Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

École Franco-Polonaise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly referenced unnotable enterprise.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — Scientizzle 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This game has not been commercially distributed. It is not particularly popular or notable as a non-commercial game. It has not been recognized by the developers of the actual Halo series or otherwise promoted in the mainstream gaming press. There has not been a controversy around the game to make it notable in that respect. It is made using a game creation engine, so it is not technically notable in terms of its own engine or assets. While there is no fixed criteria for game notability right now, it seems pretty likely that Knowledge (XXG) should avoid listing these sorts of projects. Stump 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, permission was granted by Bungie for the project. Also, it was notable enough to get a feature in OXM, with a video featured on the disc. It has had over 100,000 downloads from download.com. since when is 100,000 not notable? Keep this article, your reasons for it's removal are incorrect.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfire (Yu-Gi-Oh GX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ksy92003 reinstated prod after it "was deleted for no reason" by one of the article's editors. So, I deleted prod again and brought it here as a matter of protocol. Ksy92003's reasons for prod were "This article discusses a deck for a card game used in a TV show. The deck has no notability in it." Postcard Cathy 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Further discussion on possible title changes and references should be on the Talk page for the article. ···日本穣 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of mentally ill monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Do we really need more lists? There really is no way to judge whether a person from antiquity was mentally ill or not. It's the sort of thing that keeps scholars debating for decades. This list is basically going to become "List of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill." eaolson 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, If it had sources I would keep it. Keep, change it to Rulers and add presidents and dictators.Callelinea 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep. I agree. There must be a way to easily find leaders labeled as 'crazy'. But then, we could create a category instead. However, I don't see anything wrong with this list so far. --Loukinho 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The disclaimer about who was actually mentally ill in the article says delete to me. It lacks validity from that point and becomes relatively useless. --Stormbay 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What's wrong with the "list of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill" idea? Of course we're never going to know definitively which monarchs were ill or not. We can recount what chroniclers have described them as - that's all we can ever do anywhere in Knowledge (XXG). I'm sorry, "we can't be definitive" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you want sources, fine, I'll footnote each individual entry, but given the article has existed for all of 9 hours I think we might be getting a bit over-zealous in this regard. None of the reasons recounted thus far are convincing. Slac speak up! 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • sorry, Delete Nothing wrong with the idea. I was prepared to like this list, but it's not much more than a set of nine blue-links and a "this-is-a-stub-have-fun-adding-to-it" invitation. Not only that, it's more of a list of people whom some historians have labelled as "geez, they must have been crazy". Finally, considering the prime ministers and presidents who were removed and sent to a hospital for mental illness, why confine a list to kings and queens. Though I have to admit, "Mentally-ill Monarchs" would be a cool name for a band. Mandsford 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Mad King Ludwig" was called mad by his contemporaries at least in part because he was homosexual, and at least two others on this list were considered mad because of gossip spread 100 years or more after their deaths. Are gossip and invective reliable sources? I don't think so. --Charlene 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a reliable source for what someone was called - ie. historically verifiable opinions. That's what we're aiming for, remember? Not The Truth(TM). The objections still boil down to "there aren't enough sources" - a view that would hold a lot more validity if, say, this was a few months old. Slac speak up! 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: While moderately interesting, I don't believe that this really serves any purpose whatsoever. Any accusations of mental illness could be placed in the article itself (or confirmations) in it's own section, and the list can be (as so cleverly suggested by Corpx) turned into a category. This article is not necessary... at all. --HAL2008 talk Contributions 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add sources and further explain notability, i.e. for people like Caligula who have been the subject of films. Show that the list has relevance to popular culture and/or societal change. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What about mentally ill people who believe they are monarchs? ~ Infrangible 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. Actually this list is somewhat useful. I realize that I am treading very close to WP:ILIKEIT, but this is a subject of great interest to historians and there has been much debate about these people for many years. Perhaps the title could be changed, as others above have pointed out above, but I think the idea of the list is sound. We do need documentation and sources, however. ●DanMS • Talk 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Locate sources; it's a valid topic. And "Do we really need any more lists?" is such a bogus statement. --Hemlock Martinis 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite a valid topic, go get sources. I'm tempted to ask "Do we really need fewer lists?" -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this information would only belong in the monarch's article, or in a category Giggy UP 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, consider renaming. Valid topic for which plentiful sources could, and should, be found. Needs expanding, possibly incorporating other heads of state. Brief notes could also be added to enhance the usefulness compared with a category. I would support renaming to clarify the inclusion criterion. Espresso Addict 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly create a category as per Corpx, DanMS, Hal2008, and nom. Bearian 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of the monarchs with a historical reputation for madness are linked by heredity. For example, Henry VI of England was the grandson of Charles VI of France. So this not just a list of unrelated monarchs. As for references, they can be added ( I added one.)Cardamon
  • Strong delete - not a valid topic. This is absolutely unverifiable, because it cannot possibly be known which monarchs were "mentally ill". That can't be found out anymore. SalaSkan 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Salaskan - I have two replies.
  1. As others have already pointed out, the name of the page should be changed to something like Monarchs thought to be mad by their chroniclers or Monarchs with a historical reputation for mental illness, which is verifiable.
  2. Some physical evidence may exist for more recent monarchs such as George III. Cardamon 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gates County USA News Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

11 unique Google hits for "Gates County USA News Magazine", mostly Knowledge (XXG) mirrors (could somebody please explain to me why surfonsteroids.com, medlibrary.org, and a listing of figure skating TV schedules are mirroring Knowledge (XXG) pages about magazines?); 17 unique hits for "Gates County USA", mostly RSS feeds; and the creating user, BlackHorse Web IMC (talk · contribs), identifies as the magazine's publisher. In summary, there seem to be no sources whatsoever with which to write this article. Unint 23:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator and no other users calling for deletion. Non-admin close. cab 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hari Singh (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable soldier. Article has no real sources and was likely the creation of a family member appears to be more of a geneolgoy page than an encyclopedia article. Daniel J. Leivick 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks for all the work on the article guys. My mistake, I have been going through old notability cases and removing misplaced or outdated tags and nominating close calls for deletion. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am going to try to clean it up so it is at least readable but from what I can tell he was given awards and appointed to various positions. After I can figure out what the writer wanted to say, I might change my mind. But for now I say keep. Callelinea 23:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This one is tough but it reads a little better, the guy was a General in the Indian Army that was awarded a high Award by the President of India. I'm going to take a little break and see if I can correct some spelling in the article, all those names were giving me a headache, but all kidding aside this General really was someone important to Indian history or at least to the Indian Army.

Can someone find an administrator to close this AfD since the nominator withdrew his nomination. Callelinea 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about, some one will close it at some point. The article will not be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hunter Killer (StarCraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, in-universe, game guide, etc. An overall irrelevant article. Not every Zerg breed needs it own page The Clawed One 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

unsourced, entirely not needed. It's just an in-universe game guide The Clawed One 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

A completely unnotable game guide. The Zerg don't need a page for every breed. The Clawed One 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Promotional article on non-notable subject. Aarktica 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, The writer of the article has only contributed one article to wikipedia. That is not bad per say, but his only comments/edits all have to do with this one article. I have a gut feeling that the writer might be the subject of the article, which I do not have a problem with normally, if written in a neutral way. Which this article for the most part does. My problem is with that their are no sources other then yoga web sites and his writings. For me to even contemplate a change in my position, I would need additional mainstream sources. Callelinea 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although different from the previous AFD which I closed as "userfy", this falls victim to the same problems, ultimately, that one did. (ESkog) 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per discussion. Page is largely self promotional. Publication of books is not, per se, a sign of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no 3rd party documentation of any sort that might show notability. DGG (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per only trivial mentions in the media Corpx 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not entirely sure what to make of this article, but it does assert notability by saying "the first" in its first sentence and does provide sources in the form of a bibliography, a note, and external links. Maybe keep for that reason. Is it more a matter of conflict of interest by the article's author/main contributor? Or do you think it just needs more independent sources and edits? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
assserting is sufficient to keep from speedy deletion, but not sufficient for a keep. The external links are his online teachings and the reference is a series of his audio interviews on yahoo. DGG (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was proposed by another editor for speedy deletion (article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject) - which was contested --VS 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, No references to claims made in article. Poorly written. Needs to state the facts and not write it like it was a novel. As written it seams as a vanity piece since the writer is the subject of the article, if it had been written in a more neutral tone, I would of overlooked it, but it isn't so it does seam to be WP:COI. Callelinea 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A freestyle skateboarder of his stature would have some Google hits. Ramey does not. Adding a blocking phrase to weed out Knowledge (XXG) mirrors, we get: - Richfife 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide. Non admin closure. Jorvik 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Dawn-Marie Wesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable suicide victim. Since notability criteria exclude individuals that are notable only for a single news event, fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very sad, but non notable. Poorly written article doesn't even give a time point of reference. Bendž|Ť 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree completly with Bendzh. Callelinea 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, Rename and revise or merge to Rats & Bullies: The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story. The individual was not notable before three bullies drove her to commit suicide. This tragedy became notable when two of the bullies were tried and convicted, and when a documentary film was made about it. The CBC reference says "The trial drew widespread attention to the role of the courts in dealing with school bullying cases across the country." It was also featured on the Oprah show as one of two instances of "bullycide" and has been discussed in a number of published source over the 6 years since the death. It was discussed in the Legislative Assembly (2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, March 26, 2002, under "Bulleying prevention ." But we normally have an article about the crime and its implications for society, rather than a memorial article about the victim.Perhaps it could be restyled Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide, similar to the common "John Jones murder case" although that would invite more memorial articles about other suicides which lacked the notable features of this one. Edison 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of Edison's argument. When individual stories that are not inherently notable per se become used by national news sources as an example, the incident becomes notable. When they get repeated attention over a period of years, and in particular legislative attention they are certainly notable enough for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It's generally Knowledge (XXG) precedent that murder victims who become the impetus for legislation and have a bill named after them are notable. Although bills aren't named in Canada like they are in the US, her name was tied to the bill in the same way that Megan Kanka's was to Megan's Law, so despite being a suicide I can see that she has some claim to notability. Her name is also somewhat known in Canada, especially to people over about 35, and she may pass WP:BIO on that alone. --Charlene 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form as per Edison, but better as an article on the incident and its results rather than on the person. Davewild 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Rats & Bullies: The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story. Her suicide is the only thing she is noted for, so guidelines in this case would support merging the article on her and documentary based on her situation. Either way, she is not notable enough to have 2 articles, no matter how sad her death is. Lrrr IV 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The Rats & Bullies documentary appears notable in its own right. And having one article serve as a bio, an event and a film about the event is difficult to categorize precisely. Canuckle 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take discussions on possible mergers and redirections to the Talk page for this article. ···日本穣 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of House (TV series) cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect/Merge to House (TV series)--JForget 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge to House (TV seies), As an independent article no way.. If the writer wants to do an episode by episode sub-directory in the main article that shows each cast member all the power to them. Callelinea 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect/Merge, because concerns popular, prominent show. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete Looks like a directory to me. Doesn't add any real information... Looks like a credits list, really. OSborn 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Knowledge (XXG) functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Menace and risks of users doing this or that are irrelevant arguments. Kariteh 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No need to catalogue minor character actors. The main cast are listed on the main article for the show. Listing the rest of the cast is what imdb et al are for. JulesH 08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not categorize This is notably different from voice actors, since a role in this series will almost certainly result in a link, making the list superfluous. Circeus 09:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Turn into category — Will work better as a cat. Matthew 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. Furthermore, "delete and merge" is not a valid argument either, as deletion of the history of merged content violates the GFDL by destroying the attribution required by that license. DHowell 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take merger and redirect discussions to the talk page for the article. ···日本穣 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Guiding Light cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally random. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge to Guiding Light into appropriate sub-section with the list.--JForget 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and create category if one doesn't exist. This isn't random: just because Guiding Light isn't as popular with young tech-savvy guys in the same way that, say, Family Guy or South Park are, doesn't mean it's less notable of a television show. But I don't think any television show - any - needs a list of cast members on Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is not the IMDB. --Charlene 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Knowledge (XXG) functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Cast information for major and recurring characters is already present in the per-decade articles on the show. A separate list adds no value. JulesH 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize This is turning into a sort of vicious circle. And I doubt any argumentation can be made that this is "indiscriminate". Looks pretty specific to me.Now whether ot not this duplicate information found in the series' page, that is another question. Circeus 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect - article provides information on when the individual was a member of the cast; however, I think this would be better treated in a box within the main article. I still don't think this is useful information on its own. Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Shortland Street cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally random. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. --Sbluen 00:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Knowledge (XXG) functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is already a list of major & recurring characters in the main article for the show. This list adds no real value. JulesH 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not re-categorize. This is creating a vicious circle for information that should probably be included anyway. Circeus 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not encyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally random. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. --Sbluen 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Knowledge (XXG) functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are already cast lists on the main articles for each series (e.g. Yu-Gi-Oh! (first series anime)). There is no need to duplicate this information in a central list. JulesH 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Besides, if we delete it now, the information will become a bloaty part of Yu-Gi-Oh!, then a separate list etc. ad vitam aeternam! Circeus 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleteper JulesH, with a suggestion. There are cast lists for the various shows, yes? Are there any cast members left out of those lists? If so, put them in. No need to create little "list demons" for the casts of every show.--Ispy1981 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Improve it rather than deleting it.
  • Delete This type of information is better served and provides better context when incorporated into articles about characters. --Farix (Talk) 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete Not that I feel strongly about it, but I should point out that this isn't an indiscriminate list of information. The concept has worked for other articles, but if the layout can be done in a better way, then fine, redirect it. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appropriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge (XXG):Listcruft is just an essay, but it applies here. This list only contains links to other articles, it seems to be a replacement for a deleted category without enough context to stand as its own article, and the information already exists in Yu-Gi-Oh! (second series anime)#Voice Actors, Yu-Gi-Oh! (first series anime)#Seiyū, etc. only much better written. Also, there isn't a lead with a clear criteria for inclusion - is the list only for actors who voice main characters, or for everyone who has done voices for the show, even "Duelist #2" or "Boy in pink shirt"? Does it include English or Japanese voice actors? (It seems like both, just thrown together.) Is it for actors from the first series, or the second series? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - could be a category, but it is not an article. --Storm Rider 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not exncyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of South Park cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally random. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, an article allows for the oppportunity for text to be added to better show linkage and for ready-made references, too. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any notable members to South Park characters. JulesH 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Circeus 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. See WP:OCAT for details. Dugwiki 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Work on it instead of deleting it. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into South Park article. It's not that many names, and only the most notable should be listed anyway. Bulldog123 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Salt and Merge into South Park. I see no point to a separate list. The main article should handle it. Noroton 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appropriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. Furthermore, "delete and merge" is not a valid argument either, as deletion of the history of merged content violates the GFDL by destroying the attribution required by that license. DHowell 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. In this case, the article isn't even exhaustive, as there is no George Clooney (who played a dog in one episode) or Robert Smith (who played himself). As it is nothing but a list, this list could well appear under the show itself. Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure what's up with it but a bot created this article. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This would have been easier if these "CFD maintenance" bots would link to the CFD decision they claim to be implementing. As far as I can tell, there was a mass-CFD for all Actors by series categories in January 2007, for which the long-winded decision concluded "delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative" (emphasis in the original), and also to rename all the categories from "actors" to "cast". It then appears that sometime around April 2007 RedWolf decided to use his bot to create crappy lists and to then delete the categories without seeking several interested people to determine that the list was a suitable alternative. IMO, RedWolf's action did not respect the original CFD decision. Anomie 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't worry about the category. The Final Fantasy series has a broad, ever-shifting voice cast, and the core development cast is already prominently linked whereever relevant. This single list would bring together the cast and development staff of a dozen plus games, and you know when you've got a list with many people who never worked together in the same place at the same time that it's overbroad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, which says WP is not a directory Corpx 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Final Fantasy (series), because this list concerns one of the most enduring and popular video game systems in video game history and so it is likely that readers will be interested in this kind of information, even if some find it obscure. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Aren't things like NOT, not policies, but guidelines? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Go take a look at the top of the WP:NOT page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The list, as currently constructed, is useless. I could buy the concept if the list detailed who they voiced, what games, etc, but a bare list of names does not add to the project at all. Resolute 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. I don't think that WP:NOT applies to these lists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Knowledge (XXG) functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT (this list is an indiscriminate list of information) and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • See the referenced CFD. The list was created because someone wanted to delete the category, and by creating this useless list they only had to ignore half of the CFD resolution instead of all of it. Anomie 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is not an indiscriminate list of information. It lists the people who have performed on this particular show, and if cleaned up and annotated, it could be a useful supplement to the main article on the show. Also, see Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in many films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to let you know, this isn't a show. It's a video game series. Each different video game has completely different characters and therefore voice actors. It's a different concept to television shows, or a singular game. --Teggles 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, do not categorize. As explained above, this is neither quite "indiscriminate information" by any definition of the term, nor information that can readily stand anywhere else. Circeus 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As it stands now, this list is as pointless as a page listing the ingredients in, say, Pepsi would be. I don't why, though, the page couldn't be turned into a proper list, showing what their roles were, which language edition, etc. But that would have to be done, of course. Leaving it as it is is a waste. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable list to me. Just needs work. --Hemlock Martinis 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly unnecessary list of stuff with no context, other than the fact that it's a list of voice actors who played in FF games, without the names of the characters they played, and from what games they come. As it is now, this has no purpose, especially when one can and should look at the articles for Advent Children, Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy X, et al, for the cast and credits for the games (and movie). Maikeru 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not a useful or necessary intersection of data. Individual cast is more practical but those can be found in numerous other places (I can think of MobyGames which does a nice job of including profiles on what projects certain people have been involved in). Axem Titanium 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to List of Final Fantasy voice actors; or merge and redirect to the video game series article or a list of characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE voice actors in a WP:NOTABLE video game series, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows, films, and video games. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to voice actors, and cleanup as per DHowell. It's a factual list that can very easily be complete; while it should obviously be better organized (by game is probably a good start), there's nothing harmful about it, and it's not indiscriminate. If Knowledge (XXG) is going to have this information - which I don't see why not - then a list is far preferable to a category. SnowFire 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not encyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). DHowell and SnowFire, my reasoning is that any article on Knowledge (XXG) should be externally verifiable, notable, and not copyvio or libel; but also, that it should be encyclopedic, i.e. that it a topic deserving of independent treatment, that can be presented as if it were in an encyclopedia. I do think lists can be encyclopedic, and I do think they can stand on their own sometimes - but I feel this article fails those tests. Feel free to disagree. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect, renaming, and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Nintendo cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally random. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I question if calling them Ninendo Cast members is even accurate. The main criteria seems to be that they have done voice work for a Nintendo related product. Many of these people have done work for other shows with no connection to Nintnendo whatsoever. seems useless. --69.156.205.225 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Knowledge (XXG). People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Besides, this information will eventually be re-added (and it's not likely it's entirely irrelevant. Look at the almost obsessive list of Voice actors maintained in Anime fandoms). Circeus 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - clearly violates WP:NOT#LINK #2 "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages ... and for structured lists". Alternately, perhaps this could be turned into a navigation aid like that used for characters? That would retain the same association without wasting a category and/or article on it. Garrett 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to failure to meet WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

There is no evidence that this program meets the notability criteria; prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Modifications Modification about notability will be included to the Wilos' description but I would like to say that your article defining them is not very explicit. It could have include some examples for people not used to write Knowledge (XXG) articles. It was not our intentions to make one bad.sadasblackmilk 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability proved Could you tell us the article is meeting global notability requirements or if there is something else to be changed. We'll be glad to do it. Thanks.sadasblackmilk 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think blogs and download links are notable. Macktheknifeau 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - The article fails to assert any notability. Download links should not be included, as Knowledge (XXG) is not for advertising and these links don't establish any notability. Blogs do not establish notability as a lot of editors here consider them non-verifiable, conflict-of-interest, and of low notability themselves. Most importantly, the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and does not provide any assertion of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Coredesat. Non admin close. Whispering 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Cannot ascertaing any notability, fails WP:NN. Kevinwong913 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article asserts no notability; noone has written about Maple ,Story Village outside of internet forums, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a forum for roleplaying, that noone cares about outside the community. It seems, infact, to be everything people say Gaia Online is when they put it up for AFD. If noone has a source for anything on the page, then it can't be verified and should be deleted. Spriteless 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was WITHDRAWN, NO DELETE OPINIONS -- Y not? 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gransden Lodge Airfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN airfield -- Y not? 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve (Stephen) 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Helping the nominator create the subpage. -- Y not? 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) -- Y not? 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete The page's discussion page lists all tornadosin Colorado in 1990. There was not one on the supposed date. CraigMonroe 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No F5's have ever hit the state of Colorado -at least since 1950 perhaps never considering conditions are less favorable for F5's.--JForget 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete it Yes, there has been one F5 in Colorado, on June 11, 1990. I lived it. I am sorry to say but you are wrong. There WAS an F5, and the outbreak DID happened--Cgkimpson 25:57, 9 July 2007
Comment - please, this shows the map of tornadoes occuring on June 11, 1990, and they were all in the Dakotas or Minnesota and all were rated F0 and there were only 5 of them. --JForget 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment List of all Colorado tornados since 1950. note, not F5, and none on the date at issue. CraigMonroe 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ok, I found a map for tornadoes that hit Colorado but on June 6, 1990 and there only 9 tornadoes there and the strongest was an F3 west of Limon although Limon was hit by ... an F0. Still it fails notability even with the fixed date --JForget 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

No claim of notability in article. Business has only been around two years. COI issues; contested prod. Kathy A. 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted (nn content) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 contribs 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pierce skate and ski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently this is a store. It doesn't appear to be a notable store. It has no references. It's been tagged for clean up since January, but it still isn't up to wiki-standards. I had considered renaming it Pierce Skate and Ski, so that it would comply with naming conventions, but I don't think it is worth the effort. Clerks. 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete by User:SirFozzie. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Taylor (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a re-creation of the article deleted yesterday per the previous AfD. Article does not address the concerns of the previous AfD with regards to notability and sources to verify notability. CSD G4 tag was placed twice on article and removed. I left a not on the talk page requesting that before this article was to be recreated, to go to deletion review first to avail. Wildthing61476 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is clearly better than the previous one, the hack kid, who is new messaged me and I told him I would help him. Sources were added. More of Chuck Taylor working history was added. Over all it is a different newer article with more info on Taylor and why he is NOTABLE. The tag was removed when I added the HOLD ON Tag which you took it upon yourself to remove even though I was instructed to do so. It is a new more informative article and should not have to be discussed on the DRV. --EdWood 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't read anything I write, I ADMITTED the tag was removed when I used the hang on tag which you removed. And yes there are several more sources and articles linked to this than last time. --EdWood 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the sources I see listed, MySpace is NEVER a reliable source for one. The two Knowledge (XXG) articles that refer to the organization have been debated, and notability is NOT inherited, i.e., just because he works in one of those feds doesn't automatically make him notable. With regards to the other links, I'm not sure if match results are notable either. Wildthing61476 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I should note that I absolutely agree that Chuck Taylor working in promotions with Knowledge (XXG) entries does not make him notable; no one should immediately be considered notable via association. However, the fact that he is an elite star in those promotions does make him notable, and to discredit him and his notability while knowing that fact is, quite frankly, ridiculous.--Matthewhack 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Last thing, I'm going to let the AfD process play out here, I've said why i think he's not notable, you believe he is, so I respect the right to agreeably disagree on this. Wildthing61476 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course a myspace doesn't make some one notable but several celebs ahve theirs listed as links. Articles noting his winning major indy championships are notable articels. Do any of us have online bios? No, he does. Yes, let us watch and see what happens. <3 --EdWood 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page should be maintained because it allows people to learn about wrestling. And it provides exposure for people who cannot garner it through the mainstream media, by using the internet as an way to provide info do not stifle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryan71689 (talk • contribs) — Mryan71689 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment, Knowledge (XXG) is not for people to garner exposure, it is for people who already have exposure (or notability, as some would call it). Knowledge (XXG) is not a wrestling fan site, but an encyclopedia for clearly notable individuals. Nikki311 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'd love to know how there are no reputable sources. OWW is widely considered to be one of the elite databases for wrestling information on the Internet. I've also taken time out to add some additional sources. Also, how has he not done something worth writing about? Regardless of your opinions on independent wrestling, IWA Mid-South (the promotion in which he has been heavyweight champion for nearly a year) is one of the more well known independent promotions around the world. The main thing holding them back from being a big time competitor on the same plateau as Ring of Honor is simply a combination between a less-than-desirable circuit (Plainfield, Indiana and Midlothian, Illinois are both very small towns), and the lack of a huge money source to fund them. The number of fans at a show has little bearing on their worldwide effect on the independent wrestling community, and simply because they don't have a major television deal does not make them un-notable.--Matthewhack 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Article is obviously about a person of notablity. References and Links are now included. Very well done. --EdWood 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have gone through and added multiple valid sources from throughout the Internet. While some may question his notability, I have stated my case concerning said notability in my above comments. I find it hard to dispute that being a long term heavyweight champion in one of the most notable independent wrestling promotions in the world would make one a person notable enough to have an article on Knowledge (XXG).--Matthewhack 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this article is the exact same as last time, the sources you have added are not RS. The picture is still not fair use, like last time, is a flyer, is the same thing but on the CZW website, Youtube and myspace are not RS,

mentions him in passing, is just a results page, and is another results page. I get it he is a wrestler who has wrestled! So What? None of this establishes nontability, once this comment is finished I will gut the article to show you what you can prove about Chuck Taylor. Darrenhusted 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I understand that in most cases YouTube can not be considered RS. However, the source of the video is the official YouTube account of Chikara's Podcast-a-Go-Go, and the first place that the announcement of Team FIST taking Chuck Taylor for their King of Trios squad was announced. I fail to see how that would be a problem. Many of the other references contain information about his debut in other promotions (Chikara, IWA-MS, CZW, etc.). Also, it frustrates me that you're failing to take into consideration that he's more than just a "wrestler"; he's one of the bigger names on the independent circuit. IMO, there are many other articles that fall under the "professional wrestling" category that you should be focusing on, as it really seems to me as if there is no problem. The article will be reverted back, if you continue to remove my edits, I will be forced to report you for repeated vandalism.--Matthewhack 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Youtube is never a RS because posting it here violates copyright. This article has been deleted, recreating it was the error not me tidying up the article. Darrenhusted 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not know why you feel the need to attack people who disagree with you Darren.--EdWood 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is so obviously a violation of G4 I really am at my wits end as to why this was recreated, if the fanboys want a page then there are plenty of free sites out there, may I suggest Wordpad. I say delete it and take it to review and then watch as it gets an endorse. Darrenhusted 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete by User:C.Fred. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The creator of this article has intentionally mispelled Brooke Thompson as Brook Thompson, in order to avoid speedy deletion/redirection. Brooke "Pumkin" Thompson does not pass WP:BIO and thus should not have her own wikipage. She has done nothing of note other that lose two reality shows. Additionally, Brooke Thompson is alrady a redirect to the Flavor of Love page when spelled correctly. Gamer83 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve (Stephen) 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Person is not notable. Redrok84 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. ···日本穣 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sonoma County wineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Better served by a category. Blueboy96 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Translation: WP:ILIKEIT. Not a valid argument for keeping an article. Blueboy96 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment If that translates to ILIKEIT, then your reason translates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not a valid argument for deleting an article. DHowell 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Compared to some of the lists I've run across, that one is downright pretty. I think it works as a list for now, but once the number of wineries with articles gets higher, half the list maybe, then turn it into a category. Burzmali 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced article on legit topic perhaps a little short right now. If the list of wineries is a problem it can be removed, but the info on the wine region is totally appropriate. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge intro and the 4 links to wineries with current articles with Sonoma Valley. "Sonoma County is home to more than 250 wineries" Do we need a list of all of them? WP:NOT a directory. Canuckle 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Those wineries that are sufficiently notable already have their own articles, those that do not are just receiving free advertising. People seem to forget that wineries are for-profit business enterprises too. Just making wine doesn't make a business notable. VanTucky 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of history in the wineries of Sonoma valley, such that any of the wineries started before 1940 are likely notable. The question is where to draw the line. If you start adding links to the individual wineries in the "root" article, it's going to force the move to a category when this list would suffice. I doubt many people browse Knowledge (XXG) to fine a winery. Burzmali 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're talking about a linking problem with just the wineries with articles, but linking only those ones (if they're not notable/don't have their own article, it's spam) shouldn't cause a problem. At least not one as bad as a directory of spam links. VanTucky 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean that there is a lot of potential articles to be written on the older Sonoma Valley wineries. If we just keep adding them to Sonoma Valley as they are created, it will get ugly quickly. How about an article on the History of wine making in Sonoma Valley? That would satisfy the need to prevent the individual winery articles with some historical significance from becoming orphaned, and it keeps Sonoma Valley from getting crowded. Burzmali 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be what we have here. If you want to say this article's title can be improved upon, I wouldn't argue with you. I definitely think an article like this on a specific notable wine-making region should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to either Sonoma Valley aor Sonoma County, CA per above.--JForget 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if there were no list at the bottom of the article would we be really discussing this? Don't like the list, be WP:BOLD and edit the article. The subject is certainly notable, Sonoma County is a government-approved appellation for wine in the US, 27 Code of Federal Regulations 9.29, and appellations with their incident agribusiness are notable. Pleny of WP:RSes exist about Sonoma County's wine business. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sonoma County as a region is very notable for its wines, but not very many of the wineries are really all that notable. Under the circumstances, I would opine that this list is better served by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I cannot follow the logic just above: it is precisely because most of them would not be notable enough for separate articles that a combination article like this is appropriate. The list portion can and should be expanded to provide more information than just the names. DGG (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article serves a definite purpose as stated just above. --Stormbay 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is specific and useful. --upzon 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)— Upzon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
NOTE Account created yesterday, only three edits. Blueboy96 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just delete it. The article is just an exact c&p of the section in Sonoma County article, bar the laundry list, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY miserably, so there is no reason to keep it until the Sonoma County, California article is considerably expanded. Ohconfucius 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not just a list, it is an article with a list of items that are "associated with" the topic of the article. It is not a directory because the list does not provide information about how to find the wineries or contact the wineries (and is thus, not spam). The article itself could be expanded to include other information about the wine industry in Sonoma (including the explosion in the number of wineries in the last few years), but why would you move links to winery articles into the Sonoma County, California article? If this could/should be merged, perhaps it could go to Wine Country (California).--Tinned Elk 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, just checked the history of this article. It was recently broken out of the Sonoma County, California to allow an article that would focus on the wineries of the county. I think it is unnecessary to delete it at this stage. Lots of work went into the list, formatting it this way to take up less room and leave a wealth of information for future development. I can see lots of work that could be done and the list is a good starting point. Certainly merging it back into the main article would be ridiculous. --Tinned Elk 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • no vote but comment - This article should be kept if someone can tie in some text about some award winning wines. I am sure that there are some good ones from the county. The others in the list can serve as a list of potential articles. Either that or form a winery board, like they have in wikiproject -- where the names are red linked. Someone went through a lot of hard work typing the names, I think. Fineday 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, several published books ought to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a notable encyclopedic topic. Whether the list itself belongs in the article is an editorial decision outside the scope of AfD, but the article clearly should not be deleted. DHowell 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - I think the list section could be pared down to notable wineries, preferably by an expert. However, the article above the list seems like a good first try at beginning a proper article on a specific and notable wine-producing region; I'd say the article is worthy of keeping, as it'll provide useful information once it's been improved upon. I think it also deserves to stay forked from the main Sonoma county article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Wicked (musical). Carabinieri 01:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Old Shiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on very minor song in a musical, has no information apart from that it is the second song in the show, which is easily seen by looking at the list of songs on the Wicked page Mark E 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notability. Might be better suited at Wiktionary. Konczewski 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete per WP:V. ···日本穣 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Still Feels Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncategorized stub article on a future Rascal Flatts album. I've searched and cannot find any verifiable info on this album besides the release date and lead-off single. Article has a bad case of WP:CRYSTAL right now; I say delete it until more info can be found. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

