used nonetheless). --Daniel Olsen 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Compare to any of the articles in Category:United States television program stubs --Striver 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Alex Jones unless/until this article is expanded. Gamaliel 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Alex Jones. Seems logical to merge it. Æon 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — to Alex Jones. The picture of him with Charlie Sheen is priceless, btw. JChap2007 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. How shamelessly POV to propose its deletion. PizzaMargherita 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — To Alex Jones (radio) or merge to infowars.com - the Alex Jones article already reads "Jones still broadcasts his show, InfoWars on public access television in Austin." which is all this stub says - so no merge is necessary. - GIen 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep: Serial Afd nominations, particularly the current batch targeting articles that evidence noteworthy skepticism of mainstream pov, should be treated with great suspicion. Ombudsman 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep: per Ombudsman. --Striver 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge into Alex Jones (radio). We don't need so many stub articles for every marginally/non-notable Alex Jones video or show. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- your comment made me curious, so I rounded up the Alex Jones forks. Here's the list: Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, America Destroyed By Design, TerrorStorm, Information Clearing House, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Police State 3. This guy's bigger than Oprah! Morton devonshire 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Than how, pray tell, is this non-notable? ;) SkeenaR 08:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Alex Jones.--Tbeatty 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Alex Jones.--MONGO 05:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - Pretty sure this Jones fellow doesn't need this many stub articles. Rmt2m 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Alex Jones. ekrub-ntyh 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there's mention of it in Alex Jones. -- Samir धर्म 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Samir. It's already mentioned on Alex Jones, and there's nothing else in the article. If the content grows to be worthy of an article, it can be split then. Sandy 05:59, 29 August 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 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how shortly after I say "Might as well make a list of songs about love" in this AfD, this article crops up in my sights. Unmaintainable list that violates WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 07:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated under this AfD:

• List of songs about sex

• Would you mind explaining how this violates WP:NOT? If this violates somehow, then so does Songs about animals, Songs about places, Songs about Elvis, List of songs about homosexuality, and many many more. --Daniel Olsen 07:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Indiscriminate collection of information. You can't convince me that the topic "songs about sex" has a very specific focus. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The title alone shows the focus, "songs about sex". It's self-explanatory. Lists fall under nothing in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Not all lists are indiscriminate sources of information. WP:LISTS, a guideline for wikipedia, governs the use of lists and justifies their existance. Your objections to lists in general should be voiced at the talk page there. --Daniel Olsen 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The guideline page you cite contains references to WP:V which this page cannot meet; many lists have been deleted under the criteria I previously cited as well. Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well I see your point, but what do you expect for sources? "The New York Times has determined that the song Bad Touch is about sex. Groundbreaking." For all of the List of songs about _____ articles, you're not going to find sources that say "This song is about _____". What should be done about things that are so obvious they're not written anywhere? --Daniel Olsen 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It's amazing what people write about, sometimes. Before asserting that there are "things that are so obvious they're not written anywhere", do the research. You might find that there are copious sources on the subject, which you can use to entirely refute the argument that this is unverifiable. Please do research and attempt to find sources, rather than trying to argue that we should make exceptions to our sourcing policies. You should be working from sources in the first place, anyway. Uncle G 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Here's a hint: There are 8 pages of sleeve notes that you could cite, for starters, which you will find when you do the research. Uncle G 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Which might be relevant for articles about the songs or the albums they're on. It doesn't begin to justify this list's existence. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
              • The sleeve notes that I'm alluding to are on the subject of a collection that is specifically entitled "songs about sex". I've exhorted those who want the article kept to do the research. I exhort those who want the article deleted to do the research, also. Uncle G 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely unmanagable. The lists of songs about animals and places also look a little iffy and might be worth looking into as well, now that you mention it. -Elmer Clark 08:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move Merge to List of songs about sex. See my arguments above. --Daniel Olsen 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding that page to this AfD since it's basically the same thing. (The talk page contains a rather poignant comment from NawlinWiki.) Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge It with List of songs about sex like Daniel Olsen said. Outside Center 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) note edit was because I spelt wrong.
