Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:03, 16 December 2006

< December 15	December 17 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-political web-based simulator

Most of the article seems to constitute Wikipedia:No original research. Although there are quite a lot of sources listed, every single one of the references fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: see User:Jobjörn/gpwbs-afd for a more detailed investigation of the sources listed in the article (as of 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)). The concept the article deals with fails the proposed policy/guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video games), and furthermore, the content of the article is mostly composed of descriptions on various nationsims, and every single one of these fails the established Wikipedia:Notability (web). I have, in vain, tried googling on the most imaginative search strings in order to find a source independent of nationsims, dealing with them. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Per AfD rules, this request may be close in five days, specifically on or after 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC). -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--M8v2 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One may want review the following earlier AfDs, as they may contain material relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True World Simulator (also dealing with WorldPower and SuperPower Classic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpower Classic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Diplomacy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpawn. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable, original research. Every one of the quasi nations (forums and log in sites) links right back their site and fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). The one external link is also a log in which does not help much. --John Lake 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A lot of guesswork, and WP:OR. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping it. I can remember playing 'Diplomacy' when young, and these games are just more sophisticated computer-versions. Could you not just remove the bits of text and the links that are objectionable? The article doesn't have to look like an advert. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These nationsims have hardly any relationship to Diplomacy (board game). They do not claim to do so, and the only thing they and Diplomacy have in common is well... diplomacy. There are other Diplomacy computer games. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I played 'Diplomacy' it was more 'stabbing people in the back'. Oh well. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, "diplomacy". ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lock (perhaps reduct to stub first) pending resolution of multiple mediations and other issues between article originator and editor proposing deletion of article. -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Delete Mediation appears to have been resolved (per comment below). I really hate to delete all that information. There is so much of it, it must have come from someplace reliable. I tried to do some research on the topic to provide at least one reliable source, but couldn't figure out what the topic was: Geo-political web-based simulator? Geo-political internet simulator? Geopolitical simulator? Some of the subject matter from the article might fit in the simulation article, but I'm not even sure whether the term "Geopolitical" is appropriate. Geopolitics doesn't mention anything about simulation. Before deleting the article, it would be kind of someone with some knowledge in this area to place a reference to this topic in an appropriate Wikipedia article. That way, someone in the future might be prompted to develop a correct article on the topic (whatever that topic may in fact be). There probably is a relevant article on the topic, but the present article does not appear to be that.-- Jreferee 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was under the impression that those matters had been settled. The two cases in question, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy, both initiated by me, are now closed. Itake has not made any edits to either of the articles since. He has also been invited, by me, to partake in the AfD discussion. I have not nominated this article to prove a WP:POINT, believe me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: I believe the article has been written by nationsim players, for nationsim players. I have myself played nationsims and yes, it is fun! But, there's a lot of fun stuff not in the encyclopedias. Perhaps that lies in the nature of fun... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Thanks for the information. I googled nationsim players. However, I still can't put my finger on the topic of the article, which means I can't actually determine whether the topic is Wikipedia notable. If it was, I would reduce the article, footnote it, and support it on deletion review. As I posted above, there has to be an article in all that text, but I can't figure out what it is and thus can't offer any support to the article. -- Jreferee 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd really like to vote to keep this article, because I think the subject is interesting and because I'd expect this type of game to be more popular in the future. BUT repeated AfDs on the specific games in this category have (it appears) failed to produce a single reliable source (as defined by WP:RS). Instead, it seems that everything out there on the Web (based on a couple of google searches I did) is either (a) a reflection/mirror of wikipedia articles or (b) game sites, forums, and other peripheral mentions about the specific games. So I'm guessing that there may be a thousand or so (or less) folks who play or have played such games, and that's about the level of interest in these. Ironically, perhaps, if someone had really done original research and traced the origins of each of the games, identified their differences, gotten figures on how many people play and have played each, gotten information about the business model (so to speak - costs to play, costs to operate, etc.), and compared the games to each other (if I were a potential player, which would I be interested in?), I'd be very tempted to argue "usefulness" (not an accepted criteria, I know), and it's possible that there wouldn't have been an AfD (not even unsourced article ends up here.) But that's not the case - it's really not a very useful OR interesting article. John Broughton | Talk 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting subject (to me, personally) but that's not reason enough to keep it. There's a fair bit of original research here, and as such, nothing that is verifiable is within this article. But I've copied this to my userspace if people want to work on it, it's at User:SunStar Net/Geo-political web-based simulator. For now, delete it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom said it better than I could. — Seadog^Talk 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:OR. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward Hotel (Jackson, MS, USA)