delete - info should be presented in the artist's article. Notability is not inherited; there is no independent source given that asserts notability anyway; and even if it gets written about in the press, it doesn't warrant forking from the artist's article until sufficient encyclopedic content exists. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected Ohconfucius; Non admin closure. John Vandenberg 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Unsourced article about minor character in 2 episodes of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Already adequately discussed in Sunnydale High School students. Could be adequately covered by mention in Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer . Fails WP:N. Per WP:FICT: "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Edison 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take discussions of merging, etc., to the Talk page for the article. ···日本穣 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of NYU Stern people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't get the point of this list...it's a list of past and present professors of a university? Sounds like it fails wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information sumnjim 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. the merge would be to List of New York University people There are a great many pages along this pattern, in the category Lists of people by university in the United States], all with both notable faculty & notable alumni. There are 3 for individual Colleges at NYU, but this does not seem to have been done for other schools, and I do not think it is a desirable innovation, even though the people named are exceptionally notable (half the faculty listed have won the Nobel prize) See the List of Harvard University People for a way to handle the resulting large lists.
  2. On the other hand, if there should be other lists of this sort for other schools, we should consider at some more central location which way we want to go--I do not think lists by colleges within schools is a necessarily poor way to to it when the schools are as important as this one. DGG (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Star Trek planets: R-S#R. ···日本穣 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article makes no assertions of real-world notability and includes only plot summary (save for one piece of production trivia). The subject of the article appears in a single episode, mentioned in background chatter/set dressing in a couple of others. Had redirected page to List of Star Trek planets: R-S#R but FrankWilliams (talk · contribs) objects -- however, I don't accept being "mentioned" as equating to "deserving" to stay. I've brought it to AfD to either axe entirely or endorse redirect. I'd also support redirecting to the episode in which it does play a significant role ("The Cage (Star Trek)"). --EEMeltonIV 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Requiem for Methuselah. Sr13 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article does not assert any real-world, out-of-universe notability, and the article is just a plot summary of the single episode in which the subject appears. Had redirected to that episode, but FrankWilliams (talk · contribs) undid that; bringing it to AfD to either axe article entirely or reach consensus to redirect. EEMeltonIV 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep, withdrawing my nomination, thanks to User:JulesH. NawlinWiki 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Young English equestrienne -- I don't think the few local awards mentioned in the article make her notable. No sources cited. Completing incomplete AFD listing. NawlinWiki 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This should have been speedily deleted for wp:nn. It doesn't even make any claims to notibility. Bendž|Ť 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Actually, it does make claims to notability -- it says she won first and second-place awards in English show-jumping competitions. That prevents this from being speediable. My argument is that the awards are minor and don't make her notable. NawlinWiki 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Non-notable. Speedy keep per JulesH, assuming he's added the sources to the article? ROGER  18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable per WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, due to non-notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Rescue Me characters. Non admin closure. Jorvik 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable per WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Is it just me, or does the level of depth given to each and every character in that show border on WP:NOT#PLOT? Honestly, I see the whole set of articles working better merged into a few paragraphs per logical grouping and all of these little side articles deleted. Burzmali 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was histmerge to Williams Sassine (completed). We need to maintain the page history for GFDL compliance, and it's clear this all was created as an "accident," so there's not much point debating it. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I think Sandeep Deshpande has nothing to do with Williams Sassine. There was a redirect which I corrected. Williams Sassine now has his own page. I think somehow a prankster put Sandeep Deshpande's name at the top of the Knowledge (XXG) page for Williams Sassine. Mr Frosty 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's obvious that we need to get rid of this article. The question is how to do that without losing the edit history. Moreover, the text that should be retained is the text currently at Williams Sassine, since that's clearly better. I, however, don't know the best way to do this. Could we move this article to William Sassine (which is a plausible misspelling of the author's name), change that to a redirect, and get the redirect created at Sandeep Deshpande deleted via RfD? Deor 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Possible COI/spam (look at the username who created the article, and the ratio of external links to wikilinks. I found about 300 ghits on the subject, which is low for a term relating to XML, so I doubt the notability. Shalom 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep until we can get expert advice on this topic, specifically. It seems to be notable. I welcomed the author/creator after he contacted me about my tag (with the wrong syntax, oops). I placed the tag (and fixed it) to get expert attention. I know a bit about HTML, Wikis, etc., but not anything more advanced. Can anyone out there help us? Bearian 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a new author on Knowledge (XXG) and in retrospect I regret the narrow choice of user name (can I change it?). Yes, TPoX is a relatively new benchmark but seems to contribute to an area of growing interest. If the number of ghits is a criterion for deletion then maybe it's too early to have this article on Knowledge (XXG), and we can revisit at a later time. Both Intel and IBM have used this benchmark recently, so I thought this would be of interest. It was not my intention to create CIO or spam. As for the many wikilinks: I thought it's a good idea to show the relationship to related topics. I'm open to suggestions. --Tpox 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'm a programmer and engineer and I have certainly heard of this benchmark, although I agree it is still relatively new and rare. Interesting paradox: no article until it gains acceptance but putting up an article and link references might help it gain acceptance? No strong assertions and I'm relatively new here, but I have heard of it. Kruglick 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per WP:SOFTWARE. No reliable sources referenced to assert notability (other wikis certainly don't count). -- Kesh 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on the basis of the references, which include good 3rd party references, and rename, which is easy enough when this is over. DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. References show it has been discussed at an ACM conference and has been the subject of a research paper. That sounds like enough to me. JulesH 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per my tag, now deleted, which asked for expert assistance with this topic. See also above discussion by Kruglick and DGG. Bearian 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. XMark appears to be more notable, and there are other XML benchmark suites listed here, but this is the type of software where a few academic and/or real world uses should be enough to warrant inclusion in some form, whether that is an entire article or a section of a more general article. I removed the expert tag as there doesn't appear to be any specific problem with the article, and no query was raised on the talk page. John Vandenberg 07:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to updates and references added since nomination. ···日本穣 22:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

International Association of Business Communicators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability; no references. Shalom 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

-- They are two separate organizations. PRSA focuses on media relations, while IABC focuses on communications strategy as a whole as well as online media.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣 22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Notability not established as per WP:ORG, article appears to be advertising, all edits from users with suspected conflicts of interest. Yamla 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Comba Tai. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BK, since no independent coverage is known. Previous AfD resulted in "no consensus", with the keep arguments being mainly to "give the article more time to improve". More than half a year has passed since then; the only addition to the article is the section "Pieces a Conviction", which states that the work has been cited as a source of a TV documentary, Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (but that's only one out of almost 20 sources of that documentary). -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The book has been cited once, based on the information provided. The section on "parliamentary report" does not say that the book was cited in the official report, but merely that the book reprinted an obsolete list form the parliamentary report. That does not amount to notability. There seems no equivalent article in fr WP.DGG (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is English wikipedia. There is no article for this subject in fr.wiki, and unless the book has been translated into English, it will remain largely unknown in the English-speaking world Ohconfucius 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Cantonese profanity. Non admin closure. Jorvik 10:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a common term in Cantonese, but doesn't have much cultural significance on which we can write about. It has been nominated for deletion before. I cannot see why it should be kept. Those who are inclined to keep this please give specific reasons (how this article can be expanded etc). Cheers.--K.C. Tang 10:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge this and similar items to Cantonese profanity. Yes, I know it doesn't exist yet, time to create it; can be developed along similar lines as Latin profanity. The "Bad boys and bad language" paper cited in Puk Kai would be an excellent starting point for such a page. Last nomination rested on an invalid reason "not English, therefore shouldn't be in enwiki"; enwiki is the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of monolingual Anglophones' knowledge. Individual items of profanity seem to have trouble supporting their own pages; even Fuck, probably the most notable, is just a dicdef and a set of increasingly dubious theories about its etymology . cab 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions.
I think we share the same thoughts. Indeed I've been thinking of creating Cantonese profanity for some time. Cheers--K.C. Tang 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No compelling reason to overturn the first unsuccessful AfD. ~ Infrangible 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Just like there's no article for the insult "drop dead", just because an article for it exists in zh-yue:wiki doesn't justify its existence here as a dicdef. The article says all there is to be said about the term because its usage (as elaborated in the chinese article) would be impossible to translate correctly into English, so it's destined to remain a stub forever. Anyway, its part within Cantonese profanity would be encyclopaedic, IMHO. Ohconfucius 09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Motive for Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable + self-promotion: user "Motiveformovement" appears to have made most of the edits. I'm willing to bet that the creator of the article - "Sevendays487" - is also connected with the band. Hux 09:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

No sources, no assessment of notability. Prod tag was removed. Andrew_pmk | Talk 06:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod (tag removed and no explanation given) and likely hoax, I feel. None of this is verifiable based on internet searches, including Mr. Schiavi as a carver , as an athlete , the existence of his father , the African architect , and the various churches (e.g. St. Aurthor Williams ). Slp1 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation it appears that the creator and only editor is one Joey Schiavi who was also born on September 12 but 100 years later (to the day) than Joseph Schiavi: see User:Wlwfb10. --Slp1 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
comment: I think there is a claim to notability here, and articles can't be speedied for being a suspected hoax, so I believe Prod was the way to go. Or at least that is my understanding of things--Slp1 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:CORP...non-notable company. On its face, appears to be a viable article (hence I don't think speedy), but the cites aren't actually RS or as claimed: the forbes one is actually just a PR piece from the company and the interview does not appear to be about the company. DMacks 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way a RS is published in today's copy of Chicago daily herald's business column which could have been the reason for the this entry, also if you checkout about link, the interview is fact of the CEO of the parent company, IMO this should not be discriminated against for being a niche/small search engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.167.194 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged and redirected The Evil Spartan 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Not notable enough to have an independent article, although it is a very interesting and though-provoking blog, suggest merge to Reason (magazine). Wooyi 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Anas 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Vareens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Backians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pine tomtes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manorians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several fictional species for the trading card game Draim arena. No sources for any of them, not even the Draim web page itself, making them unverifiable. Google turns up Knowledge (XXG) mirrors almost exclusively. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Disians. Huon 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Rome (TV series). ···日本穣 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rome (TV series) production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant page. The page either contains names of people who are unlikely to get articles under notability criteria - costume designers etc. - or writers and directors. The latter are listed in "at a glance" manner (apparently the article's intention) on the main page Rome (TV series) in the episode list, and many feature in the infobox. Therefore, there is little information on this page (that isn't non-notable) that isn't on the main one, so no need for a merge. Also, I haven't seen any other production list on Knowledge (XXG), presumably because they fail WP:NOT. More suited to IMDb, surely? HornetMike 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge it back because its in violation of WP:NOT directory Corpx 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge, because it does concern a multi-season show and is encyclopedic information, but probably could be in the main article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Director and Writer are already in the table of episodes, so that's done, and I'd like to have the series creators with a sentence or two at the start of the Production sub-section, then a paragraph at the end of the subsection mentioning historical consultant, costume designer, etc. These positions are more notable than other TV shows considering the vast effort at recreating the city and people, and there is alot of info on the production at the HBO site. I will attempt this in the next few days. Lipsticked Pig 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Association of Video Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Seems like a COI. —« ANIMUM » 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Submitting for deletion as the article is a blatant vanity page that fails WP:BIO and lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Waste of space. Burntsauce 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Lead developer of Mozilla Firefox browser. Also, tone of nomination doesn't sound like a good-faith nom. Lurker (talk · contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Passes WP:BIO ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"), adequate references - although some of the links appear to be invalid, the articles are there if you search for them. The article needs de-vanitizing, but the subject meets the guidelines. Tevildo 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you cite reliable sources that demonstrate this person is actually known and responsible for these significant projects? The article is a borderline WP:BLP failure right now. Being the "lead developer" of any given software project does not automatically make you notable, nor does it allow you to ignore content policies. Burntsauce 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The NZ Herald article seems OK to me - if we can find a fixed URL for it, it should be included in the references. Firefox is a "significant or well-known work". The fact that the article can be improved isn't grounds for its deletion if the notability of the subject is established. Tevildo 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the best-known working programmers in the world (due to his association with a popular browser). Sources abound (200+ more). One of two programmers heavily associated with publicity for the Firefox launch (not always to everyone's happiness). --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree this person has played a major role in the development of a well-known work, but the article seems to just be a link farm to vanity sites about the person. The article doesn't really have any "meat" to it concerning the argument about this being a major developer behind firefox. Even if the article had more to do with this person’s history and how he eventually helped developed firefox, I would give it a weak keep.Redrok84 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep needs more refs and significant coverage. Darrenhusted 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though I'm sure the claims about this individual's notable accomplishments may be true, they are not verified in independent, third-party sources. If no such sources are provided, he does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Simply saying that the sources exist and not linking them here or adding them to article does not fly. VanTucky 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to Keep. If those links are sources, they needed to be in the proper section (References). External links is only for links to content not suitable for the article. If someone had gotten this right the first time, we probably wouldn't have had to do this useless AFD to begin with. VanTucky 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Crush (Amerie song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and speculation-filled article about an Amerie song that it claims will be released as a single; I couldn't find anything on her official websites or MySpace page, or in other reliable souces, that suggest this is the case. Also nominating (for the same reasons):

That's What U R (Amerie song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extraordinary Machine 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotting nose disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no record of this disease or the protozoan Ocimita anywhere outside of wikipedia Bendž|Ť 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment OMG, I thought you were joking, but there really is such a thing as hole in the head disease. Should I add to the article that that certain politicians are also extremely susceptible to this disease? Clarityfiend 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Might be possible that the author was confused with the article similar to the one above. nearly the same contents were at the hole in the head article Shinhumcho
Delete. I write about freshwater fish for a living, and I've never heard of this disease. It sounds like Hole-in-the-Head though... perhaps a flawed translation from another language. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

There is not enough reliable source coverage independent of Michael Travesser to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about Michael Travesser. -- Jreferee 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as wp:nn. Bendž|Ť 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. ROGER  18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability seems to be primarily local. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even formatted properly, non notable. The keepers in the first AfD didn't even try to improve the article and the first AfD has two unsigned keep comments. Darrenhusted 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it was verifiable I would say keep. Callelinea 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable.--Mantanmoreland 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The trouble with sourcing mentioned in nom is very valid. Besides Travesser's website, only sources are mentions on some anti-cult sites. It's basically impossible to glean some reliably verifiable facts about the basics of this man's life from these kind of sources. The last AFD is something of a joke; only a few people commented, and they did not argue persuasively from a policy standpoint. --C S (Talk) 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, I agree. When I first saw this site on Wiki about me (Michael Travesser) it was entirely made up of false reports by your so-called "source material." I removed the false information and replaced it with the actual facts. I also removed the false source material that seemed very fine to you before. Now you say there is no source material because there are now no false reports written. BBC is doing a movie about our land, but then you would say that is not source material either since it would mostly show us reporting on ourselves. I vote to delete. There is already too much information about us on the Web from all kinds of sources, and most of it is erroneous. If wikipedia bases most of its information on its pages based on these kinds of "sources" I would dare to say the encyclopedia is pointless.
  • Secondly, the man who did the original protest against this article not having sources is a Seventh-day Adventist. Adventists have a vested interest in getting me out of the spotlight because I was once an Adventist minister and left the Adventist church in protest. There have been other efforts by the Adventists to eliminate me from the public, even using a false charge of child molestation. Mormons would like to eliminate any bad publicity for themselves and Adventists are no different. I only have bad publicity so it makes no difference to me. :-) 1:42 July 10, 2007 CST Michael Travesser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.135.218 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, though without prejudice. If reliable sources (books or news stories) turn up on him, then I'd be fine with an article. --Delirium 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An IP address identifying himself as the subject of this article, and I tend to believe it is, has asked that this article be deleted. See deletion vote above from User:65.165.135.218. WP:BLP says: "When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."--Mantanmoreland 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Candy Coated Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS to indicate notability. Leuko 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Leuko 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted. Seraphimblade 05:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable podcast per WP:WEB. Videmus Omnia 17:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Merge into new article Elmos Semiconductor. Non admin closure. Jorvik 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Silicon microstructures inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subsidiary of a semiconductor company. Contrary to opinions expressed on the talk page, I do not think that it passes WP:CORP: No secondary sources are given, and none have been added since the notability warning was put on in Nov 06. Article was created by an WP:SPA. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. I would add that article doesn't assert the subject's notability. -- Futurano 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Helle66 (a SPA on the English Knowledge (XXG), but not on the German one, though without very many edits) made a case for keeping it on the talk page, but was not notified of the discussion. I have notified this user on both Wikipedias. Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've googled around and, though there are a lot of hits, it doesn't seem any more notable than a million other companies. Plus it was created by an SPA who hasn't done anything with it in months, and it has pretty much died on the vine. Replying to Helle66's point on the talk page, notability in Germany doesn't mean it needs an article in the English Knowledge (XXG); it means it needs one in the German Knowledge (XXG). Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of secondary sources exist on Google News, and the parent company is even more notable. At worst it should be upmerged into an article about the parent company, which I am happy to do if nobody else has a problem with that approach. John Vandenberg 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same opinion as John, including the upmerging to a parent as an option. If you want to do so, I think this will be the best solution. Thanks to Tualha for my notification. --Helle66 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of solo piano pieces, Italian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Same rationale as List of solo piano pieces, English - it's unmaintainable and a possible WP:COI violation. Crystallina 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Eve of Destiny. Non admin closure. Jorvik 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Haruhiko Ash fails the notabilty test. He is a member of a barely notable (if that) band called Eve of Destiny and he seems to have made the acquaintance of various famous people in this genre of music - but that doesn't make him notable. Only one release not on a compliation disk and it was on a minor label. I couldn't find any information proving the notability of his earlier band, the Zolge, either. Jayran 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A google search of "Haruhiko Ash" OR "Ash Haruhiko" yields only 1,450, which is not a lot compared to over 500k for an obscure band like Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Also, from what I understand, google searches are not reliable for an AfD. Amazon Japan lists no CDs by his band; Oricon, the Japanese music charts, has no mention of them; I searched "Eve of Destiny" in the Japanese wikipedia and only got one hit - as a member of another band belongs to the group "Eve of Destiny" now, and I haven't found any actual reliable sources about him or his band. For having a supposedly big fanbase, there is no coverage of him or his band in the media. This article has been tagged for a year and there are still no sources. EDIT: I just searched that fanlisting and it only lists 26 members. Jayran 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn — Non-admin close. John Vandenberg 08:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Not obviously notable and contents not verified. Withdrawn. ROGER  15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment (1) WP:N the Mengals are mentioned in passing in the context of newsworthy but not necessarily notable events. The first mentions Ataullah Mengal who is notable in his own right. (2) WP:V, none of the great detail in the Mengal article is verified other than that they are one of the smaller tribes in the Baloch provice of Pakistan. ROGER  09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment You're absolutely right. If we look hard enough, mainstream media does indeed provide more than enough material. ROGER  14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Not obviously notable and contents not verified ROGER  15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was userfied. Sr13 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is a substantially different rewrite from the text considered in the first AfD, helpfully undertaken with aid of the closing admin thereof. DRV permitted its move into mainspace, with the suggestion that -- since notability concerns still exist even with the new article -- it be taken to AfD as well. Weak Delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It looks like a condensed version of the deleted article. It's nice that contributer trimmed the most obviously promotional material from this MLM, but it has no substantive RS coverage. Fails the GNAA test for notability (it cites, for example, a local TV show that merely mentions the existence of said product). Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is still appalling spam, even as condensed. (Who cares that ViaViente paid Time for an advertisement or has held clinical trials? Successful clinical trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals are notable. The existence of clinical trials for a privately-held company are not.) The one puff-piece in the Dallas Morning News (which almost reads like a paid advertisement, rather than journalism) takes it to the cusp of notability, but not quite there, especially for a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million. (I also wonder how that DMN article was found, given that there's no link to it on the craigkeeland website that it comes from, but that's neither here nor there.) THF 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I have worked tirelessly trying to make this article better. All I get from nay-sayers is constant complaining without suggestions on how to make things better. There is MORE than ample 3rd party documentation available. To Users Cool Hand Luke and TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your beef seems to be with MLM or network marketing companies (though ViaViente is not officially an MLM company) as opposed to this particular article. That is POV and, though I am fairly new to the editing world of wiki, I understand is not reason to cause for delete. Furthermore, for user TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your saying that the company is "a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million" is incorrect. Some would even consider it libelous since a pyramid scheme is an illegal structure. If you have some beef with the business model of network marketing then that is your right, but it doesn't mean that the companies themselves are not noteworthy. I honestly have no idea what "promotional" ideas you are talking about. Everything is dated as to when pieces premiered. It is not a commercial, it is a expose.Arnabdas 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:N. That the article verges on incoherence in some places and is unintentionally humorous in others (I especially like the "management team" that consists of a single guy) doesn't help matters. Hell, it doesn't even say what the company's product is. Deor 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There was ample information on the product, but people deleted it. It is pretty frustrating trying to work with people who do not offer productive suggestions. I was editing it all in my own section several weeks ago. Then all of a sudden without me knowing I see today that it was moved to the main wikipedia. It should be given a chance to be made better, not deleted.Arnabdas 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer your query on my talk page: The two sections that I deleted were the ingredients and the endorsements, both spam. Sr13 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please give me a guideline to follow so we can improve the article. Although he is a very satisfied customer and that was his motivation to highlight the company, Terry Bradshaw's piece on MSNBC wasn't an advertisement. It was a spotlight, which is different. Therefore it should be included. Also, could you give me the basis on what grounds you called both of them spam i.e. the official wiki policy guidelines that I may read up on so we may improve the article (as opposed to irrational and IMO hasty deletion) and not allegedly violate wiki procedures? Thanks.Arnabdas 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, Bradshaw promoted (i.e. endorsed) the product, a claim that won't make the article any more notable than it is. Celeberties would endorse anything, even non-notable subjects. Worst of all (as well as the several other endorsements), that claim isn't sourced! The appropriate guidelines are WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Sr13 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the difference is between your definition of promotion and spotlighting. If Barbara Walters interviews Bill Clinton, does that mean she automatically endorses him? From what you're telling me it is. Privately she may endorse him, but that interview is still considered notable and objective if she phrases her questions correctly. For the record, Bradshaw has done a promotional video for the company, but the first video that was first aired on MSNBC was NOT a promotional piece. The broadcast rights were lost to the video, so I can't get a link to it, but I did put down the date of when it was aired. How would you suggest I handle the sourcing?
On the note about the ingredients, I do not understand what grounds that constitutes spam...especially considering that Xango entry has the same exact thing done on that page, albeit not in its own section.
Once again I ask that this article not be deleted, but archived under my name. Let me work on it privately until there is no dispute of standards. I was doing that and then all of a sudden it was published as an entry in wikipedia without my knowledge. Furthermore, the gutting that took place makes it worse. It needs work, not the axe.Arnabdas 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from using your userspace to draft a better article. But we're debating this one, not some future hypothetical one, and this one has had several months to get fixed, and hasn't been yet. THF 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You mention that it is ok to use my userspace to draft a better article? I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Last time it was moved there for me. Could you explain the procedure that can be done to move it? Thanks.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I've done the best I can with this article with the available sources. If you can do better, go ahead and do so. I brought the article to DRV because the last edit you made to it was almost three weeks prior, which made me a bit concerned. Sr13 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to sound snide at all, but I do have a life outside wikipedia and many obligations. I don't always have the time to spend my life editing. Past couple of weeks I have been on more because I had a project at work I finished so I have had more time. I actually e-mailed the communications director of the company and informed her of the situation. The sources are there, but we are just trying to get the actual citations so that they meet wiki standards. I would appreciate it being moved back to my userspace, but not deleted because despite my limited time I have contributed a lot to it and would hate to have my work destroyed.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done as much as I could to improve the article after request, and if the best I can do can't meet guidelines, than it's fine with me to delete. Sr13 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposed to be Under Construction I put in an under construction tag. I propose to keep the article while helping it become better. Arnabdas 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's been "under construction" since September 2006, and is still wildly substandard, with no indication that it's going to improve. My Delete vote doesn't change. If you want to play in a sandbox in your userspace, go ahead, but I have no indication that there is a notable Knowledge (XXG) article to be made out of this mess. THF 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly, I'm going to have to agree. Even with some sources, it isn't enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, no matter how much effort is put into it. Sr13 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Everything I source could find through google and from news databases seem to be in the article already. Perhaps in the future it might be a notable subject with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll accept that. If you guys can help me move it back to my userspace that would be appreciated. I want to be able to work on it at my own pace. I appreciate you guys giving me the chance to make it better instead of destroying my work altogether. I will message one of you when I feel it could be ready for publishing. Thank you.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you should be looking at WP:WELCOME, which, really, you should have done before creating the article and criticizing the people who had read the rules and were simply applying them. THF 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I was criticizing the lack of constructive criticism. Of course we all should follow the rules. My point was instead of just coming down on me, why not help guide me and offer up suggestions? It is far more productive that way.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to my userspace. Will contact one of you later to get your thoughts on notability.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In Search of Sunrise 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about an unreleased album for which no reliable references/sources exist. The official sites of both the series it is a part of and the artist who is to produce it make no reference to it and the only source of information about it is a fake of the album circulating in file sharing circles. It is a blatant violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to name just a few). D4g0thur 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anything going to come out of this? Only two entries? -- GoDawgs 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The five day time limit is up so an admin should come along to delete it any time now. D4g0thur 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into A Requiem for Homo Sapiens. — Scientizzle 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Yet another book with no ascertion of notability. Did it get close to winning anything? Anything else that could ascertain notability? Blood Red Sandman 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Order of Mystic Mathematicians and Other Seekers of the Ineffable Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ede the God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Silicon God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April Colonial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Requiem for Homo Sapiens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: see related discussion Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Vild. Tualha (Talk) 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete All per nom. All fail WP:BK. No assertion of notability, although A7 isn't applicable to books. Not 100% sure that the author himself (David Zindell) would pass WP:BIO if the issue were raised. Tevildo 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some resources: Old website that could be used to show notability. Review. Relevant quotations from the book. The precursor to Neverness, "Shanidar", gave Zindell recognition with the "L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future" (src). Also, it is interesting to note the actual reviews given to the book by such authors as Orson Scott Card asserting "I wish I would have written this book," etc. Maybe we can accept that as proclaimed relevance from other sources (Card) already considered relevant here? /me is new to the deletion defense process. -- kanzure 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BK is the appropriate guideline. The Orson Scott Card review would be a very useful factor to demonstrate its notability - if you have a link to it, or a reference to the magazine it appeared in, you should add it to the article. The same goes for the other books, if similar references are available. I'm afraid that fansites and fanzines don't count as reliable sources (see WP:RS) - there won't be a problem with you including links to them in the article, but they won't, by themselves, help it get through AfD. Tevildo 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all for lack of notability. The neverness article is just plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Somebody's personal site is not a notable reference Corpx 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Card's reference would have to be in a published review -- what people let publishers say on ads and on book jackets is not a RS for anything. I support articles including reasonable plot summaries, or even primarily devoted to reasonable length plot summaries, but the absurdly detailed plot summary in the main article here is what gave plot summaries a bad name. The articles about individual characters are even less justified than the main article.DGG (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all to A Requiem for Homo Sapiens. Book series isn't important enough to warrant an entire category of articles, but it is a well-known series written by a popular author, so should probably be included. References for the series include (just the first paragraph, but describes it as containing "the most striking writing, vivid spectacles, memorable characters and insightful presentations of philosophy and religion seen in SF for many a year"), , “Neverness, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v21:3 No.326 Mar 1988, “The Broken God, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v31:3 No.392 Sep 1993, “The Wild, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v37:1 No.426 Jul 1996, “War in Heaven, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v40:1 No.444 Jan 1998, “David Zindell’s Neverness” by Julian R. Bliss, (br) Overspace #10 1990, , , , etc... JulesH 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JulesH. Burzmali 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge but please do make sure the print refs (Locus et al) hit the article, too, not just the AfD debate. MrZaius 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all other articles into A Requiem for Homo Sapiens per JulesH. Even the Vorkosigan Saga doesn't get one article per book. Tualha (Talk) 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

7Shades of Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No asertion of notability; apparant fancruft as there are countless webcomics just like this one. Why is this one notable? Blood Red Sandman 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I am currently categorizing the notable references mentioned in this article within Category:Norse mythology in popular culture. These "'x Norse element' in popular culture' articles really just comprise a list of mostly small popular culture references. I went bold and am attempting to cleanly place them in categories, nominate the 'culture' forks for deletion, and perhaps edit the main pages (like Asgard to include a link to the category rather than the article listing the references. I realize this is complicated and will explain my reasoning more if this is unclear). For now, I finished categorizing pages mentioned in this article, and wanted to prepose its deletion. CaveatLector 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Jaranda 06:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Article effectively has no content other than "it's a school in Bushland". No apparent notability, no external sources, no information. >Radiant< 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This GFDL issue aside, redirect is appropriate in this case, reasoning as per Sjakkalle. I see no benefit in deletion over redirect. Your own reasonable writing on Sprawl control (Redirect, Don't Delete) also seems to me to support redirect over deletion in this case. --SmokeyJoe 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree, as my writing indicates, and for a variety of reasons. I was just curious about the GFDL issue. I chose to ask the question here rather than your talk page as I thought others might benefit from the answer. Thanks for that. SamBC 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - all elementary, middle, and high schools that are without notability should be deleted. They serve no purpose and lead to trivia rather than an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My Self, My Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag (db-nocontext) removed twice, once by author, once by suspicious SPA account. I presume this is a book, but I can't tell, and it doesn't pass WP:COI and practically every other guideline you can think of. EliminatorJR 14:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. The article is well-referenced, and the primary argument for merging is that this wasn't a really important part of Gandhi's beliefs. However, it has been pointed out that this article (which is currently a stub) is certainly eligible for expansion in future, and that references aren't too hard to find. SalaSkan 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge. This is concise knowledge distilled from experience and observation of the human condition, it belongs as an encyclopedic entry somewhere - it should be both preserved and accessible to humanity - even if it is only a footnote.
Seven Blunders of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a philosophical list that Mahatma Gandhi gave to his grandson. This article stands little chance of being expanded. I suggest merging the content to Mahatma Gandhi by creating a new section. AW 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: when @pple nominated merging, the article looked like this and now looks like this. Maybe all stubs should be brought to AFD to encourage the contributors to expand.