• DeleteFocus of this list is too broad to be of any meaning, IMHO. Over half of the songs in the top 40 in every western country for the last 20 years would have been about sex in some way? It would almost make more sense to have a list of "Songs not about sex"...Tompee 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You could say the same thing about List of songs about criminals or List of songs about money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outside Center (talk • contribs)
    • No, you couldn't. Really, you couldn't. Probably the only thing there are more songs about than sex is love. And arguably they're not that different. Danny Lilithborne 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How can you claim that? Many songs contain both, especially rap which can contain all three. The List of songs about money is just as broad. I don't particularly care for this list or any other list of songs about something, but if your going to have them you might as well have the most popular ones. Outside Center 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • List of songs about money is maintainable given that it is focused on songs specifically about money, and doesn't just mention every rap song where the rapper happens to mention his bank account. Personally, however, I'm against any list of songs on Knowledge without a focused verifiable subject; I just don't have the werewithal to nominate them all. Danny Lilithborne 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete waaaaaaaaaay too many songs fitting this description, as I said to someone who suggested this at WP:AFC. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unmanageable. See comments I made for List of Songs about Jesus. Regards, --E Asterion 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed that its completely unmanageable. And the majority of songs in popular culture today reference sex - imo, this is just a random collection of information that doesn't serve any real purpose. See: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Rimmers 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Way too many list of songs about ____. We should consider deleting criminals and money too. JChap2007 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sex is a human desire and thousands of songs have been written, or could be interpreted to be, pertaining to sex. Unmanagable and unverifiable. will381796 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as all songs are basically about sex, even "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Well-known fact. Hornplease 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Tuluvas2 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I am saying delete because this is such a subjective topic in a way. First of all different cultures would probably consider different things to consist of "sex". Would everyone world wide accept oral sex as being sex? (Obviously not just look at the JAMA from when Clinton was president). Also some songs may indirectly refer to sex but they do not directly refer to sex. Someone can talk about sex indirectly in a song and never mention the word sex or anything related to sex. What subjective stand-point do we base the meaning of the songs from? Do we include songs that we perceive as being related to sex that others will not perceive as being related to sex? From the perceptions of some people songs which talk about things not related to sex may be subliminally refering to sex, and to other people songs which subliminally refer to sex with out mentioning it may not appear to be about sex. Knowledge should be for objective information and NPOV and I see that this list is going to automatically be at least partially point of view. (Someones point of veiw may be that the candy shop is actually a candy shop, even though my point of veiw is that the song is obviously refering to sex). But does my point of veiw automatically over rule someone elses perception? I guess we could ask the artist who makes the song what the song was actually about? Or we could make a list of songs that have the potential to be perceived as about sex? It is just a mess really, and what I have just said may not make any sense, but I vote for delete.
  • So the list "Songs about Drugs" is ok, but a similar list of "songs" is not? Drugs are just as taboo, illicit, and controversial as sex, but the "Songs about Drugs" list isn't being considered for deletion. Also, as far as I can tell, the two lists have the same format. So I ask- why the double standard?
• Tuluvas2 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I agree with the above poster that we should hold the standard to all lists similar to this one. The topic of the list had no reason in my desicion to vote for deletion. Are there any standards on how the Knowledge community has dealt with lists such as this one? I don't want to go against the standards with my vote and if someone could give me a link to an article/rule about lists that could be interpreted to say this list should stay I would quickly change my vote based on the new evidence. However if nobody can, I will keep my vote delete for this list and advocate that we delete all similar lists. We must be equal and fair and if one list is removed for a reason all other lists that meet that reason should be removed. But like I mentioned before, if someone gives a link to a standard/rule about lists such as these on wikipedia that can be interpreted to say this list should stay, then I will change my vote to keep and advocate that we keep all other lists like this.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing article bordering on patent nonsense. Google search for "The Tribunal Church" Joliet returns zero results. Creator removed PROD tag without explanation. Either a hoax, or entirely non-notable -Elmer Clark 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like a clear example of WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and daniel olsen and as per WP:V, WP:NN, WP:HOAX, WP:PN, and WP:NFT ST47 12:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article says "little is known about this religeon" , so it's probably unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Unverifiable, possible hoax. JChap2007 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Creator's only contributions are to this article. I smell a hoax. AgentPeppermint 22:11, 19 August 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 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)