Twice prodded. User:Salad Days called it a "nn vacant hotel"; User:MER-C says "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no assertion of notability for both the old and new versions." NickelShoe (Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep It sounds like it might be a historic building, but it's not written enough to tell. If there's something of interest with this place, keep the article and get it fixed. If not, get rid of it. --Sable232 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, building is "part of the West Capitol Street Historic District, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places[1], and is designated as both a Mississippi Landmark and a Jackson Landmark", was listed as "most endangered" (top 10) in 1999.[2] It was also apparently once the home of Okeh Records (important blues label).[3] --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to whomever got the references in there! I would also note that the article should be moved to King Edward Hotel (Jackson, Mississippi), disambiguation should not use postal codes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is welcome back when it's open and notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. "The hotel was the center of Jackson society and politics for over forty years." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep National historic places and state historic places are notable. This building vacant or not is notable.--John Lake 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Completely unreferenced. Salad Days 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It might be notable because of historical value and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs serious clean up and refs. TSO1D 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix, don't destroy. Grace Note 10:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extend the article. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building, as built in 1923, is on the National Register of Historic Places, is listed among the 10 most endangered historic structures in Mississippi, and marks 140 years of Mississippi history. After 15 years of talks about reviving the hotel, city officials have the money to move forward with plans to turn the 83-year-old King Edward into 72 high-end one- and two-bedroom condominiums and 152 hotel rooms.[4] -- Jreferee 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a number of independent references to its notability from newspapers including a quote from the mayor that it it the "linchpin" of economic redevelopment, and is on the National Register. Edison 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of enough importance to warrant a keep. Xanucia 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important enough to warrant a keep. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough...has citations and everything. — Seadog^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's listed in the National Register of Historic Places and seems to have good refs. Doc Tropics 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs moving to a better disambiguator though. FiggyBee 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a good article as now written, it clearly is an article about a notable facility. WVhybrid 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is somewhat notable. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable †he Bread 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since all of the concerns have been met. MER-C 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a historical site, definitely notable, well written in its current state. Hope to see the article expand further. Ter e nc e Ong 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, move to King Edward Hotel (Jackson) since the current name does not follow the guidelines and we don't need the extra disambiguation suggested above. Vegaswikian 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable as historic site and can be verified now too Yuckfoo 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Gone Mad

Fails WP:BAND. All information appears to come from the band's own website. ShadowHalo 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or speedy delete all per nomination. Away with ye, come back when you're famous! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I'm not so sure this isn't a speedy candidate. -- Kicking222 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--Grand Slam 7 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Albums appear to be self-released. No hits on Amazon.com or CDBaby. They have only been "playing local parties and then hosting their own shows in local venues". Therefore, no indication they would pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete al per nom. Not notable at all. TSO1D 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC as a walled garden of non-notable band and album information. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.-K37 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. -- Satori Son 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I completely agree, this totally fails WP:MUSIC. --K yo cat^{¿Quíeres hablar?} 04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:VANITY Malla nox 05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per every reason above. Sr13 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all utter failure WP:BAND--John Lake 06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy Delete all - or Delete if this fails CSD criteria for some reason. I don't even see an ASSERTION of notability in there, though, so I think this can be speedied. Perel 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured the side projects, albums, and being featured on a compilation with very notable artists could be construed as assertions (even if they don't succeed at doing so). —ShadowHalo 07:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- non notable, and reasons listed in the comments above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements and no real assertions of notability. Plus with no hits on Amazon or CDBaby, as mentioned above, does indicate more signs of non-notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The consensus so far appears to be delete every Wikipedia independent topic related to Monkey Gone Mad. I found a few more Category:Monkey Gone Mad images, Category:Monkey Gone Mad albums, and Category:Monkey Gone Mad. If there are others, I assume that the administrator will delete them as well. As for my delete vote, only notices regarding the appearances of Monkey Gone Mad have made it to the newspapers; nothing about the formation of the group or the history of the group. Monkey Gone Mad really need to start releasing PRs so that newspapers will cover them better. If they eventually make the newspapers, there might be enough information to sustain an independent Wikipedia article on Monkey Gone Mad. As part of the deletion, it would be kind of an editor to list Monkey Gone Mad within an appropriate article. I tried to, but couldn't figure out where they could be listed.-- Jreferee 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; fails WP:BAND too. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, and Delete no assertion of notability. WVhybrid 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much first hand info ("the band states", etc.) Milto LOL pia 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BraxtanFILM (2nd Nomination)

Delete as non-notable. Still no real assertion of notability for this small film production company - i.e. no published works other than a standard IMDB listing and one website mention. StoptheDatabaseState 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I quote the "independent" website: Braxtan Film started in 1989 when Hank Braxtan began making short films with a home video camera and some action figures. In 1994, Braxtan began making films for high school under the name No Budget Productions. This lasted until 2003, when while spoofing Star Wars, he called it BraxtanFILM as a joke, but the name stuck. Action figures? Spoofing Star Wars? Notable! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no serious sources have been produced despite several opportunities. If the company's films were reviewed in significant publications then fine but at the moment there is a terminal failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this self-promotion. Edeans 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverfied, nn notable.--John Lake 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it still looks like a speedy candidate. Doesn't even assert notability. Perel 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Speedy: Issues raised in the first deletion Nomination were not addressed and the keep consensus appeared to be conditioned on addressing the issues. Delete:There are no reliable sources giving any information about the topic. -- Jreferee 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per non-notability. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication from WP:RS that this "company" and its films are notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made up this subpage up just now. It sources everything in there, including the film awards. User:Fresheneesz/BraxtanFILM. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. I really think this company is good to keep - and will probably make some "real" news sometime in the next few years. Fresheneesz 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it. Also, the important parts are not sourced: They have won multiple awards for Indie Film Adventures, Freddy VS Ghostbusters, and Paramount pictures bought the rights to BraxtanFILM's Friday the 13th AGAIN!. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I must have deleted my work - I sourced some of the awards and removed the rest.. I'll do it again. Fresheneesz 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added the sources back in. Fresheneesz 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete close. Just H 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to my recent sourcing of the awards and NPOV reworking. Fresheneesz 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the inline cited sources should be removed from the article for failing to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability. The sites fanboytheatre.com and theforce.net are blogs or fansites that do not independently verify posted submissions. The postings at b-independent.com, protoncharging.com, and myfilm.com are also not verified by the posting site, and were submitted by the company itself (one is a classified ad). I will leave them in the article for now so that others may evaluate them. -- Satori Son 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the sources are awful, and sources even *that* good were difficult to find. Not to say that any of the information in the article is false. I suppose the issue here is whether the article asserts verifiable importance. Do the sources on the awards check out - cause those are the assertion of importance. Fresheneesz 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean Group

non-Ocean personnel are writing inaccuracies about our company. These misrepresentations are a cause for concern for us. We want to provide correct information for all to read Coreymf 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is not in itself a valid reason to delete the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not a proper AfD case. You may edit the article to correct inaccuracies, but keep Wikipedia's policies (see WP:POLICY) in mind. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Coreymfs concerns (as described on the talk page of the article) have been adressed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. If people are adding false information, leave a vandal message on their talk page, and they will eventually be blocked if they persist. --Sable232 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and rv vandalism. No grounds for deletion per above. Ohconfucius 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The submitter seems to have made a mistake, and does not actually want it deleted. Drakh 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, g1, you name it. NawlinWiki 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steinabration