KEEP THIS! This is important stuff. It is easily expandable, and Gandhi, frankly, was right. This list has within it the answers to the human condition and crisis. Leave it alone!

Agreed--the information is valuable, but the article doesn't make much of an article by itself.

  • Keep. It's worth having its own entry, imo.
  • Delete. No notability independent of Gandhi demonstrated in this article. Every utterance or turn of phrase of any given famous person does not merit an article of its own. It's quoted a lot so gets a decent number of Ghits, but unless someone can provide references that actually treat this as a subject .. Arkyan &#149; 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Response: Detailed commentaries in notable sources , such as Arun Gandhi's and Stephen Covey's treat this as a subject on its own. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. We need to remember that this is an online encyclopedia, not bound by page space like its paper counterparts. Why the push to delete/merge it? I think it would be better to have more 'documents contents' for us to examine on their own, and this is one such document. At least to be able to read the content of important documents has great value, and I think this is one such document. It could be expanded in several ways that woudl be distinct from a general article on Gandhi himself. Humbleservant 11:40 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leaving it as a separate article would encourage future contributors to expand on the list with material about what Ghandi meant by each of those, or how they have been applied. There may be other historical information to contribute. People may also note references to this list from other works, or in the news, or in popular culture. Cos 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What you say "future contributors", "there may be", "people may" is just speculation. I don't know how expansive this article will be in the future, but now it's just a mere list with no further information about how they are applied or referenced. Thus I suggest merging. If the content can be expanded as you say, future contributors may create a article for it. AW 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That speculation is what the entire wiki philosophy is based on: Article will be of significant quality some day. So, "lacking in current state" is not a valid ground to remove something. If the subject is of importance, it deserves an article. Whether its a one liner stub or a featured article. Someday it will be of high standards. But yeah, things look out of context with this list. Merge is probably a good idea. But where? Into the Mahatma Gandhi article or the Arun Gandhi one? I think the latter would be better. --soum 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd like to see this expanded with any historical impact, ie notices of works where these are referred to. Also any additional commentary by Ghandi if it exists. Ocicat 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expansion would reduce its impact. It is easily valuable enough to keep.
  • Comment/Question. Where in the Knowledge (XXG) policies does it say that an article needs to be a certain length in order to be left as a stand-alone article? Dave Runger 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment/Delete I don't know if it states that... but i do know WP:NOT clearly states deictionary definition are not included. I personally don't see anyway this article can be expanded beyond being a basic definition. Also WP:SIZE insinuates that short pages should be merged into larger related articles, i think something as trivial as this list definetly should not have it's own article. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Response: Apart from "definition" (which is more like a description), the article has a bit of history associated with it. A section about notable commentaries, such as Arun Gandhi's and Stephen Covey's is coming up. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep. As said before, it needs to be expanded, but that's not grounds for deletion. In particular, it needs a "cultural impact" section. Dnavarro
  • Keep. It is a good lesson to learn. Even if arrived at by chance, even if somewhat redundant, its reading will be likely to help the Planet.Tommy Mandel 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Even though I agree with keep, just saying that "its reading will be likely to help the Planet." is not reason enough. Shabda
  • Strong Keep This looks important to have an entry of its own. Shabda
  • Keep 300 votes and 100 comments on the front page of Reddit shows that it is interesting and relevant cojoco 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Doesn't seem like a significant part of his philosophy, according to the current version of the article. It can bide some time as part of the main article (be that on Ghandi himself or his philosophy). --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 9 July 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep or Merge. Keeping it would be my preference, so that through later development of Gandhi and Gandhism the topic doesn't get forked between them like it might if merged. Those articles are also very long already. And also, the topic does (appear to) have enough interest and notoriety to stand on its own. So long as its not deleted entirely. Anakin 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This can stand on its own , but needs to be expanded Neoryder
  • Keep. The rationale of the initiator behind the AfD was that there is little scope of expansion. Regardless of whether that is a good rationale, the fact that detailed commentaries, such as Arun Gandhi's and Stephen Covey's exist on this list, indicates that there surely is scope of expansion. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhism. The list is worth keeping, but can't stand on its own in it's current state. If further information about the list were to be added in the future then we should consider re-separating the two articles. To say that the article could grow is speculative. Brian Willis 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list does not stand by itself and depends on the assumed "sanctity" of Ghandi for its stature. Inclusion of list apart from Ghandi is a sentimental item.
  • Keep - it's a simple, clear enough concept that being able to look it up directly is better than it being buried in another longer article like Ghandism. And it's perfectly acceptable to keep an article that *may one day* be expanded - this is a Wiki, after all. What do you think a stub is? Hopefully one day there will be some commentary, criticism, etc added. Stevage 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While many of the other keep !votes here have argued about the list being useful, or because of the potential for expansion, which last time I heard weren't particularly good reasons, I would point out that the content of the article is verifiable, and indeed referenced, and a quick Google Scholar search on "seven blunders" has brought up what appear to be a non-trivial references to the concept in a number of publications, which I would say service to make this notable in its own right, not just in relation to Mahatma Gandhi. Confusing Manifestation 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Gandhism (with redirect from "seven blunders" pointing to "Gandhism"), or Keep if article loses its "stub" designation. Also, whether kept or merged, it would seem that the title should be "Seven Blunders".. this is how they are referred to on the more authoritative Gandhi Institute website. The title "The Seven Blunders of the World" appears to have been created by neither Gandhi nor his grandson, but instead a 3rd party who has added a few extra lines of his own. Bezapt 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked out several sources, such as this, and it does look like the title is correct. deeptrivia (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy relates to LIFE - It has not much to do with Gandhi This article cannot be merged with Gandhi related analysis, it will only be distracting. If at all it has to be around, it should stand by itself or be merged with ethics/ morals/ philosophy related topics. Agree, it's not really an article, though interesting to read. 203.187.199.30 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Purvi

The fact that this could be relevant to both Gandhism and ethics/ morals/ philosophy related articles suggest that it would be better to have it standalone. One might decide to refer to this article from articles on business ethics, research ethics, ethics of war, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This article should be kept as a stand alone article. The moral value is immeasurable and can be used to expand the thoughts of anyone. I arrived at this article through looking at "The Seven Wonders of the World" and not through any reference of Ghandi so merging it into Ghandi would be a waste. Without that link being where and what it is, I would not have had the chance to read such an enlightening piece.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.238.27 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 July 2007

KEEP: this is such a wonderful and knowledgeful information. Please keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.218.152.190 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2007

Keep: This is a very important philosophy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinequest (talk • contribs)


Keep -- It would take up too much space if merged with the Ghandi article, in which case you'd have to rewrite, shorten, and link to its own article anyways.

Comment It is only Seven Lines. The rest is purely Trivia. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a bad comparison, but Four Noble Truths is only four lines. :) deeptrivia (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Luka Dokic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

There isn't much context here, but this is a neologism and I can't find any verification that this term is actually widely used, nor can I verify the definition. All I found was this website, which makes me suspect this is actually intended to be an advert. That isn't clear enough for a speedy on that grounds though, so I'm bringing it here instead. My opinion is that this should be Deleted.--Isotope23 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Isotope23 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Les Misérables#24601. The subject deserves a mention in the main article, but probably not notable enough to stand on its own. Enough information is in the section; anything else is coincidental, trivial trivia. Sr13 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

24601 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is a thinly-disguised pop culture article, serving exactly the same "spot the reference" function as so many now-deleted "...in popular culture" articles served. It is a directory of loosely associated items which as a grouping tell us nothing about the number, Les Miserables, the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. The number itself does not appear to be significant as a number per the guidelines laid out at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (numbers) or by the relevant Wikiproject. Otto4711 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • While those two numbers contain pop culture references, they are not made up entirely of pop culture references. That's the difference. Resolute 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That other such articles exist does not justify this article. My main point, which you haven't answered, is that a handful of passing references to the number as throwaway jokes in cartoon shows and the like do not add up to cultural significance. Otto4711 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Eight separate popular culture references plus a real world instance adds up to cultural significance as far as I am concerned. WP:NUM permits cultural references to fiction. WP:NUM does not prohibit number articles that consist mainly or solely of cultural references. That is my extended justification for keeping this article. I do not intend to engage in further debate on my position. Gandalf61 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're certainly free not to continue to discuss your position but that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to point out flaws in it. While WP:NUM certainly doesn't forbid pop culture references in number articles, it states that "In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles." A number on a character's helmet or on a prison jumpsuit or a cell, seen in passing and AFAIK not commented on within the story, is not "conspicuous and important to the story." Maybe if Sideshow Bob had song a parody of a song from Les Miz while wearing his jumpsuit, but simply showing up on screen for a few moments? No. And the one supposed real life example is unreferenced original research. Otto4711 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As is apparently par for the course when you cite WP:NOT#PAPER, you're not seeming to understand that it is not a free pass for the article. The storage medium of Knowledge (XXG) does not mean that the articles on Knowledge (XXG) do not have to adhere to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Matthew and others. It is indeed notable (although a few sources would be nice). nb: article fails to state that the number is always spoken digit-by-digit: 2-4-6-0-1 — as in the lyrics. --Jack Merridew 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep 24601 is a very significant number. It used to be Jean Valjean's prisoner number in Les Miserables, and is sung out in many performances. I could have sworn to see it used in some cartoons involving prisoners. Notable indeed.--Kylohk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been established for 24601 above and beyond other numbers, cemented by the multiple cultural references. Alansohn 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Can you, or anyone claiming that this number is notable, point to the reliable sources in which the appearance of the number on Skinner's helmet or Sideshow Bob's prison jumpsuit are addressed "directly in detail"? Otto4711 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What I said above was that I don't question that each of the passing references noted in the article happened so adding a source that mentions the mention is not the issue. I have said from the start that notability is the issue and notability is established by the existence of reliable sources in which the subject is discussed directly in detail. That argument has certainly been consistent, and the failure to respond to it substantively has also been consistent. You seem like a bright enough fellow so your claim of being confused seems a little disingenuous. By the way, now that you're talking again, do you by any chance have any sources that discuss any of these passing mentions of the number directly in detail? Otto4711 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. IronGargoyle 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I am nominating this article since someone marked the article with a prod tag, however I feel that the it should be put to discussion, She is currently, despite here retirement, one of the the most notable female indy wrestlers in North America and has achieved notoriety as being one of the few women to actually participate in deathmatches Sinkholeca 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
  • Delete I PROD-ed the article becuase I don't think it establishes notability strongly enough. She was once banned for wrestling by an athletic commission, and has wrestled in a few indy feds. The refs are weak, other then an official site, and a french site there is the news report about the banning, but not significant third party coverage of her career, for someone who debuted in 1997 the coverage is minot, much like her career. Winning the CZW Iron Man title is not a reason for an article (five other winners of that title are redlinks). Darrenhusted 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: She really was one of the leading female indy wrestlers around, notable for generally slugging it out with the men. I've added a profile link to canoe.ca's wrestling site.  RGTraynor  15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think she passes notability test. Callelinea 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Major name on the indy women's scene, notorious for her history in deathmatches, her debut in SHIMMER was one of the most anticipated in the company, and she may be retired now but once her injuries have healed more, that could change and her career would continue. Demolicious 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral CZW is televised in at least 2 countries. Might qualify as significant part in significant production if properly sourced. The Ontario Athletic Commission/Ontario Human Rights Commision, properly sourced, would probably put the subject over the top for notability. Ontario is the most populous province in Canada and the one with the largest GDP. A legal challenge that results in massive changes to the regulations governing a multi-national industry within a large, economic area is borderline noteworthy. It would affect the wwe and any other promotion that desired to promote within the territory. Similar to the Billy Baxter (poker player) case against the Internal Revenue Service I'd prefer not to see a standalone article, especially since the subject is at least borderline notable and it's a niche industry. Horrorshowj 08:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep LuFisto's notability lies in, as previously stated, the Ontario Athletic Commission deal. That area of the page should really be expanded. DanZero 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article, like other deleted popular culture articles before it, is an indiscriminate list of loosely-associated topics. None of these entries are made famous as a result of mentioning Citizen Kane in passing -- it's just trivia, basically. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Like Arkyan said above, the topic does not meet notability standards. The sentence is completely unsubstantiated in its claim, and listing all the passing mentions of Citizen Kane in various media to support this claim is pure synthesis. Certainly, it's a culturally/historically significant film, and should be covered as such on its article, but that's no reason to make a trivial list of entries that mention it in passing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. The Simpsons is not up there with the Colossus of Rhodes or the Pyramids culturally: just because something shows up there doesn't mean the appearance is notable. Unless someone else is discussing Citizen Kane and how it has become part of our culture (and PLEASE, "culture" does not mean passing references on cartoon shows!), this article should not exist. If someone is discussing it, then the article should report on what is being discussed. --Charlene 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FIVE WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft, OR, trivia, Nuff said!--JForget 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Like a lot of "in popular culture" articles, this is one where a fan's effort actually detracts from a classic film by listing every reference to "Rosebud", every movie that seems to have a Kane-like influence, 10 Simpsons episodes, etc. There's a good reason why lists like this aren't part of an article about the film. Author is required to listen to Roger Ebert's commentary on the Kane DVD in order to regain perspective. Mandsford 01:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, Either keep it or Merge it with Citizen Kane, I actually liked the list and think it is notable how one film has made such a cultural influence, that it is mentioned in TV and other movies. Callelinea 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamid Yassin Adem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability, lack of verifiability, lack of references Iterator12n 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Sr13 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable: no examples of famous members of the family, nothing. - Vox Humana 8' 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person. Though claimed to be notable in the article, there is nothing to suggest that this person is actually notable. I suspect very few bookers would be notable. Evil1987 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Completely non-notable --Vox Humana 8' 11:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Heaven Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable, and neither is the network of which it is part notable--Vox Humana 8' 11:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

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

The result was delete. Seems to be more about the author than the book itself. The notability of the author may be arguble, but that's another story. Sr13 05:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability; I can see no asertion that this book is any different from any of countless others on similar subjects. Blood Red Sandman 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

— 166.122.22.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Dr. Grabowsky is an environmentalist of renown. She has appeared on television both in Hawaii and nationally. Her book has been the subject of articles by at least three publications both paper and digital.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.246.111 (talk • contribs)
— 72.130.246.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I've been on TV and in the paper, too. That in itself doesn't make me notable. Nothing I can find on Google hints at Ms Grabowsky's fame. I'm sure she's a good specialist but I think you need to be more than that to be on Knowledge (XXG). Just my 2 cents--Targeman 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Targeman,REREAD Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability and do some real research please, Possibly starting with the links on this listing. You are on Knowledge (XXG) and your credentials don't cmpare with Dr. Grabowsky's: PhD, star of a PBS documentary that also featured Kealii Reichel, member of the Hawaii State Environemntal Council (appointed by two different Gov's), regularly consulted by the media for information as an expert in Hawaiian Environemntal issues, NW Hawaiian Island National Monument Committee member, author of this amazing book (endorsed by Malama Hawaii), 5 time Waikiki Double Rough Water champion, winner of over 30 gold medals for paddling (World Sprints and Hawaii State championship), host of the UH TV series, "Topic Hawaii", It goes on and on!!! This person gives her heart and soul for Hawaii; out of a deep love for the place and the Hawaiian people.
  • Comment. I have never questioned Dr Grabowsky's credentials. You seem to be well informed about her, so please "do some real research" because you're the one who's writing the article. And there's no need to get emotional, either. Erasing my credentials from my user page is a truly childish reaction. And please sign your comments.--Targeman 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. She has written a book and appears to have been a resource in the media seems to be of some value to those of us who know nothing about her. --Storm Rider 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 23:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Content is not encyclopedic; completely violates WP:OR. This might actually make a good and interesting page for Knowledge (XXG), but the page as it stands has no research, comes entirely from the facts one person 'knows' to be true, and might be libellous, considering the naming of artists and the last line in the article. Thespian 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Do you think you can? I haven't seen anyone else volunteer, and you'll need to ditch a *lot* of prejudices, and not work it as an issue of just white people ripping off black people; all the statements you've made in what you've written are half-truths - UB40, for example, has always been about 50/50 on the race mix, has done 20 albums, of which 2 were cover albums, and their biggest hit was a cover of an *Elvis* tune. Paul Simon hardly took advantage of poor South Africans and their music, as Ladysmith Black Mambazo was actually a fairly successful band for 20 years before appearing on Graceland, and they said (and history has borne it out) that they used the opportunity to get a toehold in the American market. Now, there's *lots* to be found, especially in the 50s, but as I looked over your edits, I found things like your statement that 'it was unknown' if a black artist had been paid for a cover of his song by a white cover artist. This seemed to only be based on the supposition that they wouldn't pay, and not on any reference, *anywhere*, that they hadn't. Finally, you're strongly embedded in making your own point. Racism has also gone the opposite direction, and has also been aimed by both whites and blacks at other groups (especially Asian; much of the New York rap scene has produced songs by blacks against Asians, and of course, there's Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls). I don't have time to do it, just to rattle off things like this, and no one else had made it at all, because this is really a page that needs to be researched and cited and verified to kingdom come. I think you could contribute to it, but I'm not sure you could write it yet. --Thespian 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that I write it but I was hoping that someone else might. And anyway it isn't just my point of view plenty of people would agree with the thoughts expressed. I could write more disagreeing with your points but this probably isn't the place suffice to say that a lot of your comments are just as POV as mine.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course they are. But then, I didn't start the article, and wouldn't have, because I can't do it in an NPOV fashion; I don't actually know enough about it to be NPOV, so I have to base it on what I can find (the UB40, Gwen Stefani and Ladysmith Black Mambazo facts are from their articles here, the comment on New York rap on interviews I've read with NYC rapper Pete Miser, who is mixed race). --Thespian 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As the article exists right now, it is an embarrassment to Knowledge (XXG) not nearly compliant with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies of NPOV and RS. There is a place for this topic on Knowledge (XXG), but it needs to start over, and it needs to start with a different article title. Chubbles 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from using "embarrassment", as the article was only edited by one person, and that's straying close to being a personal attack/WP:BITE. Discussion of the issues with the article should concentrate on the issues, and not use loaded words like that. Thanks, --Thespian 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well what title would you suggest Chubbles?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article entitled "Race and music" or "Racial theories of music" - there's a decent body of scholarship on race theory and its impact on how people viewed music in the nineteenth and early 20th century. Could be expanded to talk about the practical ramifications of such theories, such as "race records" of the early 20th century and such. Good place to start would be "Music and the Racial Imagination", by Ron Radano and Philip V. Bohlman. Ooh, and we've got a great article on coon songs - good as a model. Chubbles 14:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"Coon songs" would seem another good reason why there is a need for article called 'Racism in Music'  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anas 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article seems to be a non-notable clan with possibly a notable member. It has been unreferenced since inception, and has been tagged as needing references for nine months, and in-text citations requested but not fulfilled as well. It does not appear that this fits Notability requirements, and lacks much context to even evaluate it. Kuuzo 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Hachisuka Koroku is definitely notable, and makes the clan notable. Fg2 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clan notability is not established by only single members, but a bit of digging with Google gives a few reliable sources (well, a TV station and a city government website, but better than nothing) which discuss the clan itself. They were the ruling clan of Tokushima for a long time, so almost by default, they have many notable members. Tokushima University's library have a portion of their family archives online in digital form . cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All Daimyo families are notable. Hawkestone 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, and a quick search indicates no lack of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The former ruling clans of Japan are notable in part because reliable independent sources are discussing them, often (at least in Japanese) ad nauseam. They're also notable having been rulers of millions of people. --Charlene 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Hachisuka clan was a minor clan, not a "ruling" clan, nor did it rule "millions of people", but the article has been expanded and looks fine now anyway. --Kuuzo 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable album from non-notable musician, with no reliable sources. h i s r e s e a r c h 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect all to List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes, all the articles are just a repeat of the summary of the main article, no need to be kept or merged, but no need to be deleted nither per the GFDL. Jaranda 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Dragon: Jake Long episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A Befuddled Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Act 4, Scene 15 (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adventures in Troll-Sitting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adventures in Troll-Sitting/Fu Dog Takes a Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Body Guard Duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breakout (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bring It On (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dragon Breath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dragon Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreamscape (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eye of the Beholder (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family Business (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feeding Frenzy (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flight of the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fool's Gold (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fu Dog Takes a Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fu and Tell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Furious Jealousy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairy Christmas (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haley Gone Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Half Baked (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hero of the Hourglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homecoming (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hong Kong Nights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jake Takes the Cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keeping Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magic Enemy Number 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old School Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Professor Rotwood's Thesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring Around the Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shapeshifter (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siren Says (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something Fishy This Way Comes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Supernatural Tuesday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Switcheroo (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Academy (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Doppelganger Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Egg (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Egg / The Heist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Halloween Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Heist (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Hong Kong Longs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Hunted (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Legend of Dragon Tooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Long Weekend (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Love Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rotwood Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Ski Trip (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Talented Mr. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Year of the Jake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young at Heart (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, hence it is not an episode guide. The now-cancelled TV show, American Dragon: Jake Long, is not notable enough to justify this depth of coverage. Each of the nominated articles can be wholly described by the following skeleton:

... which renders them as merely plot summaries. The plot of each episode is already adequately summarised at List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes. Not one reliable secondary source is cited in these "articles", which flunk WP:WAF. Left out was the one already nominated. MER-C 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. None of these is worth a seperate encyclopedia article and they have all been listified already so are currently worthless.-h i s r e s e a r c h 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While better plot summaries could be included in the list of episodes than the current ones, the articles I randomly picked weren't actually enough better to justify the effort of merging them. JulesH 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. However a decision should be made on duplicates of half-episodes, such as Adventures in Troll-Sitting, Fu Dog Takes a Walk, Adventures in Troll-Sitting/Fu Dog Takes a Walk, etcetera. Episodes with little detail should be saved for expansion. ---- DanTD 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, how is this different from our plethora of articles on Star Trek episodes? Yes, yes, otherstuffexists and all that, but actually we have extensive precedent for covering TV episodes. >Radiant< 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree, Radiant. There is a precedent of covering TV episodes, but only when they contribute to well established plotlines or universes (like Star Trek or Stargate) and are thus notable (right?). I do not feel that a canceled animation's episodes meet this criteris. CaveatLector 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per precedent. Episode articles for a series that has aired on network television have been deemed notable precedent. We can't pick and choose which shows we like or don't like. Arkyan &#149; 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While I agree with your !vote I have to dispute your reasoning. Every episode of every TV show is not automatically inherently notable. Otto4711 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all - per WP:EPISODE individual episode articles are acceptable if the episodes are discussed in appropriate secondary sources. It is unreasonable at AFD to expect people to go through every mass-nominated episode so I default to keep. Editors are certainly free to nominate individual episodes for deletion if they have not been discussed in secondary sources but I would suggest a merge and redirect of any such episode titles to an episode list article instead. Otto4711 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Delete since the episodes already have appropriate brief summaries in the list of episodes, and since these article violate WP:EPISODE "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." The ones of these I looked at are sourced only to a fansite, TV.com. The series may be notable, but that does not propagate down to the individual episodes. The individual episode articles are inappropriate and unnecessary. That said, the fact that the series was cancelled is irrelevant, since it is the nature of TV series to be cancelled eventually, and notability is not tied to current popularity. Edison 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all - per Otto4711. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and add social commentary Knowledge (XXG) is a reference work, not really a traditional encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all as notable episodes of a notable series. Seems like a possible case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT driving the deletes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. This television program does not have the kind of notability and cultural significance that, say, Knight Rider or The Dating Game has. Which independent, non-trivial third parties are discussing these episodes specifically? --Charlene 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're not as aware that there are many who mihgt've felt the same way you do about those shows. I know of a letter to an old episode of TV Guide that dismissed the signifigance of that classic TV sitcom Bewitched ---- DanTD 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP is not a TV guide. We dont need recaps of every TV episode. I can understand exceptions where the particular episode won an award or something else notable, but this is not TV guide. None of these episodes note anything like that. Corpx 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes per WP:NOT, WP:WAF, WP:MERGE, and WP:EPISODE.
    Seriously, it's all "Airdate, episode number, plot summary", which is what is in and should be in the LOE. Specifically, WP:MERGE 3 says:

    Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

    Additionally, episodes of Disney shows are rarely notable because while they may have a viewership in the millions, a very large percentage of these will be either children or parents. This makes it very difficult to find an independent reliable source about the episode - the very crux of the notability guideline.
    I would rather not see the episode pages deleted, though, but simply merged, hence my merge vote. However, I would not object to either outcome - the fact is that there's little or no content in them that could be salvaged to put in the LOE. Will 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm sure it'll be kept, for that's the "double standard" of Knowledge (XXG). It's hard to think of anything closer to "original research" (and unoriginal topic) than having a separate article for every episode of a TV series. Keep per precedent just means keep the double standard. Merge makes the best sense. We don't have to be intolerant of everything we don't like, and there's no reason why this shouldn't survive in some form. On the other hand, if you regularly vote to delete "....in popular culture" or "list of....." or "companies located in ....", don't be offended if these get wiped out. Nice to see the shoe on the other foot now and then. Mandsford 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no standard that says TV episodes should be kept. WP:EPISODE says there must be "enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes" and even discourages this kind of episode by episode recap. Corpx 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps it is time for a more radical discussion on whether or not W'pedia wants to carry episode summaries, or whether these would be better hived off into fan-edited show-specific wikis, which could then be linked to from the show's W'pedia page. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — They are notable for being American Dragon: Jake Long episodes. Remember that Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, there's no valid reason why this series can not be covered. Matthew 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Only claims to notability is being "featured" (mentioned) on Bungie's website, and winning a podcast award (from a site which itself may not be notable) that is voted on by random people. Drat (Talk) 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a very minor character of Billy and Mandy. He has only appeared in three or four episodes. This article has cruft added way too often by people anyways. I keep merging and redirecting it to the List of Characters in Billy and Mandy page, but various people keep undoing it. All of the non-cruft information for this character (which isn't much) can all fit on the characters page. DietLimeCola 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes, again there is no need for an article, if most of the info already in the parent page and again all those episode articles can not be deleted because of the GFDL. Jaranda 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Future Jock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You Say Toe-Mato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doggie Daycare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We'll Fix it In Editing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Halloween (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Age Before Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neander Phil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Trouble (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milkin' It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corner Pocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Team Diffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Future Tutor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pheremonally Yours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daddy Dearest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Way (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raging Bull (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tanner (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phillin' In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meet the Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phillin' In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unification Day (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is an encylopedia and not an episode guide. The only content in these articles is a plot summary and trivia, both considered inappropriate on their own. This also fails WP:EPISODE (and WP:FICT for that matter) for lack of "secondary sources about individual episodes". I'd also like to note that these episodes are also summarized at List_of_Phil_of_the_Future_episodes Corpx 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The TV show isn't notable enough for this depth of coverage. You missed a few, as well. MER-C 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent. Episode articles for shows that have been broadcast are given notability per ample precedent on Knowledge (XXG). Arkyan &#149; 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:EPISODE which says "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." The ones of these I looked at have no secondary sources, because these episodes, unlike, say selected episodes of Star Trek or Twilight Zone or Seinfeld, have not had substantial coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. There is a list of episodes, which is sufficient to give the general plot of each episode. Edison 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:EPISODE because it is unreasonable to mass-nominate TV episode articles, some of which may be in compliance with policy and guidelines. No prejudice to nominating individual episodes for deletion but I would prefer merge and redirect. Otto4711 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:EPISODE says "if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes". There are no secondary sources that mention these episodes. Corpx 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait for consensus on the general issue The varied opinions here show there is no consensus on the general subject of whether there should be individual episode articles, and on what the bar should be. Looking at a few--and I find I am glad never to have seen the original--not all of them actually do have plot summaries. Alternatively, merge into articles for individual seasons. DGG (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why wait? Just vote to Delete all (or keep all), tally the votes and see whether it gets to stay in the fraternity house. I like "Phil of the Future", a very interesting, well-written and acted, 30 minute science fiction show. But do we really need an article for each episode? We may want them, but do we need them? Mandsford 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all First of all, precedent is not a valid argument because consensus can change. Secondly, what is it about the episodes that gives them nobility? Notability is not inherited for a good reason. Thirdly, I would be o-kay for some shows to have an article on every episodes like dramas where every episode has an effect on the rest, but most comedies don't have that. None of the episodes of this show have shown why they deserve to have their own articles. The Placebo Effect 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps it is time for a more radical discussion on whether or not W'pedia wants to carry episode summaries, or whether these would be better hived off into fan-edited show-specific wikis, which could then be linked to from the show's W'pedia page. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes. Individual episodes are not notable enough for their own articles. In cases where a specific episode has gained notability, that specific episode can have an article. --OnoremDil 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All - Two episodes of Phil of the Future actually have won awards which make them notable imho, but neither of these have articles listed for deletion here. The notable episodes "Broadcast Blues" and "Not-So-Great Great Great Grandpa" should be kept and expanded, but the episodes listed above are probably all non-notable. Smtomak 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be two points here which everyone is dancing around, rather than addressing headon: (1) Should Knowledge (XXG) have an article on every episode of every television series & (2) What is a "notable" television episode? My gut answer to (1) is no, simply because in many cases, the information no longer exists, & where it does, the editor would be treading uncomfortably close to original research. As for (2), "notable" is a bad measure to use in any case; rather, I think it needs to be decided whether the default for television series is to have separate articles for each episode or not, then decide whether "Phil of the Future" meets or fails that criteria. Until that is decided, my opinion is that this AfD should be tabled -- & any future ones on this & related articles. -- llywrch 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability is an essential criterion for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Phil of the Future is a notable TV show, as it has many followers, it has been discussed in independent media sources, and it has even won a few awards. However, not every episode is notable, just as not every chapter in a notable book is itself notable. Some may be, and those deserve articles. But Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collector of plot summaries, and this kind of information is not encyclopedic. --Smtomak 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting: I was unaware that Knowledge (XXG):Notability has the same level of importance as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR; last I heard, "notability" was just another way of saying "I never heard of it", and its use without an explanation is strongly deprecated. However, I wonder which edit war led to adding that clause at WP:NOT. Nevertheless, speaking as someone who has never heard of this television show (& I probably wouldn't enjoy it had I watched an episode or two), much of what I've read here so far arguing for its deletion are either paraphrases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or wikilawyering: none of what has been written explains to a relatively objective (& more-or-less uninvolved -- I only came here because of the link at Knowledge (XXG): Community Portal) person like me why this article should be deleted or kept. Many articles on television program episodes begin as simple plot summaries, yet later grow into more rounded and complete articles. I don't see that anyone has addressed that possibility other than to claim that this show has never been discussed in independent media sources. Nor have I seen anyone either provide an argument confirming -- or denying -- Corpx's opening reasons why this episode should be deleted in their own independent words. I don't see any one has argued, for example, that this subject lacks enough substance to ever become a Featured Article. And let me make one point clear here: I have no strong feeling in the outcome of this discussion -- delete the article, keep it, roll it up & stick up people's noses at the next Wikimania, any of those work for me -- but seeing that this is the second AfD nomination for this article, I would hope someone gives this matter enough thought to provide a solid enough argument to keep or delete this article so this will be the last time it is nominated. My points above were offered solely to make that so. -- llywrch 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Since nobody has brought up WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR in any relevant way, I don't see how the significance of those policies compared to the notability guideline really have any bearing on this discussion. Has anyone provided an argument other than WP:ILIKEIT for keeping the article? Everyone using WP:EPISODE as a rationale for keep must have missed the following section:
All articles on Knowledge (XXG) must meet notability guidelines, which state that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Knowledge (XXG): Notability (fiction) explains this further:

Knowledge (XXG) articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance.

While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory.
Over time, you might find that some episodes or story-arcs have enough real-world information to warrant their own article. Such an episode can be broken out into its own page.
Individual episodes are not notable unless they receive coverage that makes them notable. There is nothing that stops redirects from being expanded when and if that significant coverage occurs. I, like Knowledge (XXG), am not a crystal ball, but I'd be willing to bet that none of these 3 year old TV episodes are suddenly going to become the subject of multiple sources that makes any of them notable. --OnoremDil 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • My point with comparing those three guidelines to the page about notability you are quoting at me is that one can point to any one of those three by themselves (well, most of the time) as complete justification for one's action. And that's been long-observed community consensus; I don't remember any major discussion that ended with that guideline being promoted to the same level of reverence those three have. Repeated citing of this page -- as has been repeatedly done -- means nothing more than "some of us created a consensus over in a discussion on this other page, & now you have to conform to it." If a consensus makes sense, and is based on sensible arguments, then provide those arguments -- don't quote policy as if it were law. Since you appear to know this policy on notability so well, can you provide here the reasoning that led to it, & show how that reasoning is relevent to this debate? If you can do that (which is what I'm asking) not only will you win this discussion, but strengthen support for this policy. Resting an argument on the words of a policy alone only tempts the unhappy to change those words -- & weakens the intent of the policy. -- llywrch 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • AfD is not the place to debate policies and guidelines. That's what policy and guideline talk pages are for. As of now, consensus on WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE is that individual episodes need individual arguments for notability. I don't see a reason why I should have to argue against that current consensus. Also, while WP:N may not be at the level of some of the policy pages, it's not like it's some new concept that's being thrown out in the discussion. --OnoremDil 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) -Bold portion added and against struck out after reply was posted.-
"I don't see a reason why I should have to argue against that current consensus." -- Who's asking you to do that? That would mean you agree with some of the folks in this discussion that you want to keep this article. My questions have been to get you to argue for that alleged consensus -- if that is the intent of this page you've been quoting from. -- llywrch 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK...now I'm a little confused. Are you saying that arguments made on guideline and policy pages now need to be rehashed on every AfD where someone wants to quote the guideline or policy pages? --OnoremDil 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All - Nothing notable about any of the listed episodes. Merge basic plot information to a list as Smtomak suggested.PGWG 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, notable. Everyking 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete all "Phil of the Future" episode articles without good sources. Fans of "Phil of the Future" could create a new wiki where they can write a detailed episode guide for the show. WP:EPISODE seems to provide a reasonable set of guidelines for Knowledge (XXG) and those guidelines correctly and clearly say that not every episode of TV shows can have a Knowledge (XXG) article. The main problem is that the only source of information about most episodes is from watching the episodes or reading promotional material (advertisements) about the show. Such sources do not provide a basis for writing a Knowledge (XXG) article, but they can provide the basis for an episode guide at another website. Fans of "Phil of the Future", please concentrate your Knowledge (XXG) editing on a FEW good encyclopedia articles about the show and then link to a detailed episode guide at another website (you could make such a guide here if you do not want to start a new wiki just for this show). --JWSchmidt 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather they write the stuff here, where people can actually find it, personally. I'm not a big fan of telling people to take their efforts elsewhere. Everyking 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a repository for all the information on the internet. Only notable episodes - like those that have won awards or that have had important impacts on culture or society - should remain. There are plenty of other wikis for aggregating non-encyclopedic information. See WP:NOT. --Smtomak 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per precedent. Episode articles for shows already broadcast are kept in order to maintain a minimum size in the main article. We'll be debating which branches of mathematics are "notable" pretty soon! - Bevo 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • One man's trash is another's treasure, they say. And "Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia" ...there's plenty of space for all verifiable information - Bevo 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTPAPER states "However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The content section below states "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article."
Redirect to a list of episodes and no information needs to be lost. I've yet to see any explanation about why we need the same information presented in two places. About the only things individual episode articles seem to be good for is fair use arguments and unsourced trivia and quotes sections. --OnoremDil 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm ignoring WP:EPISODE since there's an ongoing battle over its meaning and interpretation. Really, it's just a guideline on how Knowledge (XXG):Notability should be applied to television articles. As it states, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The episode itself is not independent of itself. The name of a writer or director is not significant coverage; it goes in the infobox. Without any sort of other references, an episode cannot be said to be notable. 17Drew 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NOT#CBALL--Sefringle 06:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Until this whole mess on episode articles can be figured out. For those of you who aren't aware, there is a big brouhaha on what should be done about episode articles. It would be unwise to do anything related to mass deletions/merge/redirects until it is settled. Personally, I would say merge, but again, this is unstable guideline territory. Addendum I would also like to note that WP:EPISODE should really not be cited for either side of this discussion. As noted before, the interpretation and application of it are currently under much debate. Try to stick to other P&G that are stable. I   10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment As of yet, nobody has provided a reason why any of the listed episodes are notable. The two episodes that have won awards are not up for deletion. An episode in a notable series is not automatically notable any more than a page in a notable book is automatically notable. Can someone who supports keeping the articles please provide an argument here? Otherwise we'll just be running in circles forever. --Smtomak 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they inherit the notability of the main article. These subarticles are an organizational technique, to keep the length of the main article within reason. - Bevo 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. An individual chapter of a book is not notable since secondary sources cover the book as a whole and not individual chapters. Likewise, the secondary sources do not have significant coverage of these individual episodes. 17Drew 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think an individual chapter certainly could be notable, but only for the most notable books (classics). But I think this is a poor comparison to episode articles, which are aired separately and have self-contained plots. Nobody ever picks up a novel they've never read before, reads chapter 12, sets it aside for a while, then reads chapter 18, and then never reads it again, but this is common for episode viewing. A much better comparison, I think, would be to individual books in a series. Everyking 14:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • These are great for a TV guide wiki, but I dont think an encyclopedia should be providing plot summaries and trivia (ew) for every TV episode. Corpx 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You're veering away from what I said. Notability is whether or not there is significant coverage from secondary sources. Just like there aren't sources that only cover one chapter of a book, there is not significant coverage of any individual episode. 17Drew 19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and repeat, redirect and protect to a "List of episodes" article. The fact that the show is notable does not mean that every episode, character, etc., etc., from it is. In this case, I simply see no third-party source material to support these articles. We don't even need to bring notability into this, we can simply look at verifiability: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." As these are apparently not verifiable through independent, third-party sources (the episode itself ain't it, that's original research!), they must go. Seraphimblade 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per User:I. Dalejenkins 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs featured on South Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For the same reasons given in Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of songs featured in Vanilla Sky. The essay WP:FAN is relevant here. Included:

--Bulldog123 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The songs written specifically for the show may certainly be necessary for a critical understanding of the show, but the fact that a character hums a few notes of a song or sings a couple of lyrics isn't. Otto4711 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove all songs that were not written specifically for the TV show and Keep, otherwise Merge to South Park. --Charlene 18:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just because we like South Park and The Simpsons and don't like other shows is no reason to keep these sorts of lists, would we even consider keeping List of songs featured on 60 Minutes? c'mon. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see any reason why keeping it is a problem, and yes, the sorttable tables in the Simpsons is a great idea, and yes in my opinion, encyclopedic. Put it simply; people will look up to it and will know that The Simpsons and South Park has gone to this far for many years and has featured many famous hit songs. However, there should be a rule that only original song tracks that are really featured in the Simpsons/South Park can be added; and not just adding part of a song that lyric's are being sung by a character. As a knowledgable music buff myself, I see alot of Simpsons songs being added that are actually just "referenced" and not the original song's track being "featured".

Someformofhuman 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge to South Park. “The Simpsons” and “South Park” are extremely significant and unquestionable notable subjects. Unlike “Vanilla Sky” they represent critical commentary (on current society). The songs are not incidental, or padding, but are a significant component of the commentary, and often significant commentary themselves. The amount of material on the subjects is so large that it needs to be divided and organized, and this is just the function of List of songs in South Park and List of songs featured in The Simpsons. Both subjects are currently not well written, being excessively orientated to a fan perspective, and not enough to the perspective of serious scholarship. A reorientation is desirable, as is a better application of Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and deletions of attempts to organize the material are counterproductive. --SmokeyJoe 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; then add links to Chef Aid: The South Park Album and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut#Soundtrack from South Park. We don't need a list of songs other than those on the albums; instead expand or add to the section on music in South Park, or create a separate article dealing with Music in South Park. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete song pages that describe songs played in the show. Songs created for the show should be kept where notable enough to warrant their own article, or merge all songs created for show into one article if individual articles cannot be used. A show should only have an article on songs played in the show if the show is known for its outside music sources, and reliable sources would be needed for this example. --WillMak050389 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What you say is sensible, and perhaps I was tending a bit leniently eventualist above. Not even South Park links to this list! However, but I don’t think delete is preferable to a merge to South Park. The list contains sourced material that can be improved, to prose, if a listing of all songs used is thought to be not appropriate. --SmokeyJoe 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, if the outside music used in the show has important and can be sourced, it should be used in the South Park article, and if enough information can be gathered, into a separate article. Any original music should be merged into a "List of songs from South Park" or similar, and if notable enough, separate songs or groups of songs (such as soundtracks) should have their own article. I hope that clears up what I was thinking/trying to say. --WillMak050389 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There really isn't any assertation of notability. It boils down to Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of information. Relevant notable releases, such as the soundtrack, can and are covered. Keegan 05:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is a difference between trivia and an encyclopedia; this is trivia. If there is anything salvagable it should certainly be merged into the main article. --Storm Rider 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Massively uncited, probably OR at best, NFT or HOAX more likely (article's only supporting link (wikibooks) led to nowhere relevant); no relevant-looking ghits for "pirate pancake" rum. DMacks 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It is a non-notable "religion" founded 1.5 year ago. All the information is obviously self published and a GS gives less than 100 links that most of them are just repeats -- Magioladitis 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any sources, reliable or otherwise Ohconfucius 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Anas 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All contestants should be merged into a single article (à la "So You Think You Can Dance? (Season Two) finalists").
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Boldly redirected to So You Think You Can Dance? (Season Two) finalists by User:Night Gyr. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article relies on show publicity, and absolutely fails to cite reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Merge into Chip's Challenge. Non admin closure. Jorvik 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

No independent references (WP:V); article does not explain how this game is notable (WP:N). Web search only reveals download pages, nothing that would satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Prod dismissed by an anonymous user as 'silly' without addressing these concerns. MarašmusïneTalk 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete, though the result should not be construed as any kind of precedent for other articles in the three "foods" categories noted in the discussion. Individual menu items may be notable (e.g., Big Mac), but this article provides only one source from the corporate website itself. -- Black Falcon 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Chicken Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article is sourced, what harm will it do to keep the article? Many other fast food items have their own article.
Additional CommentWould it be beneficial to have a combined article for "Wendy's Chicken Temptations", which is the brand name for all of their chicken sandwiches.

--Nenyedi Deeds@ 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Firstly, the harm is to Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility, and that could be incalculable. Secondly, many of the other fast food articles do not appear to fulfil notability and verifiability requirements. Thirdly, the source is Wendy's own promotional material, which for notability is no source at all. ROGER  21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I would argue that the Ultimate Chicken Grill™ is prepared from a tender grilled whole chicken breast fillet with a delicious honey mustard sauce and crisp fresh toppings on a warm Kaiser roll. ~ Infrangible 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the only source is Wendy's itself. No WP:RS, and frankly, makes no assertion of notability at all. I'd {{dbfood}} it if such a speedy criteria existed. Resolute 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Only at Wendy's restaurants. It's Wendy's that's the common factor; that's what provides the context (and the notability). That's why it would be better to merge this into the main Wendy article or even into a Wendy's menu items article than having separate little articles (with virtually no prospect of expansion) on each of them. ROGER  07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anas 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Orphan, no claim of notability, no third-party sources given. —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn JulesH 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The bulk of this article is bizarre original research that is totally non-encyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV Bigdaddy1981 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Per below, I'll withdraw my AfD nomination and add a Disputed tag to the article. Bigdaddy1981 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep A google search shows that this topic is notable in nature. It would be wise to rewrite this article. --Siva1979 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Which part of this is "original research"? The article has more sourcing and bibliography than most I see. I think that all three of the reasons cited in the nomination (OR, POV, "non-encyclopedic") are inapplicable. Perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT is what is actually meant. Mandsford 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete sorry for pointing this out but as an economist with a master's degree I simply cannot refrain from commenting on this. If Wikipeida wishes to keep incoherent blatant nonsense that no economist with respect for himself would ever waste a second on just because of the disturbing fact that these ideas actually have followers then I sincerely do believe that we have reached a point where we must reconsider if we are the 💕 or the free collection of lunatic ideas with no relation to the real world. Sorry if I'm trolling, I don't normally talk like that here but I feel quite strongly about this. The critics of economics already got to screw up the Economics article, this is where I draw the line. MartinDK 12:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Article needs attention from an expert on the subject for possible NPOV concerns -- it should stress more strongly that this is not a mainstream economics theory, and present a more balanced view of the criticisms that (presumably) have lead to it not being adopted by mainstream economists. I'm also a little concerned about the reliability of some of the sources, for instance Rutgers Law Journal is a student publication, not the peer-reviewed publication it sounds like it should be, and may therefore be somewhat misleading with respect to its authority. Also, too many of the current sources were written by the originator of the theory: a broader mix of sources is required. But none of these is a good enough reason to delete the article. There are reliable sources here. Most of the article is based on content in Kelso's professionally published books. Other content is based on articles in the Journal of Socio-Economics. This isn't OR. JulesH 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. I generally agree with JulesH. The article seems to make out its own case for notability, and nothing about this looks like original research in the sense we use it: it was not invented on Knowledge (XXG). POV issues are not grounds for deleting this. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Reasons stated above. CraigMonroe 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and I'd like to address MartinDK's point about Binary Economics. Of course he's right, no respecting economist would take binary economics seriously. But I wonder, should we also delete the article on heliocentrism? Of course not, because it's still a term that may be referenced, and people should be able to turn to an encyclopedia to find out what that term meant. Exactly the same thing here. Binary economics, along with the reasons that it is not taken serionsly, should be clearly explained. We do readers a far better service by accurately characterizing bad science as bad, rather than by simply pretending it does not exist. We can easily do that here. --JayHenry 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment if it is to be kept as a curiosity as heliocentrism then it should be rewritten to make it clear that this is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. At the moment, it reads as POV gibberish. Bigdaddy1981 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Then add a criticism section. As it stands, AFD is wholly innappropriate. CraigMonroe 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's exactly my point. It should be rewritten to make it clear that it is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. --JayHenry 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have an economics degree. This article isn't economics, it's a thinly veiled rationalisation of the Islamic prohibition on lending money for interest, which is in itself one of the main reasons for the failure of Islamic countries to thrive . If it's kept it has to be rewritten to reflect this as JayHenry points out. This is religion, it's NOT economics. Nick mallory 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Are you sure about this Islamic thing? Just cause you have a degree in economics evidently means you don't want to cite the fact that Christianity prohibited usury also. Lets try not to judge an entire civilization on the fact that they don't lend with interest. Rhetth 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Let me show you how easy it is to debunk this. From the article: This supply of interest-free loans for the spreading of productive capacity, as well as for environmental and public capital, would be a move towards using a 100% of banking reserves. Thus the banking system would not be continually creating money but would be confined to lending (with permission) depositors’ money and the bank’s own capital
    Amazing!! First of all they manage to claim that banks would not create money yet they would lend out no less than 100% of their reserves thus creating lots of money (100% in fact). In fact they would create more money that banks do in Western capitalist countries. To claim that they would not continually create money suggest that deposits would not increase or decrease over time. In other words the world would be static and nothing would ever change over time. In response to this they will claim that creating money actually means creating profit (another sign that they don't even understand the terminology they use) but then why are they allowed to charge "fees"? It just makes no friggin' sense. Not only this but they would lend out 100% of their reserves. Banks in countries with efficient supervision of the stability of the financial sector (most Western countries) do not allow banks to lend out more than usually around 80% of their reserves. Why? Imagine what happens when people come to the bank to withdraw their deposits... If rumour spreads that the bank does in fact not have the money it generates what is known as a bank run or quite simply panic where people rush to withdraw their deposits. Result: complete collapse of the financial sector. This is something that the Indonesians should already be aware of after the collapse in 1997-98. All that without resorting to use of algebra which these people hate so much because it allows us to debunk their theories and expose them as little more than political propaganda in disguise. And trust me people... that is exactly what this is. I understand the part about educating people like we do with the flat earth theory article or the many creationist articles here but the article should at least point out that this is politics disguised as science. MartinDK 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand Binary Economics and those who don't ~ Infrangible 10:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Laughing Hey, that's pretty good. Almost a 1010.
    • Strong Keep Janos Abel invited me to write the original article which he kindly put up. As it developed eighty two book/paper references were included (and about another fifty published paper references could be included). However, apparently because binary economics is a new paradigm (or, simply, because some people just do not like it)attempt is being made to suppress it which has not been done for other schools of economics.
    • Moreover, if a Western university had been the first to take up binary economics there would have been no objection but, because it is an Indonesian one (even though it is second in prestige in the whole of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation)there is an implicit assumption of cultural and intellectual inferiority.
    • I apologise for not using my password but I am rushing to make sudden arrangements to go to Indonesia and do not have time to find it.
    • Rodney Shakespeare
      I should have added that a clear, referenced account of binary economics can now be found at www.binaryeconomics.net and much information/papers etc at www.cesj.org and www.kelsoinstitute.org
      Rodney Shakespeare.
      Thanks for openly admitting your conflict of interest and use of self-published sources. I have added the appropriate tag to the article and I will be removing the links to your website as spam. Also, I do invite you to respond to my debunking of your monetary theory rather than assume that I hold bias against Indonesians (which I don't). Sigh... Now that the main contributor to the article have admitted that much of the "research" used on the article is in fact original research by him and his colleagues could we agree on what OR is? MartinDK 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      Also, The Kelso Institute is not the reliable source that it sounds like. It is a website run by Patricia Kelso, the wife of the originator of this theory. MartinDK 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      Add a criticism section with sources. Even if wholly innaccurate they can place the theory out there since it is sourced. CraigMonroe 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      There are two peer reviewed sources. The rest are working papers and other self-published sources. Anyone can write a working paper or a book. MartinDK 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      Two peer reviewed articles is more than enough under Wiki standards. Not to mention, a book would also qualify. You disagree witht eh topic. ... so instead of discussing it here (the AFD nom was withdrawn) spend the time to write a criticism section in the article so people actually know this is an unsupported theory and why it is wrong. CraigMonroe 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    MartinDK, It is no conflict of interest if the writer of an article is in the best position to write an article. It is rather important in these matters that people should know what they are talking about. Perhaps you can suggest the name of somebody who has unequivocably read all the books and papers. As regards 'origianal research' is The Cpaitalist Manifesto (1958) 'original research' and therefore to be rejected?. Or The New Capitalists (1961)? Or Two-Factor Theory (1967)? Or Democracy and Economic Power (1987). Or Binary Economics (1999)? Or Seven Steps to Justice (2002)? Or Capital Homsesteading (2002/4? Or The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007)? Or The Universal Partadigm (2007)? Published works are published works and if publication is grounds for supppression then all books can be suppressed. Book burners, rejoice! I also notice that you are trying to suppress any reference to a very clear account of binary economics at www.binaryeconomics.net. I invite all people concerned with this matter to go to that website before they take any decision. What do you mean by "self-published sources?" All the books referred to above have publishers.

    And why do you attack the Kelsos? Is it a crime to simply propose that workers should own shares in corporations? Is it a crime to want to see everybody owning shares and to see everybody having some form of productive capacity? Is it a crime to want to use interest free loans for prodcutive capacity (so that the effective cost is halved?

    Rodney Shakespeare


    MartinDK with regard to your comments on monetary theory. I am sorry but you do not understand the subject. The 100% reserves proposal (Friedman, Fisher, Simons and others)STOPS the banks creating money out of nothing (they have to use depositiors' money or their own capital). There is then a new supply of central bank-issued interest-free loans going THROUGH the banks (i.e. they administer it and charge administration cost). The central bank intersst-free supply is directed (by the banks) at the development and spreading of productive capacity and the associated consuming capacity. It cannot be inflationary because, over time, all the lent money (secured on productive capacity) is repaid and cancelled. It is not helpful when people like yourself attempt to put out gross distortions about a subject because they do not understand what has been clearly written.

    Let me just briefly respond to this. The 100% reserve requirement proposed by Friedman et.al. does indeed stop the banks from creating money since they cannot lend out what has been deposited. That is not what is in the article. According to the article banks would lend out what has been deposited as well as its own capital in addition to loans tunneled through the private banks at 0% interest. Thus they would be creating money. What you should have written was that due to property concerns, banks should not create money out of what, according to the supports of this theory, is not the bank's property but the depositor's property. This is an old and discarded idea but it is not original research and is generally considered one of Friedman's oddest ideas (he had quite a few of those). You seem to misunderstand how banks create money. But I will leave it at that since this really didn't belong on this AfD and I should have known this would happen so I will just leave it at that. I give up. MartinDK 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thankyou for saying that the 100% requirement as proposed by Friedman et al. stops the banks from creating new money. We are making some, although slow, progress. But you still have not grasped that what is proposed is the use of existing money (deposits -- with permission -- and bank capital) plus loans (from the central bank) which start as newly-created money but are then directed solely at the development and spreading of productive capacity and are then repaid and CANCELLED. The overall effect is that, over time, there need be no overall increase in the money supply and, due to the huge diminution in the role of interest (as opposed to administration cost) no continual pressure to increase the money supply (which is what happens at present thereby causing continual inflation). I also note that you say the 100% reserve is not an original idea and has been discarded. As a separate idea it may have been discarded but binary economics links it with the central bank-issued interest-free loan supply for the development and spreading of productive capacity -- and that is one of the original aspects of binary economics. But, of course, as soon as I use the word "original" up jumps the I Don't Like it Brigade to twist the meaning of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules on the meaning on originality to try to stop the whole article. Also it would be generally preferable if people who know nothing about binary economics did not pontificate on content (as opposed to matters of style etc). Rodney Shakespeare.

    • KEEP Binary Economics addresses issues missed by mainstream economics and is a valuable addition for this reason (despite being a work in progress). The fate of LTCM is only one glaring example of the need for improvement in that which is approved by mainstream economics. Read Keyne's essay The Future (Essays in Persuasion) if you want an eye-opener of a mainstream economist coming clean.

    • STRONG KEEP As an author of 8 books on economic questions I am opposed to the idea of deleting the article on binary economics and so depriving institutions and good causes the possibilityof low or no interest loans. I therefore vote STRONG KEEP. Those who oppose the principles of BE are simply ignorant of its workings or have vested interests for its suppression in the name of the establishment and powerful corporations. Yhe time has come for experimentation and alternative economic theories in the name of social justice and a more equitable world in both north and south. Robert Corfe
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    This person seems to be just an ordinary criminal. From the article there does not seem to be anything notable or remarkable about him more than the hundreds of others who are found guilty by the courts every day. Steve Dufour 05:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete This is a "weak" and somewhat reluctant "delete". Ironically, I disagree with fellow editor Steve Dufour on his rationale -- but I agree with Steve on his conclusion. As far as I know, Glen Stoll has never actually been charged with or convicted of a Federal tax crime. The references in the article are to civil tax cases (albeit serious ones). I edit heavily here in Knowledge (XXG) in tax law articles, especially articles involving tax protesters like Glen Stoll. I would argue that if Glen Stoll HAD been convicted of a tax crime, that could very well be a possible ground for a Knowledge (XXG) article, as convictions for U.S. Federal tax crimes are rare (compared to, say, convictions for murder). Ironically, had Stoll been charged with and ACQUITTED of a Federal tax crime, that might make him even MORE notable, as acquittals in Federal tax cases are extremely rare. Anyway, I would incline slightly toward a "delete" at this time, with the obvious proviso that Mr. Stoll might properly be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article at a later time if he gets into any more tax trouble. Yours, Famspear 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. The whole subject of Federal tax crimes and the process by which the government decides who is going to be prosecuted is actually quite interesting (uh, at least, it is if you're tax law geek like I am). A discussion of why and under what circumstances being charged with, convicted of, or acquitted of a Federal tax crime could make an individual "notable" for purposes of Knowledge (XXG) is of course beyond the scope of this page. Yours, Famspear 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete (or perhaps redirect) and move relevant well-sourced info to Kent Hovind. This is not a biography but Stoll's doings mentioned here seem notable enough in the context of Hovind's endeavors. Avb 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep only if there are more 3rd party sources to show that this particular man and his schemes are notable. It is not necessary to be convicted to get a WP article; the article is careful about its language and so should have been the nomination. DGG (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as he is mentioned in the press and in federal court cases. People looking for information about him and his "Remedies at Law" scheme would be interested in this article. This Seattle article explains why he is notable and this US Department of Justice press release adds further detail. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. There are over 30 mentions in the google news archive's search over the last few years that can help with a rewrite. Plantocal 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Interesting scheme, certainly. I tend to view such arguments as reasons to move/redirect/transform to an article about the subject's scheme(s). Avb 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - the individual is not remarkable; when does common crime become notable? Why would we want to make it notable? --Storm Rider 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Wonderful Life (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Despite the "rumours have been flying around" that it'll be released as a single, there are no reliable sources that say so, including the links provided. Disputed prod. ShadowHalo 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was deleted. Sr13 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable software. Name gets four google hits. Weregerbil 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Jaranda 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Being Human (American Dragon: Jake Long) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Needs merging to List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes - Vox Humana 8' 05:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. —Kurykh 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    Marquis de Piro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    From Tancarville (talk · contribs)'s edit summary: Merged with Buttigieg de Piro. This page is no longer needed.) Nomination completed by me. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep (nom withdrawn). Anas 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    WithdrawnLacks notability or references. Listed as Pro-Wrestler but had 4 matches in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and indeterminate time in World Championship Wrestling (WCW). No PPV, titles or coverage from outside sources. He's a monster truck driver, but I'm not sure that counts as notable either. Has been tagged for references for 4 months.Horrorshowj 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) He's not notable as a wrestler. I don't think he warrants a standalone article as a monster truck driver. However JulesH is correct, the buried reference in the NFL.com article to his having played 2 seasons in WLAF does meet the minimum standards for notability as an athlete. Horrorshowj 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Plenty of references in a more refined search. Also, as a former professional footballer (not described in the article, but it is mentioned in sources found by the search above), he meets the criterion in WP:BIO for "competitors who have played in a fully professional league". JulesH 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Probably a hoax, or non-notable. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. The references seem to be only topical external links and not references concerning the subject himself. Lack of improvement and a possible single purpose account are also factors in weighing consensus. IronGargoyle 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    A person of no sourced notability. Worked for a record company; his mother was mentioned in a government report. The article has a bunch of references, the majority of which don't mention this person. A few trivial mentions of his name are made in passing ("record so-and-so produced by David".) Nothing substantial notability-wise, all information about the person is unsourced. Weregerbil 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Neutral for now. There is a claim of notability in that the article says he was nominated for a Grammy Award as a producer. However, the sources I have been able to find don't list the producers of the albums nominated in his category (just the titles and composers), so I have not been able to verify the claim. In addition, the article rambles all over the place. I don't see how his mother's experiences in being committed to placed involuntarily in a nursing home could be relevant enough to be included in this article. Depending on whether and how this article is improved, I may reconsider later. --Metropolitan90 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. There are definitely some claims to notability in there; this one's going to be more difficult than your average A7. Still, I think that more likely than not the final result will be "delete".-h i s r e s e a r c h 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete A worthy and active member of the middle class, but not encyclopedia material. Hawkestone 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep, I think the article is way too long and should be edited down. But I think he makes the mark in notability. Callelinea 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Apparently those who have read this article are totally ignorant of the British National Health Service, the largest employer in Europe. Despite the Knowledge (XXG) assertion that there are three other “national systems” in the United Kingdom (which is one sovereign nation) the NHS is funded by general taxation of the entire country. The financial problems of the Health Service are a frequent topic in British media. The "Government Report" dismissed by Weregerbil above indicates an unfamiliarity with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and effect of its work which is quasi-judicial. The report in question was the most important ever made concerning the long-term care of the elderly in the United Kingdom and has resulted most recently in a complete overhaul of the manner in which patients are granted funding. That alone is worthy of inclusion since the subject of the article influenced government policy which affects some sixty million people, all of whom will be old one day. The background to the case is included to indicate how the matter came about - and incidentally, the article never states that his mother was "committed to a nursing home". The manner in which she and others are placed in accommodation and then required to pay was a major factor; perhaps it would be wise for critics to familiarise themselves with the problems of the National Health Service before being so dismissive. Referring to “a bunch of references” does not, I submit, indicate professional editorial acumen.