Strong Delete. No Google hits whatsoever, seems to be something made up somewhere in New York one day, celebrating some guy's birthday on December 8th. Prod removed by original author, claiming future notability in edit summary. StoptheDatabaseState 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree, this is complete non-sense. TSO1D 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, garbage. Might be speediable as no context. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for things made up over a couple of beers one afternoon.--John Lake 06:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsensical, non-sourced, orphaned. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSAX Tower

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts et sec, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers which are below 380 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all stubs, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the last AfD regarding these. Is it possible to speedy delete all of these, since the last batch were deleted? --Sable232 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I belive most of the articles up for deletion can be go up for Speedy Deletion because of lack of context.--M8v2 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Ohconfucious, are you going to move on to masts in other countries? MER-C 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to see. The US ones are in a sense easier - the 80:20 rule of deleteworthy candidates is easier to establish. Ohconfucius 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate mass nominations, but delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of this towercruft. Yikes! Edeans 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus shows that the correct name is polecruft. You're an evil name POV pusher!!! :) -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Whoa! Polecruft!! Sr13 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each and every one and congrats to nom for tracking all these down! - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable about these towers. ~~Do we have to have discussion on each and every one?~~--John Lake 06:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer.--John Lake 06:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think these are all in the List of masts anyways. Why do they need articles? Unless they fall down and crush a Democratic senator, they aren't notable. --Brianyoumans 08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (or merge) Whilst these are fairly useless, and I think the creator probably needs to get out more, they are also harmless. They are NPOV and verifiable. Wikipedia hasn't got a space shortage. If the creator needs to find better things to do with his time, so does the nominator. No-one in this debate has presented any argument as to why Wikipedia would be better off without this information. Yes, this is 'cruft', and so what? Do people just enjoy removing minor information from wikipedia just for the fun of it? Does it make us feel superior?--Sandy Scott 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes us an encyclopedia, instead of a collection of random things about poles. Like WP:NOT says we are supposed to be. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most encyclopedias don't have articles on Pokemon characters, indy bands, or colleges: Wikipedia doesn, so wikipedia is different. I see nothing random here, so I'm not sure why that's applicable. WP:NOT says Wikipedia isn't paper. So I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.--Sandy Scott 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT says we're not a directory. Articles which say nothing but what the thing is and where it is situated aren't encyclopedia articles, they're directory listings. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all although I do dislike these batch nominations.-- danntm ^T _C 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete - I don't have a problem with mass deletions, but they need to be presented properly for AfD and Deletion review purposes. ~~As the AfD presently is proposed, I don't see your mass deletion surviving deletion review. You may want to cancel this AfD and repropose it by placing similar topics in groups. For example,~~ (I figured out that my problem is not with the present proposal, but the mass deletion process. -- Jreferee 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)) I would support a proposal for deletion presented as follows: GROUP I:Citadel Broadcasting Tower Brentwood, Omnicom Tower Sharon, Reiten TV tower, SpectraSite Tower Louisburg, Trinity Broadcasting Tower Oklahoma, WCPE Radio Tower, WDAY TV Tower, WVEC TV Tower - Each article contains no more three sentences sentence, all the articles were created on same day by the same editor, Special:Contributions&target=85.74.33.35, using the same (wrong) approach to post each article, and the relevant information in each individual article is contained in List_of_masts, thus deleting the articles will not remove notable information from Wikipedia. GROUP II: etc.-- Jreferee 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant. We don't target individual editors, but the articles themselves except in the cases of trolls/vandals. The fact is that these listed are all pretty much useless stubs which capture info already in the FCC registration which, incidentally have tried my best to preserve. Ohconfucius 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant to getting your way and having the articles deleted. However, you are asking us to delete articles in the collective, not individually. There should to be a consideration in the deletion proposal of each editor's collective effort over multiple articles. Regarding the example I gave, the fact that an anonymous editor created all the stub articles on same day using the same (wrong) approach to post the information which largely already exists on Wikipedia elsewhere helps those voting to give consideration to that editor's collective effort and come to a conclusion that these article were a mistake by a novice editor. It will help the novice editor understand why their articles were efforts were. I do appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. However, you are not just asking us to delete data, you are asking us to delete the hard work of many editors. You might not see yourself as target individual editors, but the editors behind many of the above articles are new and might see it differently. For example, you listed not just one but many articles created by user 85.74.33.35. Also, I did not see a notice on user 85.74.33.35 talk page that many of his/her article are up for deletion. What is that new user supposed to think? Most of the editors of the articles you listed are new and probably have no idea that deletion is even possible. Fairness to these new editors during a collective deletion process should include at least a notice on their talk page and some showing consideration that their collective efforts to contribute to Wikipedia have been considered in collectively proposing their articles for deletion. I think we need to develop guidelines for collective deletions of articles.-- Jreferee 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as exemplars of articles about nonnotable things created by cut and paste from a database somewhere. There is no merit in trying to replicate everything that has an entry in some database as a Wikipedia article. These will then be stale copies of the original database with no automatic update function in place. A main article talking about the function history and types of masts, with a link to master databases elsewhere, would be far preferable. The oldest, tallest, etc could justify articles, especially if they have books, newspaper articles, architectural or engineering awards. There are no attestations of the importance of these things except that they exist. So do the transmitters, but no articles for them?Edison 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: burn with fire, and lots of fire at that. They are towers. They exist. And? Where on God's earth is the notability for this lot? Do tell, please. Moreschi 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought when I saw this entry was "Oh, my, somebody wrote an article about the Air Traffic Control Tower at SAX airport -- we must delete this airport cruft". Then I read it and found out it was transmission tower cruft, not airport cruft. Not all tower articles are cruft; CN Tower for example, is a good article. These are cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of reasons previously stated above: non-notability, etc. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to say that I hate mass-nominations like this, even if I don't necessarily think any of the articles will be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have mentioned the same sentiment, but that's the alternative? 30 distinct AfDs? I sampled about 6 of them; they all appear to have the same fundamental flaw, which is that they're just data extracted from some tower database, with nothing notable to say about any individual tower. So what would be gained by discussing each one individually? If anybody (perhaps the creator?) thinks there are some subset of these which should not be painted with the same brush, they should speak up now. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say smaller groups would be preferable. A half-dozen might be easier to swallow. It's not like there's a pressing hurry to delete any of these pages. At the worst, I'd say it's boring content, which while many things isn't a real problem. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion appear to be a valuable Wikipedia tool, but it appears to lack guidelines. For those interested, I started a discussion thread here. -- Jreferee 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but add the geographical co-ordinates info to the list of masts article. The rest of the basic info is already included on that list. Qandnotq 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge KSAX Tower into lists of masts. No consensus on the other ones. Just H 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Lin