    Biographical information requires that the background and education of a subject be included; “worked for a record company” indicates unfamiliarity with the Recording Industry. In the 1960s, EMI Records was then the largest record company in the world (Capitol Records is one of its subsidiaries) and Mr Gooch replaced the older George Martin when he departed. He had as a colleague Norman Newell (q.v.) who, apart from producing many well known artists and translating Italian lyrics, appears not to have helped his fellow man in any way. Producing the first album to donate royalties to an Aids-related (or in American use, AIDS-related) in itself would be cause for inclusion. Concerning the Nomination for a Grammy Award, a check with the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the awards period 1985 will confirm this: David Gooch - Very Warm For May. Unfortunately they do not list nominees on their web site since that are always five in each category. Although the article does not mention it, the Nomination was a directly responsible for a change in the Academy’s rules which in the following year (1986) forbade unreleased historical recordings from being included in the category. It so happened that until 1985 no other British record producer had been nominated in this “field” as the Academy calls it.

    In my estimation, the article does not “ramble all over the place” but is clearly divided into chronological sections culminating in the circumstances and results of his campaigning for the rights of the elderly in the UK. Knowledge (XXG) is read by the British researchers and if it is to be considered definitive, fame or celebrity should not be an indicator of biographical worth; if he had appeared on Big Brother, there would not be a discussion! 1810 GMT 10 July 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Shuster (talk • contribs)

    • The article says that the subject's mother was "placed involuntarily in an EMI (Elderly Mentally Ill) Nursing Home", which is why I said she was committed to a nursing home. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In the UK one can only be "committed" to a psychiatric hospital under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983; it is commonly called "sectioning", which means that a 'section' of the Act has been invoked; a patient cannot be 'committed to a nursing home' and in this particular case, no "sectioning" was involved. In British law there is now no division between a "nursing home" and one which offers "residential care"; they are all known legally as "care homes". What does happen (as it did then) is that the Social Services department of Local Authorities (similar to those of US counties) can (and do) transfer patients to care homes for which the patient is then (unlawfully)required to pay. The Report made to Parliament by the Health Service Ombudsman upheld the formal Complaints made about this, and the result was that most recently the National Health Service substantially amended the procedures. There is no equivalent in the United States because there is no universal health coverage. WLS 0837 GMT
    • Weak delete. The events leading up to the change in British Government policy are interesting and probably notable, perhaps these merit an article themselves or being recorded as part of a larger article. However, much of David Cunard's life otherwise appears to have been unremarkable and unless notability is brought out and established, I would go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete the issues raised by a (probable) spa don't assert notability. Giggy UP 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of Windows Vista Compatible Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Another unmaintainable list. There are many, many, many Vista compatible programs, and presumably there will be many, many more in the future. Crystallina 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Anas 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of solo piano pieces, English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unmaintainable list - there are thousands, possibly millions of solo piano pieces. Crystallina 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was kept. Sr13 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Seemingly non-notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about albums by this band:

    Legend (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Blind Faith (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    --Vox Humana 8' 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was kept. Sr13 06:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Legend (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Nominated for deletion as an album by a seemingly non-notable band. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about (1) the band and (2) the other album by this band:

    Legend Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Blind Faith (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    --Vox Humana 8' 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Commment - Comparing Legend Seven with U2 is completely out of the question. It's like comparing Paul Walker with Jimmy Stewart, or Marlon Brando. You'll be way better comparing them with another band not of the status of U2. Thief12 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    After re-reading my comment above, I want to rephrase. Paul Walker is a lousy actor. Legend Seven wasn't a lousy band. But you can get my drift of what I was trying to say, hehehe. Thief12 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Anas 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Blind Faith (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Nominated for deletion as an album by a seemingly non-notable band. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about (1) the band and (2) the other album by this band:

    Legend Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Legend (Legend Seven album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    --Vox Humana 8' 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Legend Seven is notable; full-length albums by notable bands qualify as notable. Chubbles 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete album - WP:MUSIC states that albums must have independent coverage in them. I cant find anything about it on a google search Corpx 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Comment Is that a new policy? In that case, we have tens of thousands of album pages to delete. If that (thoroughly silly) policy is to be followed, the track listing of the album should at least be Merged into the band page. By the way, Google isn't going to turn up any press for a 15-year old Christian Rock album. That's a bad standard to judge notability for albums. Back issues of CCM Magazine will, though. Chubbles 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Full text of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music) Albums section:
    "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge (XXG). Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.
    Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting."
    Corpx, what are you basing your claim on? --Oakshade 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The individual albums should have indepenent coverage part. I see no reviews/billboard chartings etc for this album Corpx 17:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The album had three hit singles on Christian radio. Chart positions are now sourced. Sheesh. Chubbles 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of tentative list sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    An unsourced, unclear, and unnecessary list that doesn't comply with WP:LIST guidelines. Crystallina 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was no consensus. Soapboxing concerns are still here I think, but Black Falcon and DGG's newly presented information is compelling enough to keep the article for now. IronGargoyle 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Candidate for North Carolina state treasurer in 2008. No other claim to notability, no independent sources. Only notable (maybe) if he wins, not till then. NawlinWiki 03:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Political candidates are not inherently notable. I see no indication that being a candidate for state treasurer establishes notability. Resolute 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unless article can make some claim to notability and source those claims. Montco 05:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete Political candidates are not notable. This politican have not held any national office and have not received any significant press coverage. However, it must be noted that a google search shows over a thousand hits for this politician. --Siva1979 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete No references, vanity piece for a candidate. If it had more references I might be convinced to keep but as written now, get rid of it. Callelinea 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep if anyone wants to do it carefully; a preliminary scan of the google results show there seem to be several genuine news stories in independent RSs (albeit local one) among all the political blogs. There was in fact already a reference, so those saying there were none may not have read the article carefully--It did not show prominently in a separate section, so I formatted it. the WP article for some reason leaves out what seems to be the reason for the interest--a party switch in 2006 (I added it on the basis of that reference). I wonder who wrote it. DGG (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per DGG. The above "delete" comments were all made prior to the addition of sources to the article (see diff). The article now cites 4 distinct sources, three of which seem to be independent, and two of which seem to provide significant coverage (these two). Being a political candidate does not make a personal inherently notable, but it also does not make someone inherently non-notable, which two of the "delete" recommendations and the nomination suggest. Black Falcon 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Merge is tempting, but the arguments are strong that we should be avoiding trivia sections. (ESkog) 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Per WP:FIVE, wikipeida is not a trivia collection. This article is just full of trivia. Knowledge (XXG) should not be the place to document every time somebody mentions something in a book/tvshow/movie - Some precedent in AFD regarding Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture - Corpx 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Not only is the article trivia, but it's primary focus is video games an the like, which frequently draw from classical mythology. Nothing surprising there. Calgary 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Move to be a section in the Lernaean Hydra article. Most mythological beings, stories, etc have a section for XX in popular culture; it's factual and, I think, actually quite interesting to see how those archetypes are reused in games, books, etc. However, it could be edited considerably for length to condense it down. --Bookgrrl /lookee here 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response Knowledge (XXG) has a policy against trivia sections, and this list, even if massively conensed, would be an obvious trivia section. The transition of classical mythology into popular culture is an interesting one, but would be much better served by a paragraph or two in another article than a trivial list. Calgary 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge Knowledge (XXG) is not a trivia collection. We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts. --Siva1979 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - as a directory of loosely associated items. The listed items have nothing in common with one another. They don't all even have the Hydra in common, as this list not only captures appearances by the creature but things that are simply named "Hydra" or merely use the word "hydra." This list tells us nothing about the Hydra, nothing about the things that use the word "hydra," nothing about how these things relate to the Hydra or to each other and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Move to a subpage of the talk page. Forking out "popular culture" sections into separate articles and then deleting those articles is a poor substitute for actual editing. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Place relative pages into Category:Greek mythology in popular culture and delete. To many 'popular culture' articles floating around, when the would do much better and be much more managable in categories. CaveatLector 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge a very brief summary in continuous prose into Lernaean Hydra. As Siva1979 writes, "We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts." EALacey 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I would say merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging. CaveatLector makes a good point about categories: if the list items have their own pages, they should be in a category; if there are enough items, the category could even be Category:Hydra in popular culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have to say keep, because it concerns and Ancient myth, which is certainly encyclopedic and provides enough examples from noteworthy venues to justify inclusion. What I would suggest is more in the way of references and images. Also, I am in the process of cleaning the article up in terms of organization, references, internal links, italicizing titles, etc., so please at least allow for some time to clean up to see if it improves. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Again, it is still being improved with images, reference, internal links, etc. Definitely not mere trivia, because the persistence of the Greek myth in Western culture is indicative of its strength throughout many centuries. The fact that there are so many references to it show its long-lasting legacy and relevance to world culture and is therefore absolutely encyclopedic. As for WP:FIVE, an ancient myth that has influenced various aspects of popular culture for many, many years is definitely encyclopedic; verifiable sources can and are starting to be provided and the article does not attempt to force any one point of view on readers; the article contains free content edited by many different editors; the article seems to have had a pleasant edit history with not much in the way of edit wars from my glance; and it is a bold, interesting article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I again request some patience on this one as efforts are being undertaken to improve the article. Please note that in addition to my edits, User:Michael Hardy has also made several edits to improve the article in the past couple of hours. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think there are far too many of these 'pop culture' articles, and would stress that we shouldn't keep this JUST because its a classical in nature (and I'm a Classicist!). The enduring nature of Greek mythology and culture is better displayed through a category, I think. It is much easier to access and provides a lot more research opportunities. CaveatLector 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I honestly think that there are not enough articles of this nature, because, while I agree that many of the existing ones can and should be improved with sources and images, listing the many places in which an original source, concept, idea, etc. resurfaces throughout the various arts throughout the ages is quite revealing of the topic's importance, not to mention it's handiness for researchers. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I am into the Classics myself, but many people and creatures and deities of Graeco-Roman mythology have entered our vocabulary and as such become a quick reference: e.g., someone ugly: Medusa; strong: Hercules; naughty: Bacchus; beautiful: Venus or Helen of Troy. Hydra is little different and resort to the name in different media really doesn't show a pop cultural phenomenon. Is there a book, or journal article out there that discusses that Hydra is a pop culture icon and why we resort to it? how it's used, referenced, etc.? I didn't find one, but if such a WP:RS is found I'd reconsider. But to now, a slew of references is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Let it burn in wikihell. And please target the one in Charon (mythology): I find it really off-putting. --Ghirla 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment For comparative purposes and as a possible means of a compromise solution, I temporarily merged some of the article into the main hydra article. Please look over this version and see if it would work better in the article or a separate article. Feel free to revert the edit to the main article if necessary, but I just wanted to see what it could like and show others what it could look like as well. Please see possible temporary edit at Lernaean_Hydra#Hydra_creatures_in_culture and discuss what you think; I don't know what more I would have to add at this point. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as trivia and listcruft.--JForget 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete; and this isn't any better merged back to the main article as it has just been. Examples like In Tenacious D's "Wonderboy," Jack Black says "There's the Hydra. Pull out your broadsword. Slice his throat. Grab his scrote" or The band Green Lights use the term Hydra-rock to describe their sound have no encyclopedic value anywhere. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles says he is attempting to improve the article, but the only apparent changes are a huge photo of a roller coaster has been added, and the entire (slightly reformatted) Hydra in popular culture article has been copy and pasted into Lernaean Hydra. Masaruemoto 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I added TWO pictures, a couple of references, put titles in italics, corrected some grammar, etc. If you look at the history of the article you will see that I made FIFTEEN edits to that article in order to improve it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I did look at the edit history, every single recent edit. You seem to believe that simply correcting spelling and adding images can save an article that violates WP:NOT. Read the deletion arguments, none of them say "delete because there aren't enough images" or "delete because there are some typos in the article". Masaruemoto 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, but then why say "the only apparent changes", when there were more than that, because I also added some references, too. And I did read what others argued, and it just doesn't seem to violate "not" in that the list is hardly indiscriminate or not encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    This article should be deleted because it is a blank page. ManbirS 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. -- Black Falcon 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    2007 Western North American heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Knowledge (XXG) is not the news. For those of you unfamiliar with the western part of North America, heat waves such as this one occur two or three times every summer. There is nothing extremely unusual about this weather event. People die and records get broken in just about every heat wave. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep per article citations. It is unusual for major freeway closures and fish dying from warm waters. Featuresaltlakecity 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball either.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak delete, without looking at this in detail, it is news and so should be covered by WikiNews first. Only after a bit of reflection and comparison should any event be recorded in Knowledge (XXG). Breaking records is generally meaningless as they are broken regularly; statistics can be found to support anything, and newspapers usually find them in order to sensationalise events and give people something to talk about over a beer. Compare with 2007 Western United States freeze for a specific event that is well presented, and 2007 European heat wave for an unreferenced general sky-is-falling piece of news. John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I would favor deletion of the 2 articles you mention, if someone cares to nominate them. OHMYGOD! IT'S 100F! IT'S 35 F! EVERYONE'S GONNA DIE! (So how do people in Baghdad or Alaska survive?) Edison 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom and per Jayvdb and others' comments. --Bookgrrl /lookee here 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. belongs in Wikinews, but would require a complete rewrite. The closure of highways due to fires is hardly unique, neither are heat related deaths. Resolute 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per 1) highest all-time high in state of Utah 2) unusual trout deaths in Yellowstone 3) tied highest all-time high in Las Vegas 4) largest wildfire in West 5) unusually large area affected (100s even in Canada) 6) and freeway closures in America for fires are almost unheard of. Quite frankly the land area, the scope of the area affected by this extreme heat is unprecedented. If we delete this we should absolutely delete the less-notable 2007 European heat wave and 2007 Western United States freeze. Globeism 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per above. CraigMonroe 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as viral ad for LiveEarth. Seriously, Keep. Yes, heat waves happen, but usually not over this many states at the same time, for this long, and this early (July vs. August). The secondary effects are unusual and extensive. Notability is established in relation to other heat waves. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete This is an unimportant story and has not yet reached long-term notability. This is not early for a heat wave, nor is it a severe heat wave. How long has it been going on - a week? --Charlene 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Its referenced from multiple independent sources. see Category:2007 meteorology for an idea of hat is considered notable for people interested in the weather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, because it isn't a news report, but an ecological event in history, one which may continue to be expanded as time goes on. Connell66 08:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. A number of temperature records in a number of places (including a fairly large city like Reno) make this event more notable than an average heat wave. Although heat waves are not as dramatic as hurricanes or blizzards, they are just as much a part of the weather. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Keep "The 2007 western North American heat wave is an ongoing record-breaking event" - record-breaking is a good start for notability. We go on to see talk of various other indications of notability - freeway closure, deaths of six people, deaths of hundreds of trout in Yellowston (= environmental disaster) etc etc. Blood Red Sandman 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep- per reasons above. Storm05 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a classic case of recentism. So it got hot. It happens all the time. All this dramatic hand-waving about "freeway closures" and "all time record highs" is bollocks. Read the article folks - the freeway closures are due to wildfires, whose connection to a supposed heatwave is speculative at best. Wildfires happen out west every summer, heatwaves notwithstanding. Record all time high in Utah? If you believe an unofficial thermometer. Reno tied it's all time high, not set a new record. A group of immigrants perish in the Arizona desert - again, this is a regular (while unfortunate) event that happens with or without "heatwaves". Does anyone actually read these articles and check the references before nodding in agreement with the claims being made? This is a regular sort of event that is getting blown way out of proportion here. Arkyan &#149; 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Comment Hurricanes and tropical storms happen all the time too, but we cover each named storm. We have articles on all 28 storms in the List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, including Tropical Storm Franklin (2005) which never struck on land. We even have a template {{Ongoing weather}} applied to the article, so this type of developing article is not so unusual. Dhaluza 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, and a weather report is a most transient form of news. The article does not show that any all-time records were broken yet. Records for a given calendar day are somewhat trivial because there are so many days during the hot (or cold) season. "The heat wave may extend to eastern North America by July 12, with highs around 100 (38 ºC) for New York and Washington D.C." does not belong in an encyclopedia, because it is trivial and because is a crystal ball prediction, and because those would not be records. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to have an article about how hot it gets every summer and how cold it gets every winter in every part of every country. This is despite the fact that the weather (actual or predicted) is a part of every newscast and every newspaper, thus seeming to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. It is newsworthy, because people want to plan their daily activities, but not generally encyclopedic because it is often too hot, cold, wet or dry for comfort. The Great Blizzard of 1888 is encyclopedic because it caused vast property damage and a high death toll, and led to requirements that more power lines be placed underground in cities. The 1871 fire in Peshtigo, Wisconsin is encyclopedic, because a heat wave parched the forest and prairie, followed by the winds from a cold front which fanned the flames. The Dust Bowl was a notable pattern of heat and drought and social upheaval. All had lasting consequences. This kind of article is best written retrospectively. For now, cover the weather in Wikinews. The article about global warming could have mention of these phenomena if reliable sources relate the events to that claimed trend. Edison 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was going to refer any all-time records for drought or heat to Climate of the United States , but there is no such article, while there is Climate of the United Kingdom. Wierd. Edison 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • When you consider the vast size of the US compared to the UK, it isn't that odd. Hell, going from Seattle to Montana results in an entirely different climate, nevermind the other points of the nation. Resolute 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Ther state boundaries are drawn rather arbitrarily, and certainly not to delineate climate zones. Some states cross between climate zones. An article on Climate of the United States should break it into 5 or so zones and discuss the climate of each, and recent possible climate changes (hotter and dryer in the west, wetter in the central, etc). Edison 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's a heat wave somewhere every summer. It's not especially notable. Wikinews is a better site for commonplace events. Coemgenus 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Comment There's a Super Bowl every winter, yet we have an article on each one, and this heat wave arguably has greater social and economic impact. Recurrence is not a reason for deleting an article. There are many other cases of recurring topics. In order for them to be commonplace, they would also have to be similar, and then a single article could cover all (but not no article on all). When the topics have notable differences, they should have separate articles. Perhaps at the end of the event, the results will be similar to other heat waves, and the article content can be merged. Until then, having a separate article for the developing story is appropriate. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Severe weather happens all of the time. When century-old records are broken and sources are provided for unusual effects, notability is established. Alansohn 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Comment there is no requirement for a subject to be an extreme example to be notable. Extremes are notable, but Notability only requires that people take notice, and this event has crossed well over that threshold. WP would be rather worthless if it only had articles on the best and worst of each subject. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep having lived through it, it may be difficult to be entirely objective although a weather phenomenon resulting in multiple records falling, and much press seems to be notable. With records falling in the midwest and east, it'll probably be due a rename shortly. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Considering the number of records it's breaking and/or establishing, it's very much a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Event seems notable enough for encyclopedic coverage and article is sourced. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, weather varies. Iterator12n 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. The article easily satisfies WP:NOTABILITY by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (arguments questioning a reporter's independence of God notwithstanding ;)) Evouga 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, notable. Knowledge (XXG) reports things that are reported to a significant degree in the news. Everyking 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Otherwise we might as well delete the entire list included in Heat_wave#Major_heat_waves. -- Loukinho 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge with 2007 European heat wave and 2007 South Asian heat wave and just call it the 2007 heat wave or something like that. --PiMaster3 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I would like to see some source to verify the nominators statements, or even some certification in meteorology. Obviously heat waves are worth writing about http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Heat_waves, and they have to be started sometime, there's enough to write about already, so keep it. Bassgoonist Talk 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep this is precisely what WP is especially good for--providing current encyclopedic content. WP:NOT#NEWS is not applicable, because the story has run through several news cycles. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is also inapplicable, because Notabality has already been established--we don't have to wait to see how notable it ultimately becomes before writing an article. On a side note, I also find the dismissiveness of some of the comments disheartening--what has WP become? Dhaluza 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom and Edison's comments about genuinely notable weather events. — X ile 07:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if WikiProject Australian Music wants to maintain it, they may do so upon request. Sr13 06:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Samples of music from Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This information could be used much more appropriately in a category. As a list, it's too difficult to regularly update, and is thus useless. Giggy UP 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Basically a recreation of CORPG. Phrasing is slightly different, but the references are the same. There is nothing really here to merge either. IronGargoyle 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    Competitive online roleplaying game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    "CORPG" is a term invented by ArenaNet, the publishers of the game Guild Wars, to distinguish their game from MMORPGs. So far this term has not caught on in the industry. For a brief moment the game Fury was called a CORPG, but it was later changed to PvPRPG. I claim, therefore, that this is not a notable video game genre name because it has not been used by multiple independent third parties. The article on Guild Wars already mentions the genesis of the term and no individual article, that can never grow longer than stub length, is needed. Eric Sandholm 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. Connell66 07:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as recreated This page is basically a recreated version of the previously delted and redirected article CCORPG. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/CORPG for the previous discussion. Delete and restore the prior redirect. Dugwiki 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify, the situation prior to the present article's creation was: CORPG→Guild Wars and a redlink for competitive online roleplaying game. Eric Sandholm
      • Deleting it as a re-creation does not apply since the content itself is not a fork. (I never even knew an older version had existed...ironically, the fact that two Wikipedians independently created the same article is an argument in favor of the article in my opinion, although I may not be able to cite a policy beyond WP:IAR to support my contention.) Tarinth 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, also WP:NEO and WP:N. Carlosguitar 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I wasn't even aware that a previous article had been made, so my apologies if it is a re-creation of a previously created topic. I believe it's adequately referenced for a stub. The reason I created the article was because CORPG appeared to be a redirect to Guild Wars, which appeared to be inaccurate (the two terms are not synonymous). As shown in the reference cited, CORPG is used by outside media to categorize the genre (I'd suggest that what the companies dub themselves is somewhat less important). If it is decided that the article be deleted, I suggest completely deleting it (rather than maintaining a redirect) since I think it would cause more confusion than anything. Tarinth 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, the previous redirect was because the term CORPG was already described in the Guild Wars article, and Guild Wars is frankly the primary source for the term. So people who might search for the term were redirected to that article. The article itself was deleted because of a lack of evidence that the term itself has any actual notability outside of being a marketing. I didn't notice any new citations in the current article that weren't in the previous incarnation, and so it doesn't look like that situation has changed. Dugwiki 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    My guess is that the citation to a July 2007 article is new since the last article was deleted. Tarinth 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can't verify the citation you're talking about from here. But as a heads up if it's a blog it normally wouldn't be considered a reliable publisher.
    • Keep- The fact alone that in article in many media was written about his is proof enough gamers considered this a valid term. Two games already fit this genre. There are sources, and thus it seems valid enough per wikipedia's article standards.--149.150.236.15 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Which "many media" are you referring to? There are only two citations in the article, one of which is the Guild Wars website which isn't an independent source and the other of which sounds like a blog (which wouldn't be a reliable publisher). Can you provide any reliable independent publishers talking about the term? Dugwiki 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • How would you define blog? The editorial guidelines on the source state "We publish peer-reviewed articles on subjects ranging from the economics and content of online games, to speculative non-fiction by noted science fiction authors and futurists, as well as interviews and analysis of top guilds and clans." Tarinth 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Carlosguitar 00:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as buzzword with no relevance outside of Guild Wars. From the Arenanet citation: "Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game)." It's marketing speech. With a population of about 1.5, this 'genre' can be summed up within one or two sentences in the Guild Wars article with a single citation. QuagmireDog 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - It is destined to remain stub. --Storm Rider 06:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, media coverage of guildwars have picked up on their usage of the term. Thus it has clearly been valid enough for them to use and not automatically reject out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmo (talk • contribs)
    • Strong Merge into Guild Wars. Term is only notable in connection with Guild Wars, cannot be expanded beyond a stub, but is well written and referenced. Seems like a classic case for a merge here. --User:Krator (t c) 10:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • In the event of a merge, are you proposing that other games that are now being associated with the term be given coverage within the Guild Wars article? Tarinth 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There are no other games that self-identify as CORPG. The gaming press--at least the established major sites--mention rather than use CORPG only in relation to Guild Wars. There is nothing else to cover besides what is already in the Guild Wars article. No merge is needed as there is nothing to merge. Eric Sandholm 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect. Sr13 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    A copied version of Battle of Chillianwala. Maybe a redirect but I'm not sure since the spelling is wrong Lenticel 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Speedied as part of a larger spam campaign...the "production company" behind it only had a website in MySpace...hardly outer space!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)

    USS Nightfire Archangel Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable fictional spaceship. Judging from the external links and the author, there is also a COI here. Delete unless notability can be established and COI can be neutralised. J Milburn 02:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    References to The Prisoner in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is just a list of loosely associated terms, it fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong Delete This is pure trivia. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to document every time anyone mentions anything in a tv show/movie/book Corpx 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete -- unsourced laundry list of trivia. --Haemo 02:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete. Fails WP:TRIVIA horribly. Also, how many times must I say you can't have articles about references to contemporary movies and television shows in popular culture, because they themselves are popular culture! I don't care if it's from the 60's, it was popular culture then and it's popular culture now. Calgary 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unsourced trivia. Oysterguitarist 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I recognize that The Prisoner, like The Honeymooners, has a loyal following, which is great, but in this case it's an obsession. The author seems to find reminders of a favorite show everywhere, seeing Number Six where others do not. Prisoner fans, print out the list... by hook or by crook, it's going to be deleted. Mandsford 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Relationship Approach to Systems Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a very long article. I'm not sure quite what it's about, because it's rather thick with jargon, but my best guess is that it's an advertisement of some kind. As far as I can tell, it doesn't assert notability, and it lacks reliable sources. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete Not sure what it is, but it looks like WP:OR or a WP:HOWTO Corpx 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Question On what do you base your opinion? RASD is a software RAD methodology used by many Fortune 500 companies. This is my first post. I may need help in writing the article, but the methodology is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)
    Answer (1) I cannot tell what this is, and the phrase 'software RAD methodology' doesn't mean anything to me. Remember that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and articles need to be understandable to the layperson. (2) I cannot see any assertion that this software RAD methodology meets the notability requirements. (3) There are no independent sources cited that would confirm the information. To avoid deletion, you would need to rewrite the article so that a general audience can understand it, explaining why this software RAD methodology is important, and providing sources - multiple sources independent of the company that have written about this software RAD methodology. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I just read the article, and I still have no idea what it's talking about. I'm guessing that this mightmeet the criteria for deletion simply because it seem to be a piece of copywritten trade-related promotional paraphernalia. Still, I'm not voting because I still don't really understand it. To make things easier for us, and simply because wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the general public, I ask that anyone who understands the article, please edit it accordingly, and if you can't be bothered to do that, at least tell us what on earth it's talking about. Calgary 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A link has been added to define a RAD. I will add additional links for clarity. Please click on the RAD, RUP, SDLC link for additional clarity. RASD is a software methodology useful for implementing package applications. If you were a software development professional, you would probably immediately understand its worth. Please refrain from deleting until the article can be fully posted over the next few days. It would be a disservice to the software community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, that's part of my concern. I understand that some wikipedia articles af primarily of interest to certain groups, but I'm pretty sure that articles should be written in a style that makes the information accessible to wikipedia's diverse audience I mean, I have trouble reading articles about mathematical formulas, but in that case the article is usually well-written, and it's my fault because I'm not exceptional with math. This article, however, is long-winded and pedantic, and so heavily leaden with jargon that I'd be surprised if anyone other than a software development professional would understand it. I'm also concerned that the article is only of significance to a very specific group (the afforementioned software community). In any case, I've found the justification for deletion. The article makes no assertion of notability, even within the software community. Even more to the point, it appears to be in pretty strong violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. So I'm going to have to go with DELETE Strong Delete Calgary 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as apparent WP:VSCA, I know what software methodologies are, I'm not snowed by the jargon, and this is not a notable one. I think this guru.com page says all you need to know: Tracy Oden is a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy, methodology, implementation and change management expert. She is the author of a CRM implementation methodology entitled The Relationship Approach to Systems Development (RASD)™. There are literally no other relevant results on Google Web, Google Books, Google News or Google News Archive. Widely used methodologies are written about endlessly in terms of case studies, how-tos and so forth. This one hasn't been. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not sure why there seems to be so much hostility, but RASD is very credible. The methodlogy has been around for many years and used by many companies. As Dhartung stated, I am the autor of the methdology. RASD was specifically designed to mitigate issues with COTS. I surely hope Knowledge (XXG) is more professional than my short experience seems to lend. I am sure the company will base its judgment on fact, not opinion. This will be my last post. Itsme01 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that you've found the discussion hostile and unprofessional; I've tried really hard to make sure that the criteria we're basing the decision on are clear to you, and been very careful not to just use Knowledge (XXG) jargon that you might not be familiar with. The heart of the discussion is whether or not RASD is notable. What would really help show that RASD meets the notability criteria are some sources- articles about it in trade journals, magazines, even detailed reviews of it from significant software-related web sites. The question of comprehensibility is important but secondary; if we could verify that the subject is notable, we would be open to rewriting the article so that it can be understood by a more general audience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response I don't know why I'm responding to this, as it does not relate directly to the AfD discussion, but here goes anyway: (1) What hostility? I haven't seen any hostility, only the wikipedia community at work (and working very well, mind you). (2) If you want more clarfication, I advise that you look at WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#GUIDE. These can be very helpful. (3) What company? Calgary 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response Itsme01, I'm sure it is a credible system. I'm aware of many credible approaches, but the ones we are concerned with on Knowledge (XXG) (which is a community, not a company) are those that are notable, as attested to by independent third parties. Let me say that I was particularly struck that although the article attributes the origin of the system to Trinity Technologies, there is no mention of RASD on that company's website. I know that the software consultancy I worked for had its own homegrown system (openly adapted from the Microsoft Solutions Framework) and made sure potential clients knew it. I can also understand that a methodology is developed in-house by professionals who take it forward as their intellectual property. In either case, the notability of these methods (or lack thereof) is established by writings about the system in trade magazines and on websites and forums. It isn't hard to find discussion of Agile or Extreme programming, for example, because their practitioners can't stop writing (or arguing) about them. In this case, as accomplished an achievement as creating a methodology may be, this one hasn't yet found an audience, so far as we can see, beyond internal client communications. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete The article is chock-full of gems like "During the RASD Plan Phase an RASD Enterprise Application Architecture (EAA) blueprint is created. This mission critical blueprint is is necessary to ensure enterprise application design to include global functionality, regional usability and localized flexibility" It's like something Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss character would write. If this is something that deserves an article, it sure as heck deserves a better one than this. Do people somewhere actually write things like this and keep a straight face? Another excerpt: "Enable the implementer to more succesfully consolidate and/or replace legacy systems in a more orderly and logical fashion. Mitigate bugs and defects throught the incremental and iterative development build and/or deploy process. It's like the world's dullest magnetic poetry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I've slept through attended many meetings and PowerPoint seminars where language like that was not only acceptable, but expected. Surprisingly, in context, much of it tends to make sense. But our article shouldn't regurgitate slide show language, no. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    I like how much of it can be rearranged without any noticable difference in meaning. For example, would the bit I quoted above mean something different if it said "...global usability, regional flexibility, and localized functionality"? Or any combination thereof? I'm sorta glad I don't understand this article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. IronGargoyle 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    No assertion of notability: Google test likely to be unreliable due to both bombing and the large number of possible meanings of the search term "Tame One". Vox Humana 8' 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment I googled the names of his albums and there were a fair few hits. Did any of them make the charts in the States? --Malcolmxl5 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Upper Mohawk Valley M.U.N. Conference at Hamilton College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable student organization. No coverage in reliable sources, so the article fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Tone of the article is morel ike an advertisement than a neutral article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Anas 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Geneva International Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. NN Student group. Mystache 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Particularly after considering single purpose account involvement and arguments for deletion (WP:BIO). IronGargoyle 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    This person seems to have a successful career and has worked in the art departments of recognised productions, but notability required for an individual article has not been established through verifiable sources. The books are self-published through his own Aristata Publishing. They have attracted minimal interest with only 22 Google hits, mostly book seller sites. What emerges is a bronze medal, inclusion in year books and comic book work, which does not seem sufficient. The wording "featured in" and "can be seen in" does not instill confidence. Tyrenius 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep, based on the article and everything in it, I'm sorry to disagree with the nominating editor. I think he is notable. Callelinea 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Tyrenius. Seems to be a reasonably successful illustrator, notability needs to be more firmly established. Modernist 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Reads like a CV or autobiography. He's a solid professional, but not an encyclopedic subject. Hawkestone 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This is my first article on the Knowledge (XXG), and I'm still adding/editing this page. To respond to the request for deletion, I have pulled some of my information from a TV inteview, magazine and newspaper articles that I am having trouble finding links to online. I will add the references without links to online versions of the articles. Also, this artist is very well known within the Fantasy Art and Illustration world. I would not describe the Spectrum books as "yearbooks", but a well established industry source for the most notable Fantasy artists. Additionally, the Spectum show at the NY Society of Illustrators was quite a prestigous event. Craig Elliott's work was shown in the same venue as Norman Rockwell and N C Wyeth. Additionally, Visual development is quite a different discipline than say, an animator or others who work in an art department. The visual development people actually conceptualize and create the movies from their art. Treasure Planet was nominated for an Academy Award for best Feature Animation. Since much of his work has been for Disney, I felt he was notable as an artist. And, yes, the Aprhodesia contest books are self-published but do not feature his work, but are only edited by him. The 4 Spectrum books, Treasure Planet: Voyage of Discovery, and the Harlan Ellison books were not. I am still figuring out how to create this page, please bear with me. How can I improve this article to make sure it reads more encyclopedic? Groupiegirl 16:43, 9 July 2007(UTC)
      I went back and added all my magazine references from printed materials. Please see revised References section. I hope these will suffice as verifiable sources. I re-read the article and would like some suggestions for re-wording the "featured in" and "can be seen in". I'm not sure how else to word this to make it more acceptable. In response to Hawkstone, my article is not an autobiography, I am just an admirer of his work, and have seen his name in print in many magazines. As far as notability, it seems that an artist whose work has been used to design so many of Disney Feature Animation films (each of which have their own Knowledge (XXG) page) should have a reference to his/her life and work. Many other Disney artists and animators have entries in Knowledge (XXG). It is sad that the actresses and actors who are part of these films are "famous" enough for Knowledge (XXG) pages, but the actual artists who create the films themselves are not deemed notable enough. I think that Craig Elliot is not only notable for his contributions to contemporary animated films, but also for his work as a fine artist and fantasy illustrator. Groupiegirl 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      After doing a bit more research, I'd like to add these links as support. The following artists with Knowledge (XXG) pages are all considered contemporaries or producing art at (or arguably below, in some cases) the same level as Craig Elliott. Kinuko Y. Craft, Brom, Iain McCaig, Amy Brown, John Jude Palencar, Julie Bell, John Berkey, Thomas Blackshear, Frank Cho, Vincent Di Fate.Groupiegirl 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      Sorry, one last thing to add... I apologize for adding this page to the List of American Artists page- you can chalk that up to me being a newbie. But I don't think that this merits the entire entry to be deleted. I think it is more appropriate on the List of Illustrators along with the other contemporaries I listed above. Thanks!
      Groupiegirl 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    User's only edits are to this article and wikilinks to it. -- Tyrenius 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP. Craig Elliott could not be listed on IMDB.com if he was not a legitimate artist, which is more closely vetted than Knowledge (XXG). He is a member of the Society of Illustrators, a highly respected membership that is referral-based from a longstanding list of great American artists. He is also one of the most sought-after visual development artist in Hollywood and I am confident Craig could provide you references from Disney, Pixar, Dream Works, ILM (Industrial Light & Magic), Bee Movie creator Jerry Seinfeld, Dream Works president/owner Jeffrey Katzenberg, talent Siegfried & Roy, actress Mayim Bialik (Blossom/Curb Your Enthusiasm), directors Ron Clements and John Musker and world-renowned illustrators who consider Craig Elliott to be one of their own comtemporaries including Frank Frazetta, Dave Dorman, Joe Chiodo, Kent Williams, Greg Hildebrandt, Brom, Julie Bell, etc. Craig Elliott is also affiliated with Hollywood's Gnomon School of Visual Effects and the Pasadena Arts Center, where he is a part-time instructor. (The Pasadena Arts Center, oft-cited as the best art school in the U.S. is a $36k/year school, who also carefully vets their instructors and would not hire a non-artist to teach their students.)-- User: Denise Dorman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denise Dorman (talk • contribs).
    User's first edit. -- Tyrenius 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Anybody can be listed on IMDb - anybody. You don't even need a credit. Being listed on IMDb is absolutely, positively, NO assertion of notability whatsoever. --Charlene 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Re: IMDB -Being listed and having credit are 2 different things. If you look in the database, this person does have credits in addition to being listed. Submitted credits are verified by IMDB before they allow them to appear in the database.