not notable / vanity page. Subject seems to be a barber at Floyd's Barbershop as well as (according to her own web page) a "part time model." Doesn't seem to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Probably a vanity page written by the subject - note passages like "In junior high, she was still introverted, focussing on playing her violin and saxophone in band class. She spent all her money on the trendiest clothes because she wanted to be popular, but it just never happened." TruthGal 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info is so personal the article can be nothing other than autobiographical, and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not myspace. Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information present here is absolutely a vanity page written by the subject herself. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost none of the TV and film credits here appear in her IMDB page for some reason. Raffles mk 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Vanity article--SUIT 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:21 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity article. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, as non-notable vanity page. Doc Tropics 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the claim that her "crowning achievement growing up was winning the spelling bee in 6th grade." Meeting WP:BIO just doesn't seem to be there, based on reliable sources. The work claims (such as the TV guest spots) are difficult to verify, but likely wouldn't yield much in the way of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity. Jefferson Anderson 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Core desat 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Jarod

Nonexistant, non-announced, fake rumour-millesque Pokemon game Pumeleon 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A google search shows absolutely no results! Thus it is virtually impossible to verify the content in this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, violates WP:V. Assuming good faith but likely a hoax based on user's other edits and creation of nonsense articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I know hoaxes generally aren't supposed to be speedied, but this one is incredibly obvious. WarpstarRider 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I've looked everywhere for information on it. Defiantly a hoax/nonsense.--M8v2 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is clearly a hoax. The creator has been blocked indefinitely as a vandal. --Sable232 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas hoax, or at least incredibly non-notable. Koweja 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lee

This was prodded but had previously survived an AfD. User:Visviva says: "This appears to be a hoax article that was kept in error. No evidence given or readily found that this is real. Nothing in English on Google, and nothing in Korean for either of the possible names 송리 or 이송." Old AfD was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song Lee. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not cite sources or assert notability. Previous AfD seems inconclusive. Canadian-Bacon 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not a hoax 127,000 Google Hits for The Miso Soup Song All relevant to Song Lee 1,100,000 google Hits for the Potato Song some relevant But as it is now non notable--M8v2 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 127,000 hits dwindle to 60 if the search is restricted to the exact phrase; all of the 60 seem to based either on the (dubious) robpongi.com page or on the Wikipedia article. So I don't think it's clear that this is not a hoax; however, if it is real, it certainly doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Visviva 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love miso soup, delete per above. Edeans 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any form of verifiability. Many North Korean entertainers have been mentioned in the global Korean press (in North Korean news outlets and/or South Korean outlets focused on the North). That this allegedly famous singer has not speaks volumes. -- Visviva 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above findings. Jefferson Anderson 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entercom Greensboro Tower

This nomination completes the deletion of all stub articles of masts situated in the United states below 400m. Delete Ohconfucius 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good riddance. Polecruft. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this towercruft. Edeans 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia declares war on non-notable masts... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable mast.Coaster Kid 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia, including this article. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of masts. Just H 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Park Revue

Fails WP:ORG. Only 54 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 02:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete article is funny and organization seems legit and singular. you don't have to delete every article about something just because it's not mentioned in the NYTimes. Jen 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article seems to admit it's own Non-notability. Canadian-Bacon 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is mostly in-jokes and other inside references, apparently not written for the general public. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:25 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable group fails WP:ORG. Doc Tropics 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this group meets WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as repost —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 23:01Z

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Speedy delete. This was nominated for deletion before. It was deleted. The same user has made the same exact page, only this time he added a bogus youtube trailer as an official teaser. My judgement then stands as it is now. Its way to early to make an article about this film.CyberGhostface 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Zero verifiable and reliable information. Fan-1967 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4. --Sable232 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Sable232 and MER-C Alf photoman 12:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. TSO1D 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a repost of previously deleted material.-- danntm ^T _C 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4 is insufficient guidance for user. Neither is WP:NOT#CBALL. There should be a policy statement that an exact stage of movie development meets the criteria for listing. It should be something like When a. Filming begins, b. filming ends, c. release date is set or some such an article can appropriately be created so we don't have to keep dealing with prospective movies. TonyTheTiger 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Mo Sheen

Delete. NN celebrity kid. Ckessler 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kate Beckinsale. Has appeared in films, but in very, very minor roles. --Canley 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:BIO. -- Chondrite 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her mother's article, as is usual with celebrity kids. No media coverage for the daughter herself means she fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Ckessler Stompin' Tom 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --Sable232 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate Beckinsale per other merge recommendations. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Edeans 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergelete - yeah, pretty much this should be deleted as NN, but she probably warrants a small (one paragraph) mention in Kate Beckinsale. Perel 07:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She already has. --Sable232 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's mentioned in Kate Beckinsale, and there is no real independent media coverage for the daughter herself.-- danntm ^T _C 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per danntm. Article can always be recreated if she achieves sufficient independent notability. Doc Tropics 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. This article can be created again if she ever gets famous (I suspect she will, though). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per imdb info. Very Weak Keep. Just H 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones

I see nothing encylclopediadic about this article for a single season of a college football team. However, perhaps there is a precedent that any single season of a sport at a division I (or II or III?) school is notable. I figure it's best to have this debate now, rather than after the author creates 100 articles. Aagtbdfoua 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is part of the ongoing efforts of WikiProject College football. One of the stated goals of WikiProject College football is:

To make Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football.

In order for Wikipedia to function as a "premier online resource," it needs to provide a complete historical view of Division IA programs. This article is part of that project and has been created in conformance guidelines established after extensive discussion (see discussion here, which is part of a larger discussion that starts here). There is no intent to create a single entry for each season, rather, the intent is to create a single page for all seasons under a particular coach (for example, see Georgia Bulldogs football under Herman Stegeman). In the particular instance tagged, it just so happens that the coach only coached for one season. --Tlmclain | Talk 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timclain. VegaDark 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Georgia Bulldogs football. This does not merit its own article. Edeans 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not merge I had the entire history of the Colorado Buffaloes on a single article and it became so big as to lose it's value. The College football WikiProject had a discussion where it was determined that breaking up historical articles per coach was more appropriate than single year-by-year pages. Thus, for example, Colorado Buffaloes under Gary Barnett instead of a single article for each year he was a coach. For some coaches, they only coached a single year. Nonetheless, for completeness of the subject, each year a school has participated in the sport deserves to be covered. Failure to do so would result in an incomplete coverage of the topic. --MECU≈talk 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no merge - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - "keep" because this is exactly the kind of info I wish I could find in a paper encyclopedia but cannot due to size limitations, and "no merge" because including the summaries for all 27 coaches on the Georgia Bulldogs football page would be intractable. --Roswell native 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article conforms to consensus of the WikiProject which is a compromise as stated above to avoid year-by-year articles while still providing comprehensive historical coverage. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - we are well on our way to 100 articles of college football seasons already. Please see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team... The goal of the College Football WikiProject is to ensure that these articles are well-written, well-balanced, well-referenced, and comprehensive. The article in question here is following the preferred format as noted above. Johntex\^talk 07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - active WikiProject with good justification for this article Perel 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessive level of detail for a general purpose encyclopedia. - fchd 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Articles similar to this have been discussed before. At some point a nod to the consensus should be made. CJC47 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article along the lines of Arsenal F.C. seasons (Georgia Bulldogs seasons?) Wikipedia is not a results database, there is no need to list individual match results in full. Oldelpaso 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle. Worthwhile content, but needs to be renamed to something along the lines of the articles that Johntex pointed out above for consistency's sake. A Train ^{take the} 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the naming convention used is the result of a long discussion on WikiProject College football. The conclusion of the discussion was to group annual seasons for a team together under the head coach, otherwise, a team like Georgia would have 112 separate stories for 112 seasons. Using the approach adopted by the Project regroups those 112 seasons under 24 head coaches. That being said, there is still room for detailed stories on noteworthy seasons such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. I hope this help explains the reasoning behind the method used to name the article. --Tlmclain | Talk 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. I tip my hat to you for the education, Tlmclain. :) A Train ^{take the} 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Short but well written, and it's part of a series that falls under the scope of an active, well-organized WikiProject. Doc Tropics 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VegaDark. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Georgia Bulldogs Just H 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Tower

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google throws up an enormous number of hits for this and there's a download link from the magazine PC World's website so I imagine that magazine has covered it at some point. Certainly, Icy Tower seems very well-known and regarded for a freeware release -- Zagrebo 12:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, what would an encyclopedia be without information about products and computer games also - both downloadable and retail? I disagree with that almost everything small I see is nominated for deletion - if you don't acknowledge the fact that people contribute in a serious way, no wonder there are many who dislike Wikipedia. Just because it isn't very notable it still has a huge fan-community and countless mods and is definitely worth to be kept. It is your narrow-minded point of view on everything that lowers the quality of this great free project. I'm sure the sources can be fixed, just issue the topic a clean-up template. Don't be so impatient. -- Karmus 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons cited above. -- Zagrebo 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notability is not established. PC world does review many games but not this one (at least not that I could find). A large % of the google hits seem to be mirror sites (it's freeware) offering download; I couldn't find any independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Chondrite 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IT was mentioned a few times in gaming press and stimulated online merchandising of some kind (see freelunchdesign.com). And it has got a Featured Article on Polish Wikipedia without any hints of unimportance. I'd say Oppose. Agree with Karmus. 83.31.197.8 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know so many people who've played this, I don't think that it fails to meet notability criteria (although I admit that I'm not feeling like sifting thousands of Google results to find appropriate sources).--Hús ö nd 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel like sifting either, but don't you think Chondrite makes a good argument that non-trivial reliable external sources likely don't exist? Pan Dan 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He does. But after seeing so many non-notable games for deletion, I just don't think that this is just another one of them. Additionally, it's quite a simple game and I doubt that any good sources could write much about it. Thus, for this one I just prefer to rely on its huge popularity.--Hús ö nd 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists). We have higher standards at Wikipedia! Pan Dan 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "My friends play it" is not a keep criterion. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. Also, can hardly see how does that make a "strong delete".--Hús ö nd 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough. Owoc 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and above points. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it does have a large following and it is one of the more notable freeware games. Delta Tango • Talk 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chondrite. If it's popular, it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists). At Wikipedia we need evidence of non-trivial reliable external sources so we can write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this - i dont see why to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.95.116 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shivah