    From IMDB:

    • Comment - I understand his work is in various magazines, are any of those magazines notable? That is to say, does he have any reviews or interviews in magazines that are clearly notable (say, they have wikipedia pages, or some other type of notability)? Smmurphy 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Having just re-read the article, I can see that he has contributed to notable creations, but I still remain to be convinced that he has stood out in a way that has given him individual notability. Note also that reference " Interview on Bianca Rossini Show " goes to a page that does not mention him. Tyrenius 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete WP:BIO per nom Giggy UP 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Bible Groups (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:NOTE. No significant third party coverage of this item. Nv8200p talk 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. -- Black Falcon 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Non notable artist, mention in the NY Times is clearly trivial at one line. Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment From the links that you posted we can determine three things. One she participated in the SFhearts project and had here bio (probably auto bio) posted on their website, this is not an independent source, nor a particularly major project. Second we see that see that she had a show at the Napa Valley College art gallery also very minor as Napa Valley is a small community college not known for art exhibitions and not an indication of notability. Second we can see that she participated in a group show at the Bolinas Art Museum. Bolinas is very a small town close to were I live and participating in a group show their seven years ago really does not indicate any form of notability or importance. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Appears to be a non notable child athlete, no sources provided in 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment Of the four added articles I would say that only the final two are independent sources (the first is from a shaving cream company that sponsors Dazeley). Of the independent sources neither actually focus on Pual Dazeley accept to say that he was beaten by Tom Bennett who doesn't have an article either. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep and Comment Since these are three different bios, it seems appropriate that each be listed on its own. I could see multiple listing for related street names, but each player has a different history. Nick Schmidt is the all-time strikeout leader for U of Arkansas, so I added it to the article, which satisfies assertion of notability. the_undertow 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per above.CraigMonroe 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Also nominated:

    Casey Weathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jarrod Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Andrew Brackman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Matthew LaPorta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Keep' - Matt LaPorta. I second that. He is linked to on the Florida Gators page as a notable alumni for being an All-American twice during his time in Gainesville. WTStoffs 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that most, if not all of those are players who jumped from HS to the pros. Collegic level (especially D1) accomplishments give notability to a player Corpx 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Precedence has no place here, as we are not trying to establish rules for future events. the_undertow 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment To the contrary, AFD outcomes express the true state of affairs with respect to what is notable, and have frequently been a basis for labelling something as a notability guideline. Edison 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply I don't agree. If X was deleted, then so should Y? That's precedent, and is not a valid argument. However, if you are saying that outcomes from previous AFDs have been used to set guidelines, that's a different idea. the_undertow 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete College sportsmen aren't notable. The sports criteria are clear on this. You have to play at the highest amateur level or in a professional league. Nick mallory 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is a very difficult situation. A baseball player in a similar situation as someone like Greg Oden is obviously noteable enough for an article, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. Otherwise, every minor league baseball player (which are in the thousands) will have his own article. I propose that only first round picks be considered noteable. Everyone else has to wait until they reach the majors. Anyway, first round picks are usually multiple record holders and winners of multiple awards. What do you guys think?--Truest blue 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • These articles should remain because of their achievements at the college level, and now what they've done (or doing) at the minors. Corpx 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Drawing the line at first round picks is not a very good idea. The baseball draft is different than NBA or NFL in that the best players aren't necessarily taken first. Teams will draft based on signability, their class (juniors have more leverage than seniors because they can return to school), etc. I don't have a problem with deleting players like Parker that haven't played college baseball, but an ad-hoc approach needs to be taken to ensure that notable players that aren't first round picks are still included. Wpride33 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Incident.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article asserts that it is a well known French art collective, but no sources are provided. Large number of google hits but little to verify notability or content. Notability tag has been up for 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Godzilla: Unleashed (DS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The page was originally prodded with the following rationale:

    There doesn't need to be a page for the DS version of Godzilla: Unleashed. Even though the Wii and DS versions are different, they're the same game.

    The proposed deletion was contested by the author, so the article has made its way here. In addition to the prod rationale, I will also add that the content is primarily redundant to that which is contained in Godzilla: Unleashed. A merge is not worth doing because: (1) all or most of the content is redundant, (2) none of the content in the DS article is sourced. So, delete. Black Falcon 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc. If reliable sources demonstrating reliability and verifiability surface later, feel free to bring this to DRV. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


    "Zeitgeist The Movie is a film exploring the relationship between Christianity, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Bank. It was released in 2007 on Google Video and is available for free distribution." That's swell, but the article lacks any information asserting that the film is at all notable. According to one of the article's main contributors, "there is huge word of mouth already. I will, and no doubt others will add sources proving noteriety as and when google caches the webpages into it's search lists." Until then, the "under construction" banner has been in place for five days, and I couldn't find any news sources about the film, or really any sources outside of hosts for the film and blogs insisting that everyone MUST WATCH IT. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Article creator's reasons - I started the article Zeitgeist the Movie. The reason I started the article is because everywhere I went on the Net I seemed to come across mentions of it and mini reviews of it, and I ended up watching the movie. I then came to wikipedia to read about the movie and discovered there wasn't an article. This suprised me greatly. So.... I started an article. I must say I find these arguments about notability a little pedantic. Just because the movie hasn't reached the COMMERCIAL sector yet in terms of reviews, it doesn't mean it hasn't achieved notablity. The Internet is changing things and almost 80,000 specific hits through google is certainly an achievemnet of notability. It's only a matter of time before the movie is mentioned and maybe even shown on a TV channel anmd talked about on mainstream commerical news. Just becuase a movie is released for free distribution and hosted by googe video doesn't mean it has less social and notability value than a hollywood movie. It also seems 'odd' that calls for it's deletion should be made so early, when the article is still under construction.Vexorg 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Note that Vexorg has also !voted below --Steve (Stephen) 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP! It is critical that people are given the chance to learn the informaiton in this movie. It may not be the most notworthy movie about the topics it covers, but it is unique in the fact that all the informaiton is contained in one source. I understand policies, however, sometimes there is a greater good that can be achieved by not policing Knowledge (XXG) with an iron fist. If this article is removed from Knowledge (XXG), that will be just one more stab at destroying our rights and liberties. It's called suppression, oppression and repression. The major media corporations do everything they can to supress independent media. Right now, the major media corporations are pressuring the FCC for control over the Internet. This could forever silence every source of alternate media on the Internet. ( MONDAY is the LAST DAY to stop it!!! ) I believe that Knowledge (XXG) falls into that category, does it not? Please let this article stay! When George Bush becomes a dictator, I bet you'll wish you had let people find out about this so they could have done something to stop it! Wisepiglet 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep & improve. While the thoughts in this movie are controversial, they do have merit, and since when does a topic have to be a commercial commodity for it to be relevant? The movie and it's website both urge people to go out and research for themselves the topics. The website point to their sources. I'm afraid that the populace it too frightened to believe anything that is not on network TV, so sad, yet another instance of the dumbing down of the American demographic.Esme2150 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Esme2150 — Esme2150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • We're not looking for the filmmakers' sources for the claims asserted in the movie so much as we're looking for reliable, independent sources that discuss the movie in general. Note that the sources we're looking for wouldn't need to agree with the movie's claims, but they would need to support the idea that the movie is receiving public attention. --Metropolitan90 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Public AttentionThis is what is so wrong about notability guidelines being used to argue for the article's deletion. Anyone can see there is considerable public attention already.Vexorg 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Are U guys Crazy?! Why would U need sources for describing a movie that's popular and only recently released. The movie is the source, all the summary has to do is tell people what the Film is about. 09:41, 10 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.159.63 (talk • contribs) — 172.163.159.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete per the article "released in 2007 on Google Video". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve Let's work together and make wikipedia better, not smaller. Let's improve the article, not delete it. I was tipped to see the movie, in the Netherlands by a friend of mine who works at a bank. We can debate for ages whether it is notable; I can assert it is being noted. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per above comment. Marcus1234 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve as stated by Xiutwel that the movie is being noted. Since there are no compelling standards of notableness beyond a few interested people, the article deserves to stay, barring any other issues that may arise. Kanodin 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Kanodin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete. Contrary to the above, there are compelling standards of notableness for Knowledge (XXG), those being applicable here being the guidelines for films and web content. While there are references to this movie on the web, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the movie qualifies under either the film or web content notability criteria. So far, I can't confirm that it does. --Metropolitan90 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Criteria for notability do not include having been 'noted' by a Knowledge (XXG) editor. Kim Dent-Brown 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • do not include having been 'noted' by a Knowledge (XXG) editor — if you would read more carefully, you might understand that I was making the point that it was noted not so much by me but by someone who works at one of the institutions described in the movie. Therefore I guess notability will be established sooner rather than later. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The under construction beanner has only been up for 5 days and already it's up for deletion???? Isn't this a bit over zealous? Knowledge (XXG) is edited by people in their spare time. If you google this film under specific quotes "Zeitgeist The Movie" you get around 80,000 hits. Further, why should a film that has been released for free distribution and be publicised on the blog scene be handicapped against a film that's been released through a distributer and publicised with commercial help? There's a huge underground buzz about this movie.Vexorg 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Per WP:AFD "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." Vexorg is the article creator and made substantial contributions to it.Naturally he/she is as entitled to express views here as anyone else. Edison 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This is akin to myspace & youtube cruft; most of the ghits are from blogs & mirrors quoting the same thing ad nauseum. Of the 5 links #1 & 2 are primary source, #3 & 5 does not reference the film at all, and #4 is a google search... Therefore there's no 3rd party references given - nothing except primary sources. This simply does not meet the minimum standards for WP:NOTFILM and WP:WEB. SkierRMH 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, Give it time to improveMark E 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No reliable sources to establish notability so delete as per WP:WEB with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found. Davewild 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It is beyond discussion that the article does not yet meet Knowledge (XXG) standards. Deleting however will not speed up its improvement. Please do not lynch articles but improve them. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, I really don't see what the problem is. Why should it be so hastily deleted, and why should you be so intent on deleting it? I happen to value wikipedia because it has what I look for - in other words, I look up Zeitgeist, and there it is, and that makes me happy. Moreover I don't see how it's a negative addition to begin with - aren't there more important things to be done than trying to delete the article a week after it's been created? Finally, it informs on what the movie is about, and should anyone ask me what it's about I can easily link them to wikipedia - which I like. It's not like there's any problem with the neutrality of the article or anything of the sort. Give it time and let it 'meet your formal standards', as deleting will not solve anything but waste more time on it. Mithadon 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — Mithadon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep, Amendment is infinitely preferable to deletion. Instead of arguing for why it should be deleted, help amend it so that it meets the standards of wikipedia. This video is very important and the information about it needs to be there. 82.30.66.83 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP Very informative movie and wiki entry. It tackles serious issues that need to be tackled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) — User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • KEEP I don't see the what all the fuss is about. "Zeitgeist - The Movie" is a well made, informative film. As other uses have said, the film tackles serious, somewhat grave and thought-provoking issues. If anything, this film highlights the current trend for productions of this kind on the internet and deserves to be noted. Paul S UK 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. About the only notability that the film can come up with is word of mouth and google search counts, but these don't fall into our notability guidelines. Only keep arguments in place are either non-sequiturs or not holding the article to policy. This film, in short, isn't all that notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    subsection to make editing easier / July 10

    • Delete Self published youtube nonsense. If self published books aren't usually notable, why should silly conspiracy mongering nonsense on 'google video'. If there's a video of someone's cat dancing 'released on google video' does that make it notable too? Nick mallory 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Zero outside 3rd party RSs to establish notability. No prejudice against future creation of an appropriate non-spammy article if it actually does get noticed by some RSs. DGG (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Clean the sock drawer. Put the meat back in the meat locker. There is no coverage by any reliable sources. GassyGuy 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I've never done any commenting on this before, but a friend of mine told me about the movie. It's two freaking hours long, and I got bored 40 minutes into it. I decided to look it up on wikipedia to find out what it was about, and found out it was up for deletion. I don't understand that at all. I've seen articles on the most inane and inconsequential topics here, and you guys want to delete an article that is actually useful? Regardless of whether it conforms to what you think of as notable, it's useful simply because it sums the movie up for those of us that don't want to sit for two hours and watch it. The whole point of wikipedia is that it's an open encyclopedia that covers *all* topics...try not to change that now.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.62.228 (talk • contribs) — 67.168.62.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    comment duh... "I've never done any commenting on this before" &#151; Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • An interesting new argument above. I'm not sure it was the intention, but it seems to amount to: this is so unimportant it isn't worth viewing, and therefore we should have an article as a substitute, so nobody will need to see it.DGG (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Christ, guys, though I agree I'm not terribly convinced of notability at this point, deleting an article after a scant five days, while under construction, smacks of WP:BITE and is borderline incivility. Give the editor a chance to finish the article. If after time it is obvious that the article has not improved, renominate. Evouga 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The claim here is that, regardless of how good the article is, the subject matter does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. Those in opposition of that claim have at minimum five days to present reliable sources proving otherwise and this discussion will close as a keep. However, while there are several keep arguments, most of them are of the "This article is useful!" or "You nominated this too soon!" nature and don't actually address the issues raised. GassyGuy 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    We are not crystal balls either, we do not know how good an article will be until an editor has finished creating an article. Ripping an article out from under an editor is disruptive, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and uncivil, and I am within policy to object to his AfD on those grounds. Evouga 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    The article won't be good because there are no third party sources covering the film. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "KEEP" Calling this article "YouTube nonsense" as "User:DGG" suggests is asinine as the user suggests that everything found on YouTube or similar self-broadcast is without merit (all political messages from politicians, all musicians, artist, and the like - EVERYONE that the creators of YouTube intended to serve - they assert that they are all without merit. The "DELETE" users also suggest that it is not notable unless a government has sponsored the content or approved it. We still live in a free society and free speech has not been outlawed yet. This film goes to great lengths to supports it's claims. The majority of those who want to delete this article are those who simply do not agree with it's findings - under their OPINION, not factual research. By that accord, those who do not agree with the current things found in the public life should just be deleted? Also the continual assertion that "There is No evidence" is false. By that accord, such publications that actually have no concrete evidence or merit for it's content, such as the bible and the 9/11 Commission report, should also be deleted. Cherry picking Wiki entries based on OPINION, not EVIDENCE, is fascism - not freedom. The excuse for deleting "I don't like YouTube, MySpace, and Google video" doesn't lie in problems with the film. If those that want this deleted prefer to protest MySpace, YouTube, and Google Video, may we all recommend they do so. Or, maybe they will feel more comfortable living in a more regulated country such as China. — Erico Mertz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • First off, I, for one, did not make that assertion that it requires government sponsorship or approval. Second, you are taking statements out of context: there is no evidence of notability is the correct statement. Try again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Fails WP:WEB , WP:A , and WP:NOTFILM . A low budget independent sensational conspiracy film, even one not shown in theaters, can indeed become notable, by getting discussed substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, or by winning notable film industry awards. This one has done none of the above. The closing administrator should note that many of the keep votes came from recently created accounts with few or no previous edits, and failed to state a reason other than the person likes it, or itt is a well made film. Edison 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP This film is mentioned in countless forums (I note someone has attempted to count them)Regardless of the "merits" of the film, it deserves a entry in wiki just by notoriety alone .Mr zendal 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC){— Mr zendal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      Comment It is extremely easy for a group seeking to promote an extreme point of view or a conspiracy theory or any moonbeam madness to "mention it in countless forums." Google counts are easily gamed. It is also easy to promote this AFD by various means and have people who have never contributed to Knowledge (XXG) (welcome to all, and I hope you enjoy editing Knowledge (XXG)!) jump in and create accounts to !vote to keep it. It is somewhat harder to get substantial published notice in reliable independent publications which have editorial review, as required by our notability guidelines. Edison 13:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Godwin's Law Film which is self-published on Google Videos with no evidence of notability. Has a fair few Google hits, but these all appear to lead to forums or blogs - there seem to be no reliable independent sources, without which a good article cannot be written. I'll happily change my opinion if anyone can show how this film satisfies any of the criteria in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films) or Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web) but none of the keep votes has yet attempted to do so. Iain99 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    comment I believe you misunderstand this law. The law asserts that, after a certain amount of time, people will call their adversaries "Nazi". This is completely different from asserting that Nazi's as well as the New World Order seem to have the same group of bankers behind them, controlling events. This is not name-calling, it is historical research. It may be flawed, but it is not name-calling. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have two points to make. 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." 2) Even if the article were actually under construction, there is not enough verifiable information on or reputable coverage of the film. Many here are arguing that coverage will be added when it is made available, but that argument only supports the deletion of the article until such coverage exists, especially considering there is no guarantee that such coverage ever will exist. This is not a bias against Internet films, it is a bias against nonnotable films. Regardless of the film's content, there must be notable and reputable coverage of a film, or a person, or any other topic, to indicate that an article is merited. No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Maxamegalon says "No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue" - This is so wrong and is eactly what's wrong with wikipedia notablity criteria. Forums and blogs are the "word of mouth" of the Internet, IOW, the world community. Why should media that is distributed through the grass roots of the community and achieve great notablity on that community be penalised in comparison to a commercially released film that is reviews on websites that review commerically released films. Zeitgeist The Movie has probably been seen and talked about far more than many commercially relased films. Almost 80,000 specif hits on google IS notable coverage of a film. Further it is unfair to say 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." -If it had 11 edits in the last 3 months then it might be fair comment. but 3 days? There does seem to be a move to delete this article rather hastily. The article has only just been created. it's understable that the content of the film is controversial and understandablwe that certain quarters might want not want the issues discussed or even broadcast. howevr the filem has achieved considerable world community noteriety and the article should definitely be kept.Vexorg 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Certainly deleting it now because it has no satisfactory evidence of notability would not prevent recreation of the article later if it gets written up by nationally known film critics or political or religious experts, or becomes otherwise notable. Google hits and the fact that it is viewable on YouTube or Google Video are not sufficient. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to publicize someone's independent documentary. But once it becomes independantly notable it could have an article. The standards for films are pretty rigorous (but that can always be itself edited). It doesn't even have to be fair , accurate, true, or rational to be notable enough for an article. Edison 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment So one nationally known film critic has weight over 80,000 forum and blog entries? This is so wrong. it's also wrong people are comparing Zeitgeist The Movie to the usual nonsense clips that are usually put on Google Video aor You-Tube. This is a proper film. it is 2 hours along. It shoudln't be penalised becuase the make decided to release it on googele video Distribution of media in this way is the future.Vexorg
    • Comment This is not the place to discuss Knowledge (XXG) policy. This article falls afoul of it. If you'd like to change the policies themselves, please open those discussions in the proper fora. As it stands, yes, a reliable source carries more weight than all the lovely little Internet posters you can find. You call it the new "word of mouth" of the Internet, but I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either. GassyGuy 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not so against discussing guidelines or policies in AFD's because lots of policies and guidelines cite AFD outcomes as justifications for their existence. Policies and guidelines describe what is rather than what ought to be in terms of what gets kept or deleted. The length of something hardly is any evidence of its notability.I doubt they "decided" to release it on Google Video rather than in theaters like the equally controversial documentaries by Michael Moore or Al Gore. And few would call "one nationally known film critic" sufficient. Multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage are needed. Lots of students make "proper films" that are 2 hours long, and are not notable. The first 5 minutes of this are very slickly and professionally edited, then it is like a slide show with an offscreen announcer reciting a long list of "facts" of extremely doubtful validity. Edison 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    GassyGuy says "I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either" - Surely the point of an Encyclopedia is to be there when someone who has heard of something and wants to "Look it up" to find out more. A huge plus point of wikiedpia and that anyone can take part in compiling it is that it allows for much more entries than a traditional commerical encyclopedia like Brittanica or Encatra could find the resources to allow.
    As I said, the very reason I started the article is becuase I was most suprised that Knowledge (XXG) didn't already have one. Further, lots ofstudents may release 2 hour films which never see the light of day. but if a student released a film that has aquired the wrod of mouth notoreity that Zeitgeist the Movie has aquired then IMO it definitely qualifies to have an entry in wikipedia. The only defense those who wish to see the article deleted sems to be that the movie hasn't yet had a review by a known move reviewer. So what? The movie is real, it is well known across the world and is being talked about acrioss the world. It's especially over zealous IMO to call for something to be deletd when the article has only just ben started and is under construction. And just becuase it hasn't had 40,000 edits in 2 hours doesn't mean it's not still under construction either.Vexorg 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    In the last six hours, this AfD page has been edited 26 times. The article's page has been edited zero times. --Maxamegalon2000 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    I really don't know what to say. The article has been edited zero times in six hours? And your point is? Vexorg 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The point is, that if there were reliable and valid references, they could have been added in 6 hours. For many AFDs I have found and added sufficient references (when they exist) that other editors have changed their "Deletes" to "Keeps" and the articles were kept, somewhat improved. Knowledge (XXG) is not a site for promoting fauxumentaries no matter how fervently someone wants to promote it, when it has not gained notability to satisfy the primary notability guideline or the one for films. If we had a guideline for internet memes, some catchy bit of video fluff which "spreads by word of mouth" or which is an internet phenomenon, or a viral video, might seek to be kept on that basis (like Obama Girl, which had over half a dozen reliable independent coverages besides the present 2.7 million downloads. This work seems too ponderous to be internet fluff. "Memes" are not generally over 2 hours long. Edison 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I for one am not going to spend much time on articles, as long as there is a lynch-mob around. So I suggest we first finish this debate, eh? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    comment promoting fauxumentaries... First of all, Edison, I thank you for speaking candidly about your motivation. I would like to know even more, and I invite you to explain in more detail why you object to such 'promoting': is it (a) the name of wikipedia which is at stake, or is it (b) the unwarrented spread of evil thoughts which you do not want wikipedia to contribute to?
    In any case, I do not see why wikipedia would not describe even evil thoughts when they exist and are notable. We have an article on the September 11, 2001 attacks which, unintentionally, could be interpreted as 'praise' for Al Qaeda for having succesfully attacked the World's mightiest Nation, renowned for its Governments' policies bullying less mighty nations. No offense, but I think Al Qaeda would love the article, since they loved the attack. We write the article nonetheless.
    Similarly, it is not our job to prove this documentary wrong or misguided, just to describe its existence and its consequences as much independently as possible. You may feel it's not worth our while. Such is your right. But if you would like to talk others out of making that article anyhow, please try your very best to convince them.
    I've made my points about NOTE and RS further down. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    response on my talk page &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    subsection to make editing easier / July 11

    Since the article seems to be getting attention of editors who want to improve the article, presumably by also adding evidence of notability, perhaps we shouldn't prematurely delete the article until it is clear that it cannot be redeemed? If the article for Sicko had been hastily written with no verifiable sources, the article would be flagged for cleanup, not deleted. I don't see why good faith to continue building the article can't be assumed in this case, until there is clear evidence otherwise. Evouga 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's why AfDs run for upto 5 days, to give people a chance to reference and improve --Steve (Stephen) 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    (a) I reiterate, that per WP standards, nobody here has said that they will be bringing the article up to standards; they've simply been complaining about what those standards are. The fact that none of the objections come from established editors also smacks of meat-puppetry. (b) If this had happened for Sicko there would have been a quick rush to add links to wp:reliable sources since they are numerous. Scott.wheeler 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have no doubts about the good faith of the article's creators - the problem is, as I alluded to above, that in spite of their good will, the article simply cannot be improved unless and until the film is noted by some reputable sources. A good article would include things like: What sort of critical reception has the film had? What has its impact on the public view of 9/11 been? What counter-arguments have been made in response to its claims? As Knowledge (XXG) doesn't publish original research or the views of random people on web forums, nothing can be written about these things - in fact nothing can be written about the film at all beside the bare fact that it exists and maybe a brief summary of its content, which does not make for an encyclopaedia article. This is one of the reasons why Knowledge (XXG) has standards of notability in the first place - to ensure that there's actually enough to write an article with. Iain99 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The "reliable sources" to establish formal notability may not have found time to write about it yet. This wiki article is only a week old, the movie has only been released for a month, without the 12-months-in-advance Hollywood announcing aparatus Coming soon in a theatre near you. Please soul-search yourself if you needed the article to be deleted if you actually liked the contents in stead of detested it, and let's give it some time, folks! &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    But, by the same token, what's the big deal in deleting it now and recreating at a later date if and when the references are there? --Steve (Stephen) 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    comment: why do you need this article to be deleted for about a year, and only have it undeleted then? What purpose would that serve? The "big deal" is: all that time wikipedia editors would not be able to contribute to the article. We would have to start from scratch then. Please tell me, why would you want us to waste that time?
    Please see: Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
    And also: WP:NOTCENSORED. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough about NOTCENSORED, but here it is a nonsequitur - we are not censoring the article, we are discussing removal due to a lack of notability. If we were into censorship, don't you think it would have vanished withing a few moments of creation? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep & improve. The content sounds interesting and it seems like early days. Kimindex 11:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — Kimindex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep. It's a bit young to delete it already - give it time and see what it evolves into. 82.27.18.166 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — 82.27.18.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete I searched to see if this has any reliable source coverage, such as on Google News and got zero results. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment please do not use SOCKS to "influence" the outcome. It's silly. This is not a vote, it is the merit of the arguments that counts. So, please everybody: respond to my comment above "wikipedia is not a burocracy" and "why would WP be better off when the article is deleted in stead of improved over time".
      Note to admin: please do not use the usage of socks as an argument for deletion; it is not relevant since this is not a vote, and hypothetically, it could even be socks used by trolls to disturb this debate. Thanks! &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a new film and the wiki article is only 1 week old. The lynch-mob rush to delete this article has been noted and it's not unreasonble to understand why certain quarters would want references to a film with controversial content cemsored. WP:NOTCENSORED However baised objections to criticisms of traditional mythology aside why can't the article grow with the notablity of the film? Big budget commerical films have the beneift of payola into mainstream review houses which essentially means a commerical bias to media which gains early wiki notability. Zeitgeist ( and no doubit other independent media )has a handicap here. Had zeitgeist ( with exactly the same content ) been relased through a big commerical distributer the sources of notability would be there from the start.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see my comment to Xiutwel above in re the censorship factor. And you are correct - it sure would have a nice little boost if this were commercially distributed - but, it's not. It's got an uphill battle if it wants to be notable, and we are not the means to promote it and/or make it notable. Life is hard. For what it's worth, though, if it does fall within WP:N, I have no prejudice to changing my vote and/or the recreation of the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's clear that while some objectors to the article are doing so in good faith to wiki guidelines, it's every clear that some are trying to censor the article because of it's content.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and it's also worth noting the article hasn't changed much since I "ripped" the tags out (How did you know I made a ripping sound when I pressed 'Save page'?) --Steve (Stephen) 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Untruth - Firstly - I was making a major edit to the page at the time you removed the INUSE and UNDERCONSTRUCTION tags from the article. I don't think anyone wil largue that removing those tags wasn't good wiki behaviour as there was absolutely no reason to do so. Particularly as the last edit was only 8 minutes before you ripped the tags amd there had been a lot of editign over the previous 2 hours. Secondly - Yuo've only got to look at the Edit History to the substantial changes made since I pu t the tags back and carried on. I usgt say there is definitely some hate and over zealousness in getting the article deleted.Vexorg 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    subsection to make editing easier / July 12