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now passes WP:SOFTWARE: I have just added 7 references that proclaim its notability. --Amaccormack 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slab of reviews now present, good quality third-party sources. QuagmireDog 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is notable, is featured in a Reuters article, this is not a case of original research, by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valley2city (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, it passes WP:SOFTWARE. TSO1D 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no consensus. 1ne 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gilbert (game designer)

See User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer). This was previously nominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1) and received three delete votes in addition to the nomination and one keep vote. I am relisting to get a clear consensus. Specifically, this article fails WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. As I have already provided the sources in the first AfD, I see no point in keeping this open. Please take this to WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must allow the sources to be discussed in the AfD process. That is its purpose, not to just have an administrator judge the worthiness of an article and close discussions. As it happens, I contend that your sources support the notability of The Shivah, not of Mr. Gilbert. Therefore it would be reasonable to generate a consensus of delete or redirect. This relisted AfD is certainly valid. Andre (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take this to DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly, would DRV be a better forum for this discussion? I'm not asking for a reinterpretation of your decision, nor am I raising a "concern" about it. It was handled incorrectly and therefore I am relisting it so we can handle it properly. Andre (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be handled by *professionals* on DRV. I see no point in continuing here. You did not care to check the verifiability of the article. This person has been mentioned in *many* reliable sources apart from the ones I have provided in the first AfD. The reliable sources include ones from BBC, CNN, Reuters and others. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean by "*professionals*". I'm an administrator just like you or them, and I can close deletions same as you or them. Wikipedia does not have "*professionals*" or special users with added judgmental power. At any rate, regarding your argument (which, being as you are participating in the argument, should really exempt you from closing the argument), Mr. Gilbert himself is not the primary subject of any of the sources you cited (The Shivah was, and Gilbert was merely mentioned in connection with that), and WP:BIO states that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" is a requirement. Andre (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the *professional* part was rather a joke. However, if you feel that I did not close it nicely, this discussion would be better suited on WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99% of comedy is timing, and this is really not a very amusing time for a joke. Anyway, a relisting of this deletion would benefit the process, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't just run the AfD again. WP:DRV exists to serve certain purposes that may be similar to this, but it is not unusual or inappropriate to just relist a deletion to build a consensus or remedy an out-of-order closing. Why, it just happened recently with another deletion of mine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Fatman. At any rate, I'm going to have to leave my computer now, so no more of this instant communication -- but please accept that your unconventional AfD closing has led to a confusing situation and the best fix would be to let this AfD run its course. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO also states – Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert is not an author (this means of books), editor, or photographer. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who program/write software are also known as authors. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But from context alone, let alone page history, we can clearly see that it refers to published authors. There's no ambiguity. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.. ?. Along with the sources – [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] — Nearly Headless Nick 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert's single independent adventure game, while it has received some press coverage, is hardly part of the enduring historical record, nor is it widely recognized. It's quite obscure, a curiosity at best, and borderline notable. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are multiple independent reliable sources showing his notability they belong in the article, not just here. The article is also stubby, even after all the previous deletion debate. The multiple references noted by Nick seem to the the same Reuters story appearing in various sites, which to me counts as one refrence, and it sounds like it came from a press release, which is still worth something, I suppose. Edison 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those who have gotten too used to hanging around here may have forgotten this, but the purpose of verifiability guidelines is to ensure that an article is verifiable, not to worship as an ineffiable God. If an article's notability is undeniably shown in its AFD discussion, then whether or not the article itself meets the guidelines is immaterial. -Toptomcat 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But Mr. Gilbert is not notable. His game, The Shivah, may be -- but he is not. Andre (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the previous AFD was improperly closed, it really should be taken to DRV. -- Whpq 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, those supporting merging are free to pursue that in the usual way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Reformed Theology?

Article does not assert its own notability, and this book is not more popular or deserving of a page than most of Sproul's other books (a number of which I have read). The book does not break any new ground and has not made any measurable impact like, say, MacArthur's Gospel According to Jesus. Article looks more like promotional piece than an encyclopedic description. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the proposed WP:BK. MER-C 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Sproul's article. I think the actual content will fit in one sentence. --Brianyoumans 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Brianyoumans, we don't nedd articles four sentences long. Alf photoman 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Brianyoumans. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because this much content can reasonably be an annotation to the entry in the bibliography in the Sproul article. If someone wants to add extensive information about this book, then a separate article would be OK (with just a summary in the Sproul article). JamesMLane t c 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Wizardman 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is within bounds per WP:CRYSTAL. Jay(Reply) 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwell Legacy

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 195.114.94.194 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as I hate crystal-balling, the release date (stipulated by the developer) is now.. 4 days away? This particular developer has software which garners multiple reviews and seems to be very well received by the adventure game community. For the life of me, I can't see the point in deleting what's here for the sake of waiting for the inevitable reviews to appear as sources. This isn't just another freeware breakout clone. QuagmireDog 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am actually a beta-tester on this game, and although I think its release may be a few days late, it will certainly happen this month. When reviews come out, I will add them as sources. If the article is deleted, it will be recreated in a few months anyway. The original "Bestowers of Eternity" game (from which this article was renamed/merged with) did win 2 AGS Awards, too. --Amaccormack 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AGS awards (which may not be notable at all) for a related game do not establish the notability of this game. Chondrite 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is notable because it is the next game from the studio which released The Shivah which has garnered a significant ammount of press, (it's currently mentioned on the front page of cnn.com) and as such the studio and related products (especially this one as it's so very near release) are notable.--Wogoat 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY weak keep Looks like Shivah is headed for a keep now, so maybe this is notable too.. if the article still looks like this in a month, delete it. Perel 07:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only has the Shivah been kept, but the creator of this game's article has also passed AFD and been kept. Potential sources for reviews of this game (as soon as it is released) are already used as sources for The Shivah. It's just a matter of time now. QuagmireDog 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has NOTHING to do with WP:CRYSTAL, plus looks notable enough. I would like to see more information added though. --Wizardman 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richest Arab

Unsourced, incomplete and unverifiable list Static Universe 04:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's also worth mentioning that all but one of the people on the list has "unknown net wealth". MER-C 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unknown net wealth" for everything, and it doesn't even restrict itself to single people. Even if it did, why is a list of the richest Arabs important? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There aren't even figures for the net worth of all but one of those on the list. It is complete nonsense. --Sable232 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this article is pointless OR - and bad OR. KazakhPol 06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add relevant sourced information Alf photoman 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. TSO1D 15:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as original research. This is a list with an arbitrary scope and no added value. I would be amendable to a snowy close or other expedient close.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move and improve. I think that it should be moved to List of richest Arabs, and then all the net worths need to be researched and added. Also, there should be a list of individuals and/or a list of families rather than merging them into one list. 0L1 Talk Contribs 23:32 16/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete if not sourced until AfD closure and rigourously improved. gidonb 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - was no need to even nominate this and give in to silly PRODS - firm is ridiculously large. Afd's purpose is not to get article improved. Go ask for peer review or something. pschemp | talk 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gartner

Twice prodded as failing WP:CORP. It's "an information and technology research and advisory firm." Bringing it here for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known consulting company with shares traded on New York Stock Exchange. The company's predictions and assessments are often quoted in computer magazines. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't it "Gartner Group"? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure is. Perel 07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've been moving away from that name for a few years now due to expanding business lines under the Gartner ___ pattern. Press releases now say "Gartner, Inc." or a specific business group. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the SEC, they're "Gartner, Inc." Shareholders voted to change the name on January 25, 2001. schi ^talk 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move and cleanup per above. MER-C 06:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gartner is one of the larger and notable market research firms. If necessary, cleanup to make that notability apparent, and move to a proper title if needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Gartner is very notable and influential in the IT industry. Perel 07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, but it's a bit corpspeak. Tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-16 09:52Z
Strong keep; very notable, just needs proper refs. A quick Google news search turns up dozens of hits, including this one, which seems to support the notability claim. schi ^talk 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gartner Group is to IT consulting what Microsoft is to desktop computer software. Ohconfucius 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeeeeeeeep. I am unsure whether to laugh my arse off or quit Wikipedia. This is ridiculous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Slattery

nn photographer. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, the user who created the article even says so on the talk page. I believe it fails WP:COI too. --Sable232 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the talk page: "Chad Slattery ...Is pretty much unknown". Enough said. MER-C 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Saying it's not notable is a pretty extreme way of failing to assert notability.. Perel 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe this was created as a test page and shouldn't have been sent to AFD, per the talk page. --SunStar Net^talk 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Jefferson Anderson 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --bainer (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield (band)

NN band -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improve. It's worthy of inclusion, but it lacks in content. If someone can add more noteworthy information, than I'm fine with it being on there. If not, Delete. Human historian 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nothing of note, per nom. Akihabara 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The best this band has going for them, notability wise, is that they apparently have the former drummer from Good Charlotte... but once you dig a little deeper, you find out that this drummer left Good Charlotte just before they made it big (he's like the Fifth Beatle of crappy emo/psuedo-punk bands!) In the article's defense: The band does appear to have been on a major label and released two albums, satisfying some of WP:MUSIC. However, no sources or even an attempt to describe these albums as successful. -- Antepenultimate 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable per involvement of Aaron Escolopio. Mus Musculus 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, •••日本穣^{? • Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I'm leaning toward keep because I thought a band becomes notable after it cuts a record, of which this band has done twice. I think a cleanup tag and a CT desk assignment is more proper than deleting it. Am I way off course here?--Clyde Miller 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (conditional) - They are notable to some extent (see external link). I place merger templates on the related articles and added info to the talk page that may help move this article along. If the article is not moved forward in a reasonable amount of time and is place up for AfD again, consider my position a delete.-- Jreferee 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article states that they released two albums on Arista and Jive Records, both of which are quite notable labels. As such, they meet Criterion 5 of WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please releasing albums with arista and jive records is obvious notability under our music guideline Yuckfoo 02:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC and seems notable enough. --Wizardman 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sherman

nn "talent executive". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the admin (GWERNOL) who posted the article AGAIN for deletion, is, per his page, a self proclaimed Welsh trainspotter; so his interest in this genre: The Amercian Dance & Pop genre may not be best to qualify this Subjects contributions as Scott Shermans industry does not seem to be of the admins interests; just as i would know nothing of British industrial narrow gauge railways, a history of narrow gauge railways in the UK, comprehensive listing of same, Minimum gauge railways.