    • Keep, I think the reason that people want this article deleted lies more with the fact that the movie opposes their views than any actual desire to see a "cleaner" article. It's still marked as under construction - give the author time to clean up the article. Knowledge (XXG) isn't about crushing opposing viewpoints. Again, this wouldn't even be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial. The fact that this discussion is taking place on such a grand scale puts it in the "notable" category. 65.80.203.42 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Based on edit you are either editing another user's comments, or else voting twice under different names. Both are poor form - please desist. Iain99 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that this wouldn't be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial; I doubt anyone would be voting "keep". There's simply no valid assertion of notability. --Maxamegalon2000 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't find it controversial at all. It would seem the people who want it deleted are more likely to find it controversial. If it wasn't so controversial I very much doubt there's be a ;ynch mob to get it deleted so quickly.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can accept that - I personally think that the movie is rather silly and quite boring. That said, it's currently something people want to be able to look up information about. Couldn't deletion be considered in a month or two when everyone on earth has forgotten about it? This whole thing is just creating more controversy leading to more people wanting to see the movie leading to more people wanting the article deleted leading to more people protesting - - over and over ad nauseum. Why not let it lie and give the author time to clean it up....and then if the film proves itself to be notable it won't be because of a massive controversy on Knowledge (XXG). 65.80.203.42 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The web notability criteria notes three independently sufficient conditions for website notability (WP:WEB). I wish to bring attention to the third criteria: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for: trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)". Also note that the criteria for reliable sources does not apply to notability, just on citation of facts. I noticed that there are two websites that give coverage to the online film: http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/zeitgeist-the-movie/659/ and http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00460 . As far as I can tell, neither of these sites are personal blogs. Aude above believes that Google News and the criteria of reliable source should be used to determine if a website is notable. However, the third criteria above does not demand that any sources meet these criteria. If these two sites are not trivial, then notability is established. Also is there something to be said about Google hosting the ~2 hours of this video? Kanodin 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, being a Google Video release is certainly not fulfillment of any notability criterion, and almost every "keep" so far seems to either be a "ignore policy and wait around for awhile", a vote by probable meatpuppets, or personal attacks on the possible (and likely irrelevant) private motivations of people wishing to delete the article. About the best argument to keep I see here is by User:Kanodin, who tries to cite two possibly non-trivial websites. However, the atheistnation link will not load on my computer and the URL name certainly doesn't sound very reliable, and the rinf website clearly appears to be a conspiracy theory website by content, and alone, I really don't see how its capable of making a well-referenced and factual article. Also, Google Video looks pretty close to a user-submitted content site to me. Homestarmy 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why would www.atheistnation.net ( which loads fine here btw ) not sound a reliable URL and is there any reason why it shouldn't be any less reliable than a site like http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ for example?? And why would a website ( rinf.com ) that deals with theories on world events other than what the gevernment tell us be automatically 'incapable of making a well-referenced and factual article' ?? Those assertations are absolutely baseless and show a biased point of view.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I got to it on the second try. It sounded unreliable because the name sounded like so many other atheististic apologetics sites that i've seen out there, and actually being able to see it hasn't changed my mind. I can't even find a clearly labelled place on the site that even says who runs it and how many people are involved, the welcome banner only has one name on it, it may just be a personal website who's owner has put in various user-input features for all I can tell. Not being able to tell exactly who owns and/or maintains a site is generally a bad sign when it comes to reliability of a website for referencing purposes. Nextly, the reason I had "I really don't see" in my sentence about rinf wasn't just because I enjoy seeing all the funtastic words I type show up on the screen when I click save, I had those qualifiers there because like it or not, I really do not understand how this website can be trusted to be high-quality and trustworthy enough to serve as the sole reliable source of an article. You may find my assertions concerning my own state of mind baseless, but there's nothing in your reply that gives me anything new to go on suggesting that this conspiracy website actually is trustworthy and reliable. Homestarmy 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks to Kanodin for at least trying to make a case. Unfortunately though, the links you've mentioned aren't very helpful. I'm afraid I'm not sure about the importance of either site, but they're both very trivial mentions anyway. The Atheist Nation page just has a mirror of the Google Video with no editorial comment whatsoever, and the rinf site has three sentences which appear to be lifted from a badly written press release. What's needed are reasonably in depth articles about the film, so that there is at least a possibility of writing a proper article based on them as I said above. And Google Video is a user-generated content site which allows anybody to upload clips - even two hours worth. Iain99 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - nn. Simple appearance on Google Video does not web notability make. All Google hits are blogs or the video itself, nothing with a news story or review. MSJapan 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Having read the article, what external links there are, the discussion page and this ADF... delete, notability for inclusion not established. See Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films), as well as the more general Knowledge (XXG):NotabilityAs an aside; one reference - and that goes to an wikipedia article? WegianWarrior 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • comment (keep) We are clearly not reaching consensus on deletion at all. There are 2 guidelines at stake:
      • notability: since the film is very new, notability cannot yet be established by reliable sources, which is understandable. Considering the interest in this deletion page, and the vast amount of bloggers talking about such a new film, I would assume that notability will be a matter of time, as it was with Loose Change. It would seem counterproductive to delete for this aspect.
      • reliable sources: currently, the only reliable sources are unfortunately the primary sources of the video and the maker's website. This is acceptable, though it is undesirable. Nonetheless I feel an article can be written which is helpful to visitors and looks good on wikipedia. And please remember: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the guidelines are a tool to reach consensus more easily, not to be used in stead of reaching consensus. "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually there is a pretty strong consensus here between regular editors. The overwhelming majority of the objections (aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) are not from previous WP contributors. Your arguments in favor of preserving the page are also still essentially, "We should ignore WP policy, because there seems to be a lot of interest in this." That, however, thusfar has not convinced me or the other regular editors that a sweeping exception is merited. Scott.wheeler 11:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    (aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) ... Maybe you would like to make a list of editors you researched, to make your claim more transparant? I feel it's silly to be so burocratic about the notability guideline already within a month after an internet-release. If this film is not notable in a year, then you may have a point. I think the harm in scaring away newcomers is greater than the merit of deleting now in order to conform to guidelines: I myself started on a single subject on nl: and since have become more and more enthousiastic for wikipedia.
    A guideline is an average of all cases, and not necessarily appropriate in any given example. It cannot replace the merit of consensus-building, and I see too little effort to do so from the delete-votes. And who says newcomers have less to say than oldies?
    In any case, if the verdict would be delete I would request userfication of the article. Now I'm taking a wikibreak ! See you all in August. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, I'll post a tally in a new section. It is accepted within the Knowledge (XXG) community that long-term members have more influence on its direction, evidenced, for example, by the way that board elections are done. Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This film makes enough claims supported by half-truths or absolute falsehoods that it may well get critical (in the harsher sense of the word) notice in reliable sites. Or the mainstream media may ignore it so it withers on the vine, because they know that to attack it is to show it is notable. Then the article can be recreated. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable. As an example of the kind of coverage it may get, the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog, a "skeptical " debunking site, had some posts by bloggers debunking the film. (I do not feel the JREF, as a blog, is an adequate site to show notability.) The JREF shows how it repeated or copied material from "Loose Change", from an anti-Judeo-Christian conspiracy site, and from a site opposing the Federal Reserve and income taxes, and stating that it repeated falsehoods about how there is no law requiring US citizens to pay a federal tax from other sites, and linking to sites which debunk this. It also has material debunking the attacks on Judeo-Christianity. (Funny how they were careful not to attack Islam or Mohammed). All sections of it have some truths mixed with some falsehoods and some halftruths. Some of the howlers pointed out are how the film implies that in Biblical times the Jews, Egyptians, etc used the English words "sun" and "son." If the film ever becomes notable, then the Knowledge (XXG) article can also have a debunking function, in order to be NPOV. Edison 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment ( not a publicity campaign ) - In respomse to Edison aboev who says "Knowledge (XXG) is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable" I would just like to clarify that my interest in creating and improving the article has nothing whatsoever to do with any publicity campaign. I have no Connection with the film or its makers at all. I am simply a Wiki Editor who saw the film and was suprised the film wasn't already on Wiki.Vexorg 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      CommentI do not mean to imply that your efforts to create and keep an article about the film are anything other than a good faith effort to have an article about an interesting film. As I said, it is not impossible that it might become notable in the future. But there are tens of thousands of nonnotable films created each year by students or special interest groups, and it is contrary to WP:N and WP:FILM to have articles to provide publicity for them, until they have become otherwise notable. Edison 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP i was looking for more info/ links. no doubt the us government *cough Nazi's* will have it closed down soon enough anyway, the page defiantly needs to stay!!— 203.113.238.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


    It was questioned earlier in this topic whether or not a concensus has been reached and that I list which entries I inspected. As this entry has grown it has become difficult to maintain an overview, so I've made a summary list. (CONTENT DELETED HERE; SEE COMMENT BELOW --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007.)    Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    • I have removed the summary list prepared by Scott.wheeler per Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Discussion, which states, "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process." In my experience, compiling a "vote count" during the AfD discussion period is generally disfavored by administrators. If this is no longer correct, Scott's summary list is in the edit history and can be restored if needed. --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I have just looked at the so called 'Overview' by ScScott.wheeler in the edit history and rather than being an overview it's actually a biased conclusion. Especially with comments like "As most or all of the non-registered or non-editor opinions are likely meat puppets" - So Scott.wheeler considers the consensus to be strongly in favour of deletion because Scott.wheeler makes a baseless allegation that a lot of those in favour of keeping are 'meatpuppets' ??? Metropolitan90 was correct in deleting this bias. I have also changed the title to this section as there is no "overview of opinions thus far" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs)
    Hi Metropolitan90 -- that's fine. It's there in the history if anyone cares to look. That came up in another comment of mine that was replied to and I hadn't previously seen that guideline. Vexorg, I don't believe that it's particularly crazy to assume that many of the users which have created accounts just to register their opinions in this debate were directed here by some online forum. You're naturally free to assume otherwise. However, more to the point is that WP does tend to see the opinions of established editors as more relevant than those who have not previously contributed to the project, regardless of if those accounts were created in good faith or otherwise. Scott.wheeler 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    The Article has a big banner proclaiming it is being nominated for delation and there; a link to this discussion page. It's also highly likely that people using Knowledge (XXG) have seen the abnner and have come here to voice their opinion. I can understand, dut to human Nature that regular/established editors are going to hold more sway, but really surely it's the argument that matters not whose making it? This also extends to the notoriety issue. Thousands of people are talking about the film all over the Internet through blogs. this is grass roots word of mouth. yet if a couple of people who write film reviews sunddely publish a review on teh film becuase they themselves might have seen the popularity in the blogs all of asudden it meets Knowledge (XXG) notability. Which essentially means that 70,000 people talking of it means nothing, but 70,002 and it's OK. remember over 250,000 have seen the film. And people are still arguing that there's no notability?Vexorg 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    It's definitely about the argument that matters, not who's making it. But there hasn't been a good argument for keeping the article that doesn't require an abandonment of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. When a new user, clearly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, makes a single contribution to Knowledge (XXG), and that single contribution is to argue that we should ignore our policies and guidelines to keep an article on a subject that the new user is passionate about and just knows will become notable in just a few weeks, how on earth are we supposed to justify giving their argument any weight compared to those of established editors? Also, notability is not the same thing as popularity. What can be said about this film beyond a plot summary? The article is almost 20,000 bytes, but nothing after the first paragraph would be part of a proper article on this film; all we'd be left with is "This is a film, and this is what it's about. Here's how many Google hits it has." All of that could be said about pretty much any film released. "Snake coughs up entire hippo" has more views and more Google hits too; should we have an article on that video as well? --Maxamegalon2000 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There are established editors arguung to keep the article though. notable is subjective, which obviously makes the discussion harder to resolve, but comparing it to a google video on a "snake coughing up a hippo" is IMO a false analogy when trying to aergue down the inroads the film has made over netVexorg 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Zim 06 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)←

    subsection to make editing easier / July 15

    subsection to make editing easier / July 13

    • KEEP. I created this movie. I am currently updating the sources. I was not made aware of this Article until recently.

    About 20% of the sources are now posted as of 7/12/07. Zeitgeist took 6 months to research. I do not think there is any reason for its deletion. You will find that this work is more researched and sourced than 75% of the Articles on Knowledge (XXG). I will have the elements totally sourced in a few days. Thank you. Peter J. zeitgeistmovie.com --Zeitgeist filmmaker 3:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Zeitgeist filmmaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Hi. I think you may be confused. The call for sourcing is not for sources for the information presented in the film, but for sources for information about the film; things like reviews and news articles published by reliable sources are necessary to show the notability of the film. As I mentioned at the article's talk page, adding content from the film to the article does nothing to address the concerns raised in this deletion discussion. While a brief discussion of the film's message may be appropriate, the article should be about the film's production, reaction to the film, and things like that. The film's content is largely irrelevant to this deletion discussion, and would almost certainly be substantially shortened if the article is kept or restored. --Maxamegalon2000 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Zeitgeist filmmaker, I appreciate your film-making accomplishments and efforts to produce a complete reference list. However, I'm afraid I have to agree with Maxa's last comment. The deletion turns on the film's notability, not about its veracity. Zeitgeist filmmaker, a smart defense against deletion is to inspire and report independent and nontrivial news attributions so that the movies satisfies WP:WEB, which I believe is the appropriate criteria in this case. Conducting more research to strengthen the film's thesis is great, but it is unfortunately irrelevant to this particular issue. There is a dearth of news covering the film/website, so establishing notability has been rather difficult. If you have any connections with people in news, now would be the time to engineer a professional review. I also should note (if it has not been made explicit before), that a deletion caused by a notability deficit can be overcome in the future. If it turns out that "Zeitgeist The Movie" fails Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards, the movie may meet those standards in the future. Deletion does not have to be forever, but an article on Knowledge (XXG) should not be a plug to generate notability. Kanodin 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    comment I know people are really dependent on outside "authority" to know whether they are right. It is really a pity to freely give our power away to some "authority". It is so tragic that people would call this movie notable if 3 professors would look at the video and call it a bunch of crap, where as when 300.000 ordinary people look at it, like it and even write a wikipedia article on it, it is not notable.
    It is no big deal to delete the article, have it userfied, improve it and undelete it when the time has come. But it's so sad, so tragic. Ironically, this giving away of power which is happening right here on this page, is exactly the mechnanism described in the very film Zeitgeist the Movie: in stead of relying on our own beliefs and truths, we copy the truths of "authority", i.e. the church, the bankers, the government leaders.
    It's probably meant to be this way, and I'm sure these are the last convulsions of the ruling paradigm and times are changing for the better!
    Greetings from the beach! &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PS I agree it's not the sources for the film that are at stake in this discussion on deletion.
    But that's what Knowledge (XXG) (or in fact any encyclopedia) is, by definition. Saying that it's sad that WP relying on outside reliable sources is tragic is like looking at a sandwich and saying that it's sad that they always make them with bread. I think it's great that there is an arena for flourishing opinions and an open forum for debate on the internet; it's just that Knowledge (XXG) isn't that place. This seems to be the fundamental disconnect in this debate; it's really not about the subject matter of the film (I've not watched it.), but rather what Knowledge (XXG) is. The debate hasn't really been much of one because it's essentially been, "We're sorry, independent of the content of the film, at present it does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for inclusion." while the "keeps" assert, "But lot's of people are interested. The rules are silly." I should note that such rules are not fixed in stone; they may be changed through community processes, but the place to change them is in the guideline discussions, not in a specific article's deletion debate. Scott.wheeler 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    but Scott, Xiutwel is right. The argument on notability rests upon Argument_from_authority. thousands and thouasands of ordinary people are talking about and reviewing this film and that means nothing? yet 2 or 3 people who earn money by reviewing films make comment on it and all of a sudden...VOILA!!.... it's now notable. This is the tag from WP:NOTFILM
    {{subcat guideline}}
    note it says.... "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" - The occasional exception page says..
    When editing Knowledge (XXG), you should use common sense, build consensus, and focus on improving or maintaining the project. If the rules would prevent this, ignore them.
    - For me common sense says that deleting this article would be so wrong. The content of the film and teh method of distribution of the film notwithstanding, the immense world of mouth this film has generated is more than enoguh for notability.Vexorg 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    You're not doing it well by lawyering. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    An aside, Vexorg: please read about what "ignore all rules" means. Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments such as yours. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments I just read the "ignore all rules" page and... tend to agree with Vexorg, so, Dennis the Tiger, please point out what you mean exactly, in stead of rawring a bit vaguely. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    The impression I get is that Vexorg is using IAR to basically try and get his way - that is, he is wanting to promote the movie for one reason or another. Near as I can tell, it's because he likes it - which I do not begrudge, but WP:ILIKEIT and all that. That is one aspect of what I see. What else I see is something that I feel can be pointed out in the WIARN article by doing a side by side comparison, and I don't think that a point-by-point explanation is necessary - it is not my place to further analyze his arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    As far as notability, I have posted some external links including a Radio Interview. After this weekend I will have been on 3 radio stations doing interviews.(I will post them all when the archives are available ) There are about 25,000 views a day on this movie via google, not to mention the other format embed across the internet. Coupled with the original release, the main movie via google alone has gotten about 600,000 views since June 8th. This is no small number. Zeitgeist filmmaker
    You raise good points, and the plug for reviews is there. The problem is that I'm not sure that any interviews on a radio show would constitute notability. Promotion, definitely, but not necessarily notability. If I remember right, this is one of the few exceptions to the "no notability by extension" rule - basically, if it hits an interview on the big time, you might *just* cross the line. The reviews... well, I'll leave that to somebody else's thoughts, as I'm not sure about how reviews fit into the picture. My !vote stands for now, but this'll also depend on what some of the others say on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    One more thing: check WP:BIGNUMBER. A number of viewcounts is really not a good gauge of notability - not saying you'd do this, but frankly, I can achieve a big hitcount with wget and bash. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Maybe 600,000 views, but it took me four sessions to plow through it, so the number of actual viewers might be a bit less. Several of us have said that IF it becomes notable, there can be an article, but the article may not be used to publicize it before it gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - as of right now, it fails to have reliable sources. If it picks up notability and gains writeups in reliable sources, then by all means recreate the article. -- Whpq 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete completely lacks notability.--MONGO 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment MONGO, if you don't like the movie, well, take no notice. It "isn't notable", remember? (You must be really desparately clinging on to your 911-was-an-unpreventable-misfortune truth by your fingernails, when you take so much effort to have everything deleted which might suggest otherwise...) Cheers, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films), which is a well-established guideline to determine the notability of indy films like this one. First, the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Second, it's not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) has there been publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii)is the film deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) has the film been given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; or (iv)has the film been featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Third, the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Fourth, the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. And fifth, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. This film fails ALL of our notability requirements for film. Delete it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete per Morton. Since I have nothing to add to Morton's comment on why the article miserably fails inclusion, I'm going to address the keep votes. The reasons behind every keep vote so far are atrocious. They fall into three categories: A) I like this movie and don't want to see it deleted! B) The article is new and we shouldn't delete it yet! C) It is notable due to word of mouth and hits on Google. There is also another category of keep votes where the voters don't have any real reason to keep the article, so they just type "KEEP!" (note all caps and exclamation point), apparently because they think the loudest vote wins. Category A is already widely dismissed on Knowledge (XXG), so I won't address those arguments. Category B fails to address the argument; the delete rationale is that the film fails our notability criteria for films, not that the article is bad. The point is that no matter what happens to this newly created article (if kept), the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). Category C also fails to address the inclusion requirement for films. Word of mouth and Google hits are non-existant notability requirements. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep the Entry for this FABULOUS movie! The movie is completely sourced. Don't censor!!! 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP: By deleting this movie from this site, you are prooving the creater of the movie correct. If anyone has a problem with what this movie stands for, you shouldn't try to ban it because freedom of speach and expression should be allowed to be practiced by anyone, especially on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.9.145 (talk) — 99.246.9.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    subsection to make editing easier / July 14

    • Keep because it is timely and there are many other articles that talk about current events, and also because this film makes points that are quite convincing and should be discussed. If they are wrong, then it would be a great article if it proves them to be wrong, and if any of the points in the film are correct then that should be shown. I would like to see a fair discussion of the major topics made in this film. Maybe that is beyond what can be done on a Wiki page, I don't know. I for came here because I saw the movie and I wanted an honest opinion of whether it was bunk or not. --Eurlim 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Per Morton and Pablo above. It seems lately that Knowledge (XXG)'s policies are viewed as just suggestions, and this trend is ever growing. But hey, your contributions keep it going! Forget the fact that if we fail to maintain proper standards, this encyclopedia will not be taken seriously. Well, it seems many editors lately don't care about what is good for the project, or our reputation - they just like it! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This movie is a great documentation on where alot of our history comes from, it does not twist facts or logic and is very forthright. ARE WE IN CHINA? DO NOT CENSOR THIS ARTICLE! — 97.99.100.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:54, 14 July 2007
    • "KEEP" - it's really quite silly to censor this film. let people make up their own minds as to whether or not it is worthwhile. personally, i thought that there was great merit in this undertaking and i would definitely say that it was worth inclusion in wikipedia. wikipedia is not here to tell people what to think, but rather to provide a place where we can learn, and share information. once wikipedia sets foot down the path to censorship it will lose everything that makes it great.

    please respect both wikipedia, and this film by allowing this entry.

    thanks - P'u — P'uu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:15, 14 July 2007

    • Comment - for those who think that we are censoring the article, the answer is simple: no, we are not. I don't know if the above keep !votes have been keeping up with Knowledge (XXG) policy or this AFD, but we are stating that this film is not notable, not that it is to be censored. Read, and be enlightened, before making such baseless statements. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    I beg to differ: the film is reasonably to be deemed notable, even if the preconditions which are stated in the guidelines are not literally met, yet. We are not a bureaucracy, please follow your heart in honesty when interpreting the "rules".&#151; Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The volume of activity on this page should prove how notable it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2007
    • Comment (keep) I must confess I've seen the video three times now, with different friends. I feel it's very well made. It gives one an overview while remaining easy to comprehend. I don't trust the details of the movie too much, but the broad line seems well researched.
      Apropos, "This page is 74 kilobytes long." - not bad fellow wikipedians, 75000 chars 11000 words for a movie which would be "unnotable". I wish we could spend that time on improving articles instead of discussing deleting them. To all reading this, please be aware that there seems to a zealous "Zeitgeist the Movie article inquisition" forming that will probably keep starting discussions for deletion for this article in the future almost monthly, even when this debate results in "no consensus", hoping that one time it will go unnoticed, resulting in deletion, and a consensus to recreate the article will never re-emerge. So please bookmark the article and check regularly. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "KEEP" - I agree most of the others in this discussion, this page should be KEPT. Many improvements to this page could be made from the sources available on the film's home and I suspect that if the entry is permitted to stay on wikipedia, the relevant information will stay and the irrelevant will be purged, that's what wikipedia is for isn't it? Don't delete this article, it's too important, especially at this time in our history. As far as it's "Notability", I submit that this video has been viewed more than 455,000 times, and that's just the revised version. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - — Trekerboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment (keep) I expect wikipedia to have information on everything, there are certainly some not so notable listings such as the aconitase enzyme page, which I imagine was easy to get "notability" for, but will be read far fewer times than this page will. &#151; Zim_06 ♫☻♥♪ (talk)
    • "KEEP" - This entry would be a an important source of reference for the documentary style movie.The movie, this entry, and all of its sources are relevant to ongoing debates about its many subjects. The only reason I can imagine for the dispute over this page is that people do not like to have certain information to be made publicly available, and may not suit their interests. In the spirit of free and open debate, please allow this page to be kept and allow readers to decide the credibility for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 July 2007
    • KEEP Morton may make a valid argument about notability of films, but that reference does not call for deletion of the page as an appropriate action. It just establishes the notability of the film. The film is indeed in flux and gathering wider acceptance. Additionally, many newspapers are going out of business due to the fact that news is ever more increasingly being produced and consumed by way of the Internet. It would be unfair, to say the least, for such a technologically advanced resource such as Knowledge (XXG) to force printed media reviews in order to establish notability, especially in cases where the information (this film) is controversial or widely outside the realms of popular opinion. I would consider that censorship; the very thing wikipedia should be fighting to prevent given the nature of user-contributed content. Khermans 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)khermans (Kristian Hermansen)
    • Comment by user Bef: Regardless of attitudes toward the content of the film, it is an attempt to inform the public of another perspective on many peoples core truths. To censor the film would be unproductive, if you disagree with the content and can refute it then work on constructing your own video which can directly refute the claims of this film.Bef 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP with 455,920 views of the new movie and even more for the older version this movie or subject definitly deservers a wikipedia entry, whenever things that are told in it, may be true or false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaasje (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2007

    ~!~KEEP~!~ it, if any other pathetic religion can keap their non-sense speach about anything than you have no right to remove this one, cause at least it has sense and it speak truth abotu alot of stuff. If you really proof us that you are all about freedom of speach than keap this open, cause shuting it down woudl only proof us right anyway and you loose either way. Eckostream, July 14 2007 (Canada,Qc) — 66.131.240.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:40, 15 July 2007


    ~!~YOU CHOOSE~!~: Comments here support the film being published here on the basis of freedom and truth. I support truth news, and worry of suppression of truth, particularly the kind of topics that are presented in part two of the film: i.e. false flags and terror and suppression of people through government terror. It is important that work which questions government spin gets aired.

    I looked at the notoriety criteria, and the film passes possibly one out of three, possibly not.

    Unfortunately, the film is severely flawed and divisive for truth news seekers, and damages the credibility of such independent journalists in general. It is for an audience of apathetic unquestioning people.

    It seems that people feel strongly that it should be published here, because it's truth news: I can understand that feeling, but it's not enough. It has to have merit, otherwise it will undermine truth. All that was published in part two of the film has been published already, but here put it together well, like a documentary with 'spiritual scholarship/authority'.

    It juxtaposes in part 1 an account, contrary to the article,not merely of Christianity but all spiritual saviours, or messengers. It confuses theism or spiritual authority with dogma. That's where it's merit slumps, and is divisive for truth news. It appears to borrow wholesale from a book: The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Achrya S. And I see no criticism yet. It's not been allowed the time. So allow me here, now. Then, join with the question I raise, they are serious for outcome in reporting truth, if the film were to rise in popularity.

    Now that book offers an interesting line of thought, but there's no attempt at criticism of the books' thesis, that all world religious accounts of saviours share the same myth, based in astrology and sun movements. Although the astrology numbers tie up well, there are glaring and deliberate mistakes, which amount to false propaganda. Not so much the fault of the film maker, they obviously took it up in a surge of belief - the kind they decry. But then they must answer questions concerning its scholarship. The matters are presented as important, but unfortunately that trivialises part two - the false flags. Vedantists, Muslims, Christians and other people of other books are fighting for truth and freedom too.

    Let's take a closer look: e.g. concerning krishna: He was not born on the 25th: Krishna was born in the Rohini nakshatra, in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada, on the 8th day of the waning moon at midnight (about July). Yet he's included along with Jesus as an example of a fictitious myth. Yet they fail to observe and point out it doesn't actually fit the thesis of the 1st half of the film/ and the book. Quite ill-conceived. There will be many other glaring errors, but as I say presented as scholarship, served as propaganda.

    It's not explicitly stated concisely, but inferred, that myths are human inventions, with no bearing in historic, or transcendental truth. Yet, transcendental events don't have to obey laws of nature, because the point is it is supernature. No mention of prophesies are made either. Or, that recurring myths are not necessarily historic falsities.

    Christ and Krishna cannot be so easily dismissed as historical persons, and as sons of god or god in person. They are supposed to be freedom fighters, themselves!

    It would be okay, but probably out of place in the film, for a film maker to portray their personal atheism, or other belief. Truth news activities about false flags, anti- neo capitalism and freedom fighting do not belong to atheists. An attempt a scholarly thesis by borrowing a flawed thesis of a scholar is a mistake, typical of arrogant scientists, arrogant government or naive believers

    If you are a materialist, a nihilist, and if in spite of a secular/aethiest state have feeling for a unconditional spirituality, not based on dogma, the film does appear to offer slight possibility of spirit souls, which is oh so nice. But it can't unite us in spirit against world domination| we can't all be god - all be all-poweful. So what's to unite us? A oneness that doesn't exist?


    The point of spirit is that it is eternal, and not the material body- mind, but transcends it, and all are joined in one. Now, if this is truth and all-powerful, why can't there be religious law, prophets, codes? Were all our forefathers, and muslims etc .. now, fools under the control of dogma? Spirit means we exist, what happens matters in the spirit of truth (the way it's done), and there is freedom from material domination; We are not here for the pursuit of material goals solely, but to live in dignity. Innocents are not to die for material goals....

    Democracy is a set of rules; Ideology is Religion. The two are confused in this film, as they were in the warmakers with Iraq. It is not religion, but hypocrites who start unnecessary wars. Religion is science of spirit: it means, roughly, to recall the word, the thought of god.


    I bear the film makers no ill feeling: I hope you can invite more contributors from religions to remake part one, which would have to change then quite radically. How could that fit in? Well, as I say religious people are concerned with truth and freedom. That is why Muslim societies, contrary to propaganda , have some of the most socially caring networks. Their governments, and the religious fanatics were fashioned by the west.

    P.S> I was asked to save this from delete by email, after having offered constructive criticism. If a panel of experts in news and religion discuss this they might slag it off more than me. So be careful with notoriety - it may get more, but you may not like it. The film is not mature. First listen to the criticism, and think deeply. There is no harm. You are young. There are plenty of freedom fighters in god-fearing Palestine and Iraq. Go there. Listen carefully. Or you motivation may be questioned as seeking 5' of fame.

    Truth news is so important for the material welfare of people, and their ability to LIVE with dignity. But I fear PC atheism is corrupting the efforts of all. It saddens me so very much. Funny that acrya S. is a hindu name, taken by western scholar of comparative religion and she can't even get the date of Krishna's birth, because it doesn't suit her thesis. Why is she sponsored by the government then? Seems truth doesn't matter to her, like many in the government. Noteriety or not, this film will have to take it's criticism, whilst intelligent, (truth seekers) exist!

    Bollybosh, UK — Bollbosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:56, 15 July 2007


    KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!! This entry NEEDS to be kept on Knowledge (XXG). If it's removed then we've all given in to the forces that are presented in the Zeitgeist movie. Wether or not the movie is 100% accurate or not, at least most of the ideas presented are possible, highly likely to occur, if not entirely TRUE and PRESENT. The most important thing about this movie is that it makes the viewer stop and think and consider long-held beliefs or notions and contemplate the state of our world. THAT is the truth of this. THAT needs to be spread. Stop and think. Also, the reason religion is presented as it is in the movie is to illustrate not only the misunderstanding of some of our deepest held mythologies, but also to show that Religion has been used as a tool for the full length of the history of Mankind to Control, Deceive, and Manipulate. Stop and think. -USER: M the Mordant.

    KEEP-- I found it informative and see no harm to keep it in here. Earthmaan1 — 76.226.140.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007

    • Strong Delete. I have read through the entire AfD, the entire article and all it's references. I can certainly see some of the points made by the users in favor of keeping. However, that still doesn't change the fact that this is a clear violation of WP:FILM, WP:A, WP:COI and WP:WEB. I'm also troubled that the majority of the arguments to keep it are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT. Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete. Trusilver 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "'Strong Comment Great documentary and very educational. While some of the material may offend some of my belief's or anothers, the documentary shares ideas and doesn't use opinionated comments as if they're facts. Also, from my understanding a video can legally contain copywritten material if it's a documentary. A Free documentary has no threat to Paramount, but possibly the information may threaten other institutions. Either way, i'd rather come to wikipedia for information. I would like to always feel that information on Knowledge (XXG) is not censured.
      • Strong Comment User Trusilver "Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete." - This is EXACTLY why deleting this article is wrong. Notablity based upon $$$$$. Knowledge (XXG) guidelines notwithstanding it is ridiculous that the addition of DOLLARS would make a difference upon the notability of this film and thus decide it's fate in this encyclopedia.Vexorg 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response. No... that's exactly why it needs to be deleted. WP:NOTFILM outlines very lenient qualifications for a movie to have an article. As such, I have yet to hear a single argument that suggests that this movie passes that policy. In fact, all but two or three of the keep positions have been WP:ILIKEIT arguments. 80% of this entire AfD have been people who have little or no experience with Knowledge (XXG) or its policies explaining how something is notable when they don't even know what the project considers notable. Trusilver 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. Either the information in the movie is (largely) accurate, in which case it makes the movie important enough to warrant its own page on wikipedia. OR the movie is mostly misguided and full of misleading information, in which case a wikipedia article is a good place to refute some/many of the claims of this otherwise popular movie. At this stage, it is not our job to judge the accuracy or the validity of the claims made. As it stands today, the page is well detailed and makes for interesting reading. Future wikipedians will be able to check it and correct it so that the visitors who have previously seen the movie and came here to know more about it can get what wikipedia is supposed to give: unbiased, accurate information. AugustinMa 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    "The fact that someone wants to pull it down proves its validity".(Mark, Melbourne Australia)

    KEEP It seems one of the comments above considers that the Knowledge (XXG) page for Zeitgeist the film is in violation of certain formatting standards of Knowledge (XXG) is only a temporary cause for deleting the page. The point of Knowledge (XXG) seems to be meant to provide progress from the point of congressional consensus in any realm that any Knowledge (XXG) pages focuses on. Thus the format of the Zeitgeist page can be changed. Also the input we have seen in regard to the film Zeitgeists' subjective focus MUST BE REVALUATED. If in fact the Zeitgeist page has any right on Knowledge (XXG) to share with users of Knowledge (XXG) the contextual information pertaining to the movie - censuring such information or altering it to meet political tendons would be a diservice to the whole website - not the Zeitgeist movie page itself. I do hope that Knowledge (XXG) is stong enough of a scholarly endeavor to keep politics out of the procession of its' pages. Now, let me have a little more space here to mention my personal affectations for the benefit of the subject matter in the film, rather than the logical incorporation of the page in Knowledge (XXG) that it seems to me the film has the right to maintain.

    It seems that Zeitgeist does not deny the following ideological subjects their due relevance: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

    The first part, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", does not deny the propriety of religious beliefs, nor does it condemn those with religious beliefs to spectral irrelevance. It simply presents a new historical face - a new interpretation - to the same scriptures that the same history has given us all to contemplate and toy with. With due respect to all those with stroboscopic beliefs of every kind, I think the film Zeitgeist is a welcome addition to the pantheon of already established interpretations.

    The second part, "All The World's A Stage", seems to confirm that the terrorist events of recent years have been orchestrated. That is all. The film does not blame those who orchestrated them, the film doesn't even try to comprehend who might have orchestrated them. It is essentially claiming that these events are not accidents and that we participant/observers must not fool ourselves into believing they are accidental. Whoever flew those planes had reasons - HOWEVER INSANE. In order to prevent future brutal acts of terrorism, human-kind must stop pretending that many significant but horrendous actions are accidental or tangental to those of the mainstream world.

    The thrid part, Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain, shows nothing new. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism - this is the same story being told. These are relatively recent an local events, concerning the Federal Reserve and its right to control or influence the economy of the United States Of America. We, the citizens of this country have not been given an official story so far as to the origin of this institution, so it is not crazy that certain people are likely to simulate an answer of some sort.

    I find the film Zeitgeist to be an extraordinary and exemplary example of the previously stated realms: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

    These are all presented and I must respectfully decline the validity of any requests to take down the page for Zeitgeist the film due to any subject matter unless it is now said, when and where the film denies these realms any particle of visibility. P.S. - this was written in a rush, as I have to rush off to work, thanks for reading for now, I will be back to edit in the morning - SolarJin 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP IT. i showed the flim to all my friends; they all told me not to ever do something like that again. why? because EVERYONES afraid of the truth. like people whos going to delete the post. tryna hide something that's inevitable. max-singapore

    • Delete - While I appreciate the work that went into the article (and into the sockpuppetry on this AfD), it is NN. I wouldn't have a problem with this being moved to user space, if that's appropriate. We just have to figure out which sock's user space to put it in. That could be a challenge. :) - Crockspot 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    KEEP IT!!! I have watched the movie 3 times, and these are my thoughts, If Knowledge (XXG) is the so called people’s 💕, then let it be just that, It’s very simple, Someone wrote a movie, hundreds of thousands have seen that movie and enjoyed that movie and want to put some information up about that movie. so let them, if your going to pull down this movie under lack of evidence, then I suggest you do 2 things, first watch the movie your self(if you have not already), secondly start pulling down all the other things you have on Knowledge (XXG) that have no evidence , such as Santa claws and Easter buddy, right? because their not really real either but you still have them on Knowledge (XXG), and even if you do pull it down, people we start another one, or attack your site, or the whole movie will attract more attention because it will be known as the movie that was rejected by Knowledge (XXG), which will only add to the movies claims. (Mark, Melbourne Australia) JULY 15 12:30PM

    Keep It please, I really enjoy this type of entertainment venue. The kind that speaks purported truths and actually proves it in the process. Also, I believe that since this almighty website encyclopedia must include everything, it must include a well-watched / known movie about modern america and religious aspects. That being said, leaving this article which will most likely be updated with more sources and references will prove beneficial to people who wish a more indepth look at the facts and their sources in general. (Rob, IL, US) July 14, 10pm — 68.20.177.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:07, 15 July 2007


    Keep this movie. If this is deleted, this only proves the point of this movie. This movie is a phenomenon and has caught on like wildfire because it has some substantial backing proof behind it. There are books by Manly P. Hall and other people about the secret societies and knowledge out there that are common knowledge. This movie takes many of these books and puts a very good dumbed down version for the masses. (I'm not saying the movie is dumb just that some people can't read through hundreds of books to get this material). This is without a doubt a keeper for Knowledge (XXG). It has become a part of internet culture and I wouldn't doubt that this type of material catches on fire like the "Secret" did. — 69.156.92.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:11, 15 July 2007

    Keep (of course). I have never read 'the rules', as per notability, etc., and have only cursorily scanned the comments calling for deletion, which to me seem very parliamentary procedural-ish. If in fact the letter of the law is being violated here, then here also is an excellent example of the critical importance of jury nullification. Deferring to parliamentary procedure in this case might be technically correct, but it would also be morally incorrect - a crime, in other words. Suppression of the truth, or even just the attempt to get closer to the truth, in whatever guise, is abhorent. White knight errant 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — White knight errant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Keep! Our society depends on it!


    Pleae keep this! If you delete this then you are just another part of the problem. I can't beg you enough how much you need to keep this movie on here — 24.61.113.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:40, 15 July 2007


    KEEP THIS MOVIE!!! Not only should it not be deleted, but this movie should be mandatory material for people to see. It's not pressing what people should beleive, but it's making overlooked facts known to the public.


    KEEP IT! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MOVIE EVER MADE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN BY OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE. ALL SAY THE SAME THING! YOU ARE LOSERS WITH OUT THE SPINE TO WIN!!!! THIS MOVIE IS WINNI8NG US THE BEST FUTURE WE EVER HAD ON THIS PLANET. I PLANNED THIS ALL AND KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING!!!)


    TIM — Gooddoggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:03, 15 July 2007

    Keep

    The issues raised here need to be discussed further. The facts presented match my own experience and research, and facts presented by scholars who are respected and knowledgeable in their fields. The creator of Zeitgeist presents a full set of resources/full bibliography, so the facts can be checked by anyone who is willing to spend the time educating themselves further. The sources used are to my knowledge reliable, the work is notable in its examination of the subject matter. Just because a few people don't like it doesn't make it untrue or unworthy or wider discussion.

    It deserves wider viewing. Those who disagree with it are free to present their reasons why they don't, or simply just not watch it - but they have no right to deny anyone else from seeing it. - ldejongh — Ldejongh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:33, 15 July 2007

    KEEP this movie - it is absolutely ridiculous to be considering removing it! This is a well-researched, beautifully produced, and important subject for consideration. We have religion pushed down our throats all our lives, and many of us have been considering and researching the subject ourselves for a long, long time. This is a concise summary of interesting facts and ideas, not a half-baked 'conspiracy theory'. Free speech is being threatened again, and it would indeed be a sad day if Knowledge (XXG) submitted to outside, bigoted pressure to remove it. In fact, I would be the last person to trust Knowledge (XXG) again as an internet research medium if it was removed. Fornequiem - Canada — 207.189.237.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:58, 15 July 2007

    Keep, improve and discuss: I can't believe this is even an issue. With the rest of the other bull on here, these entries should be looked at for actual information of what the film is. Obviously it is worth discussing because of the strong response. How can you approve info on less important more offensive videos and music and not censor, but come to a subject such as this and decide to censor? It diserves, if not all in detail at least an explantion of what it is without opinionated statements but mere facts. In other words if you can not prove or disprove by looking at the actual sources that the arthur has given then do not display, nevertheless this diserves at least minimal explantion of what it is and more detailed info as it is researched. Afterall isn't that what wikipedia is about? I will seriously think twice about coming here for factual info if this is deleted. -swole

    KEEP!! I am a big advocate of democracy and opinions, even opposing ones, but the references that support the movie are not only credible but substantial in volume. All of the sources that were used are written and published by credible authors and sources. This movie represents the original idea that was once this great nation of ours, before it was tainted with big business and politics that deter the "pursuit of happiness" of "we the people." In my opinion, to claim that it is a fallacy or otherwise, is to admit that one has not made reference to the subject matter. The truth is not only out there but Zeitgeist the Movie challenges you to question the references by reading them for yourself. I have yet to read a single posting that advocates deletion that is supported by proof that any part of the movie or it's sources are misrepresented or fiction. KEEP and DISCUSS!— Oigomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:01, 15 July 2007


    KEEP and discuss! I took the time to sit down and watch the entire movie online recently. The main information page here, on Zeitgeist the movie is beautiful! I found the film to be slow to begin, in fact if I were editing the film, I would get rid of the prologue. When the film gets into it's Parts 1,2,3, it really does a terrific job of bringing the arguments together. I found it fascinating. We see this information all around us in 'bits and pieces', but this film presents important historical references for the citizen who is striving to get an "overview" of history in the making. I can't think of any documentary film that has provided a more comprehensive and fascinating report on the three main subjects covered in Zeitgeist the movie. After seeing this film, the viewer should go out and buy a couple of important books: "Ricardo's Law" by Fred Harrison and "The Corruption of Economics" by Professor Mason Gaffney, if they want to understand, finally, who is manipulating the economy and why. > Sageflower

    KEEP THIS ENTRY: I've seen the movie, and I think this wiki entry could become a very valuable entry. It's implicitly understood that a lot of people simply can't handle the truth (no pun intended to Jack Nicholson), but they've been spoonfed information for so long that's precisely why the media, the governments, and those few people that seem to control everything are where they are today and have the kind of power they do. They prey on the ignorance of the public at large, whom they consider nothing more than sheep. This movie, and this wiki entry could become one of the major turning points in human evolution, at least from our current perspectives and ability to see how things are heading. I agree with nearly every post so far, especially those that criticize Knowledge (XXG) for even considering taking this entry offline. If they do, you can rest assured it will reappear over and over again. Face it: you have to accept the truth sooner or later, for yourself, or someone else will shove it down your throat. -- br0adband — 70.173.180.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:34, 15 July 2007

    KEEP THIS ENTRY - Any film that causes research and independent thinking should be encouraged. I admittedly do not agree with some of the things the film discusses, but it at minimum gives me ideas to ponder and research. I find the film extremely patriotic- it's about the people of the U.S. and not those in charge. It's about questioning events that just don't add up the way they are explained. Let people watch the film, read the wikipedia article, do their own research and make up their own minds! I would also like to mention that I was shown this film by 3 different people in less than a month! All sources were friends of mine, but all from different circles. In my opinion that makes it a notable film. I haven't heard this much buzz since Terminator 2 came out in theatres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.181.36 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 July 2007

    KEEP: Surely a website with the sole purpose to provide information should not remove a piece of information, especially since that website allows such things as Goku, a cartoon character from the famous Dragon Ball series... and fails to include parodies which were purposely put in the cartoon series, such as the names Kakarotto, Vegeta, Radtiz (carrot, vegetable, radish) and that of the conspiracies of Babidi, the grandchild of Bibidi, to bring forth a powerful being named Buu... bibidi, babidi, buu, a parody of a Disney song), as well as other pieces of information that are not whole and complete with absolute "bonified" credible sources. Bryan, Ca — 208.127.23.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007


    KEEP! The movie is based on a lot of new information thats hasn't been available to a larger audience since the internet. I think it's fair to leave room for sceptism, but let the page run it's course and let the readers decide if this page belongs here or not, and give the a fair period of time to do so and to let the site and it's information proove it's point. I have seen enought Knowledge (XXG) entreis related to topics that are named and talked about in this film. This page deserves to be here, for the public to decide wether or not it is of value. This is Knowledge (XXG) right? The source of open information and information-sharing? Give this site a fair ammount of time to prove it's value.

    Marcel, The Netherlands! — 82.215.44.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:45, 15 July 2007


    KEEP this movie-entry. The film takes a controversial position but is well researched, and provides sources for the arguments it wishes to forward. At worst the director simply needs to update these on the page. I am convinced that there are people here asking for this to be deleted who are just radicalized right-wing Christians. They do not care about Wiki's policies, 'sources' or the truth. You may not like a particular argument but you must not try and CENSOR them!

    If this movie is deleted, then the entry for a film like Godfrey Reggio's Powaqqatsi, should also be removed. Whilst quite different in narative style, it still makes factual claims, principally that the West is an economic and cultural parasite on Southern-hemisphere nations, and it makes this statement with no sources whatsover.

    There are many other examples of how the right-wing attempts to discredit documentary film. I personaly don't care for his work but all of Michael Moore's films have been subjected to this kind of 'this is fiction and speculation, not credible documentary' criticism.

    Paul Palo Alto — Paulr1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:36, 15 July 2007


    KEEP: Whether or not the movie is absolute truth or not or even partial truth is irrelevant. It brings up questions, and that inspires people to research things for themselves. Which would and has greatly affected the "hits" and traffic of internet activity to the wikipedia website, as well as other websites which the believed purpose of such websites is to provide information. Since watching this movie I have researched just about every name they mention, every character and even events, every single item of which has led me to wikipedia an other sites, books, and other sources of information. I am not alone, several of my friends, colleagues and contacts, have done the same thing.

    This item does not state itself as absolute truth, it does not state itself as fact. It questions, it promotes critical thinking. 208.127.23.107 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Bryan, California. — 208.127.23.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    . . .

    I am an historian not living in the USA. Knowledge (XXG) is distinctive as a resource because it both contains long-standing history, and history in the making. Prior to the internet, history was told by the winners, while the losers told their grandchildren. In my country (New Zealand), the government, representing the winners, is now offically apologising to Maori (the 19th century losers) for the sins of its ancestors (the 19th century winners)under claims being adjudicated through the Treaty of Waitangi. As part of that treaty claim process the official history of the nation is being rewritten. I cite this to make a point. History is not always fact.

    The movie in question exemplifies the value of both the Internet and Knowledge (XXG), in that it allows a forum not controlled by anyone, but most notably not controlled by the winners. The movie (or more accurately called a documentary - not unlike Edward R. Murrow's famous challenge to Joseph McCarthy) challenges history, starting from Christianity's rewrite when the Roman Emperor, Constantine I adopted Christianity as the official state religion and called a series of councils to officially define the Christian story, most notably First Council of Nicaea, the Knowledge (XXG) citation of which is worth reading. The points made by the movie in Part 1 appear generally consistent with my reading of that era in history, but like the red flag waved before the bull, probably were placed in this kind of a documentary for the wrong reason - the apparent alliance between a particular, growing form of religion in the United States generically called fundamentalism and domestic American politics.

    Most disturbing in terms of the facts the film cites are those related to 911. It challenges the official history of 911 not through hyperventilating conspiracy charges, but use of the very same media which seems to have accepted an official line apparently inconsistent with its own video evidence. While the answers still need confirmation, the questions raised stand as valid and worthy of answering, not being shouted down.

    In the internet age, distance is replaced by the speed of light. Likewise, time is compressed, especially for historical purposes. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to debate the factual merits of the film, its author should provide a forum for that. But it is a place to document the phenomena, because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people (including myself) have now witnessed its allegations and rebuttal of the official story constitute a historical fact of some significance. The Knowledge (XXG) citation should state

    (a) The name and the general content of the film.

    (b) Citations of parts which are in opposition to the official approved explanation as to what happened

    (c) critical questions of those citations if they do not stand up to an objective test

    (d) supporting documentation where they do stand up to an objective test

    Given the controversial nature of the entry, at least part should be protected by Knowledge (XXG) from vandalism by persons or institutions who wish to assert dogma or another official story.

    Keep up the good work,

    Akonga

    New Zealand Akonga 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


    Please KEEP this movie -- It was deleted off of youtube for various reasons . I assume because it brings forth some disturbing theories about religion and our government . SOme would say that it is a film that is not patriotic . Well deleting this is a form of censorship and to me that is being even less patriotic .I persoanlly feel this is a rather unique point of view and it should be watched . Hmm the worst it could do is to make you question the things we might think we know .The film is worth watching. Trust me the more you watch it the more it makes sense .It might even get you to wonder and go look up some of the source material your self .Its all there , go look it up in a library .

    Scott Wisconsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.211.161 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 July 2007


    Please continue to make this page available. I had an email conversation with author of the movie while it was in its draft stage and was being viewed by those who knew about it. I had a problem with one of the quotes that the author had used and told him so and recommended that he thoroughly vet the quote. It was a quote I had been trying to vet for about 4 years. He took my suggestion and modified the quote to conform with what had been revealed by other researchers. I was very impressed with his forthrightness in doing so ! I recommend keeping the entry active as I suspect the "truth will out" !

    Thank you,

    Harvey W./Boston 68.162.211.161 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)— 68.162.211.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


    PLEASE KEEP THIS MOVIE - If it is deleted you are depriving the public of the most essential truths.

    Glen Australia — 122.26.118.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:03, 15 July 2007

    KEEP ZEITGEIST'S ENTRY ALIVE - Knowledge (XXG)'s sole purpose is to provide people with information. By deleting this article, Knowledge (XXG) is going against its own purpose. If people wish to view this article, then by all means they should be able to. Don't let this profound documentary go unnoticed - spread the word! Dale United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.191.138 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 July 2007

    KEEP THIS MOVIE - This is the absolute BEST movie on the subjects discussed. Everyone has the RIGHT to either view it or not. The fear we have in place in our society is because people don't know who the purpetrators of the fear is. I highly recommend the film and give it an all star rating. Please do not censor what people can or cannot read or see. Meria Meria.net — 24.121.20.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:43, 14 July 2007

    "KEEP THIS!"

    I live in Nor. Cal. am 28, M, I do not consent to this being deleted. Keep this. -Aa — 67.161.161.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:27, 15 July 2007


    This information is absolutely critical to the advancement of our "on-the-brink" society. If there are items which need to be adjusted, give adequate time for people to make those adjustments. Don't can the whole deal because this material has the power to make people think in new ways and may prove a open can of worms to those who feel they are in control of the masses. Provide the service Knowledge (XXG) and KEEP THIS MATERIAL.

    Ian M Cage.— 70.144.66.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:40, 14 July 2007

    Keep the Zeitgeist movie entry. Everyone looks to Knowledge (XXG) for information on a number of topics. Zeitgeist is a very popular topic today and one that is likely to grow enormously in the coming months and years.

    Undoubtedly, people who watch the film will be consulting Knowledge (XXG) more and more to get additional background on the movie, its creator, etc. Why would anyone want to suprress information or frustrate curiosity?

    The question is not whether Zeitgeist is 'right', the question is whether or not the public will be seeking additional information about the film (and its viewpoints) and expecting to find it at Knowledge (XXG). And we will, of course. — 76.102.13.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:51, 14 July 2007


    "Keep": This entry must not be deleted, since it is a source and link to unbiased information, which otherwise is manipulated by mass media. — 217.43.37.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:18, 14 July 2007

    • Comment - I feel truly sorry for the reviewing admin. This thing has become the biggest dog and pony show I've ever seen on an AfD. Most of the people coming here are uninterested in the project itself and think that this entire thing is a vote. It took me an hour to read this and block out the scores of useless comments to get to the substantive discussions that actually mean something. This entire AfD is a poster child for WP:TRUTH. Trusilver 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    subsection to make editing easier / July 15

    • Delete. Attack of the redlinks if I ever saw one...Anywho, no evidence of notability, as has been mentioned many times. And as is oft stated on AFDs, notability must precede article creation. Arguments that not enough time has been given to the article are irrelevant; sufficient sources have not been found because they don't exist. If the "word of mouth" on this movie moves beyond internet forums and chat rooms and into actual news media, then maybe it can have an article. Someguy1221 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep In my opinion, it's not a matter of reliable sources or whatnot, but a matter of popularity. As this documentary has witnessed an explosion in views, it will only be a matter of time before it will be recreated if deleted. Trust me, I know people with far less fame with strongly standing Knowledge (XXG) articles. I know computer IC's that very few people have even heard of when compared to Zeitgeist that have Knowledge (XXG) articles. If these people, places & things with little public awareness should be allowed the right to articles, then why should Zeitgeist be denied this right? If you strike this article down, it will only bring negative reputation upon Knowledge (XXG), & maybe even worse. As this documentary has hit such a high level of recognition in such a short time, it will only be a matter of time before more computer literate people become aware of Knowledge (XXG) deleting an article. Knowledge (XXG) can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Knowledge (XXG) at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up. --Atari2600a04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — Atari2600a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    THIS MOVIE HAS BEEN SEEN BY 1,000,000 PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE FIGURES FROM THE CREATOR. I would say that is a very large group to base my claims as a movie well worth researching and watching. The claims I make as to whether this movie is in fact the most important one ever seen just check the Google comments from viewers.

    My claims can be backed up, can yours?

    Put up or shut your mouthes?: Tim

    This is what it means!

    This is what Zeitgeist represents. Z=Freedom. Zeitgeist represents the last best chance for mankind to be free. It is the only tool I have ever found that puts it all in one place just as cop would present evidence to a district attorney. I suspect Mike R. had a hand in that. It gives us the easiest to understand presentation of the evidence I have ever found. It is the proof we have always needed to bring this scum down. Now that we have the proof in hand now we can shove it down their throats and make them admit it and do something about it. This is what has been needed and it is the best I have found. Attorney's especially should be gearing up for this. They also need to figure out what law will be like in a free world. Just think of the great opportunities in a free thinking world for everyone. Much less stress, better health care, Better chance for a good life. What is to think about? This revolution is a peaceful one, start the legal process now so you are ready. You now have the proof you have needed to start doing so. Can't you feel it coming, start taking your breaths of freedom, it will be here soon. If you saw me you would never in your life believe I was capable of this. I am a true antihero that the world has treated with disdain for the most part. Being alone mostly I had a lot of time to study many things and learned them well. I once read that Nostra Damus had predicted a time when there would be a fool who would cause the death of thousands. After that someone would come who would a time of peace that will last for a 1,000 years. I believe Al Gore is that man. It would be a time when man would achieve as never before. A time of total peace and advancement. I kind of figured it out that this would happen in my life time so I began to learn what I needed to know so I would recognize when it was time. I had seen your movie before and kept it in the back of my mind. I kept watching the political situation and realized it was now or never. I chose 4th of July weekend, July 1st as the best time. I knew they would be asleep at the wheel. I knew Craigslist provided the base population I needed and was the safest site with worldwide audience. I kept posting and was surprised that my adds stayed there for 6 days, no deletions. Then they started after I called in on Michael Malloy. By that time I had over 260,000 people who saw it. 200.000 more since I started the campaign. I knew it was already too late for them. On the 10th I had the battle posting adds everywhere asking for lawyers to investigate the crimes exhibited in the movie. Fortunately I was able to post faster than they could erase. When I had won in DC I knew we all had won! I know full well what I have done. No matter what happened to me I know I have done a very good thing.

    Tim'

    _________________


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable comic author. No sources given, none found via Google. Content seems unverifiable. Huon 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. SalaSkan 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    WP:NOT Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Fill these out over at wiktionary and link to that if needed. No the existence of other glossary articles is not evidence that this should be kept. Only that their existence should be examined. Crossmr 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep Sumo is a full-fledged sport with a thousand years of history and is chock full of words confusing to the new or even not so new fan. It is difficult to come up with English equivalent words in articles, so the easiest way is to make a link to a sumo glossary to help people out. I started the glossary because it was designed to replace a lot to tiny one or two sentence articles that were being used to define sumo terms that came up in other articles. This glossary is necessary, if not more necessary than most sports' glossaries. And besides, a glossary is not a dictionary. Malnova 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      You have a list of words and definitions. That is no different than a dictionary.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    It is different from a dictionary in that it is a collection of related words and their definitions, rather than separate pages for each term/ --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep because glossaries are an integral part of wikipeida. If that was not the case, all of these would have to be deleted. While under discussion by various people, the opinion stated for deletion of this article does not seem to follow wikipolicy.XinJeisan 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      The existence of other articles is not a reason to keep this article. On its own it fails policy.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep the fact is, many sports and other specific endeavors do have a specialized jargon that justifies their having an encyclopedia article. This page could certainly be expanded to cover the origins of the terms, but I don't think it merits deletion. If you wish to discuss the issue of glossaries on Knowledge (XXG) overall, then I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump. FrozenPurpleCube 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    That said, the page is currently unreferenced, which is a problem, but I assume one that can be resolved with sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    The problem with this point is that, if referenced, the only valid referring body available is a dictionary. --Yuu.david 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    That is why we have inter-wiki links to wiktionary. It wouldn't change the size of the sumo article at all.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reluctantly Keep Despite being simple to the point of uselessness (someone needs to add more) this article is valid under wikipedia standards, especially considering special circumstances, these being the fact that these terms are essentially equivalent to the explanation of, say, the fastball, and the fact that the article refers to another language, in which translation (usually the job of a dictionary, but necessary here) is required for understanding in English. Under the understanding propagated by the instigator of this discussion, all articles referencing terms in a different language would be suspect if a certain amount of history or explanatory information was not included; obviously not a possibility, but rather a waste of time. A better discussion would be the merger of this article with that of something like the kimarite article. --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    its not valid under wikipedia standars. That's my point. Its a dictionary, and policy dictates that we're not a dictionary. We have a dictionary wiki for that purpose, which can be linked from the article.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    What Yuu.david is trying to say is that the English Wikitionary is for English words. It is not meant to be used for a glossary of words from a foreign language like Japanese. And this is not just me saying this... If you read Wikitionary's main page, section "Wikitionary in other language", you will see that it says only English words are allowed, and that foreign words should be placed in its appropriate Wikitionary. The problem with Japanese, however, is that it is a pictoral writing system and not arabic like English or French. The logic would be to put these terms in the Japanese Wikitionary, but then no English-reading person would be able to read kanji. Groink 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Tennis baseball association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Private equity firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    listcruft, unsourced, very few blue links - also see this WikiEN-l post. Will 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    yeah but the Wikipedis is not a directory: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.WolfKeeper 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    ...and there's no source information or reference information available to even identify the long list of companies which are currently redlinks. We don't know if they're famous entries or significantly contribute to the list topic. Offhand, the ones in the blue links / in the category meet that definition. The others... we don't even know if they're real or imaginary, serious or scams. We can't have lists of that quality here. If there are no reference sources for them, they need to go. Georgewilliamherbert 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