Also that the SAME admin felt it necessary to tag this page, and renom it for deletion seems to indicate some personal malice, as he was overturned, rather than through objectivity, I hope i am mistaken and its a coincidence he found this page.

while perhaps someone with no knowledge may be of use in establishing some merit, it is EXACTLY THAT person, who may be the one needing at some point to find more information on the Subject in which they're not familiar; We personally source wiki on what we do not know ;-)

Defaulted to more generic term Talent Executive at one point,as the listing of titles seemed excessive though thorough and more accurate note:previous versions included a DJ who is in no way related, also a fortune 500 member, fairly common name.

Subject is a well known industry Producer, Manager, philanthropist and Agent; Artists include Celine Dion, Jennifer Holliday C+C music Factory (most #1 dance hits guiness book world records) Amber, Ultra Nate, Currently President Atlantic Entertainment Group Clients include: Trump organozation, Paris Casino, Hilton Organization Created and initiated a common industry practiced known as "Shermanated" when you cross over acts regardless of who represents them to increase the turnout which has had marquees with Rock , impersonators, and jazz.

increased awareness to aids benefits by signing top entertainment legends to benefits

Involved in bringing Tony Bennett to MTV recharging Bennetts career brought the first pop and dance tour to Russia including boy bands, pop stars, and not only large venues, but to the "people' club tours.

Duke University graduate several industry awards, Grammy Award voter

Seems a significant pedigree and anyone researching the industry, events, dance or pop music would run across his name,

KathyStarburster 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where do I identify as a Welsh trainspotter? You seem to have me confused with someone else. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, respectfully, YOU have confused yourself with the subject of that posting: GWERNOL posted the article for deletion in the manner stated above, so the defensive posture was completely unwarranted. Your personal page identifies with "nada" except spanish language and is completely void of any information, combined with the intense knee jerk "research" below ( ie. using the info to attack and dismiss rather than verify, very telling. Felice navidad Starburster 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is partially yours, Starburster - looking at the article history, Gwernol never tried to delete your article. He did some work on it, and then tagged it with the "notability" tag - which is certainly an expression of doubt in the article's notability, but doesn't lead directly to deletion. --Brianyoumans 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the references with links provided is about Sherman. The rest are unverifiable claims. Akihabara 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akihabara. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This man doesn't seem to work in the kind of field where having a successful carreer is enough to be Included in Wikipedia on its own. Unless there are multiple independent sources writing about him (more than just mentioning his name in passing) there's not enough to build a good article on. BCoates 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think things are as bad as Akihabara says - I found small references to Sherman in the links provided - but I'm not seeing much about this guy online. Searching on "Tony Bennett" and "Scott Sherman", for instance, doesn't bring up anything about Sherman reviving Bennett's career, and I would have thought that would be big news. This guy may be a legend in the industry, but he doesn't seem to have any buzz outside it. Trivia: looking back in the history, it is obvious that this article started out as an article on an entirely different Scott Sherman, and then was hijacked at some point. --Brianyoumans 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said "is about" not "mentions". Generally speaking notability in Wikipedia policy requires being the subject of the article. I do not dispute Sherman was mentioned. I assert those mentions are an aside and essentially of no import. Akihabara 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put that way, yes, I completely agree with you. He is mentioned in passing in these references. --Brianyoumans 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Something very telling. Based upon this version of the article I looked up '"Atlantic Entertainment Group" "scott sherman"', and, lo and behold, if you remove the two Wikipedia pages which come up, the only hit is for this MySpace page, in which Mr. Sherman's email address turns out to be an aol account. Hardly the likely address of a famous entertainment executive. And the Atlantic Entertaiment Group's page is another MySpace page. How ... odd. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he actually does represent Deborah Cooper; the other celebrities... I suspect he either worked for an agency as an underling, or just goes to Those Sorts of Parties; if you are in the entertainment industry and are willing to pony up money to go to a charity bash, you can get your picture taken with people. I'm still for deleting the article. --Brianyoumans 09:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverifiable nn bio. Sarah Ewart 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Robertissimo 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the so-called references seem acceptable to me as per [[WP:N} therefore notability hasn't been established. Ccscott 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability of his own is shown in the references, a number of which seem to be duplicated. Nuttah68 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* looking at the myspace page which is indentified as his personal page; plus the record labels page centaurmusic.com does confirm his identity and relationship to C&C Music factory & Deborah Cooper. some refs were not specific, centaur was, society singers, was, Brianyoumans comments: idk just ponying up money will get those kinda pix..lol but even then. Maybe it just the lack of contributers or poor referencing. My2Cents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.240.227 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Your Name

nn EP from artist up for afd -- Ben (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though I think we should wait until the related afd is closed (as delete). MER-C 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. I only didn't nominate it myself because I wasn't entirely sure that no one else would have heard of it. It looked slightly more reputable than her books (but not much). Deb 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote that the article is appropriate, although it was overtly subjective. I made a few adjustments to the article myself because the album and this artist has had some notoriety. The status of her book, however, I agree is not abundantly clear.≈derekwolfe 12:40, 19 December 2006
- Correction: her book has been nominated for 2 IPPY Awards. ≈derekwolfe 10:29, 20 December 2006

The book has an Amazon sales rating of #2,294,295 - not that great, is it? Deb 11:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the artist was deleted. --Wizardman 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeternum

Doesn't appear to be notable at all; all the info appears to come from the band's site -K37 05:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per k34 FirefoxMan 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not want - vanity. Milto LOL pia 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete notability asserted but not proven. Dakota 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Sandhu

Moved from speedy, since the article asserts notability. Non-notable (hence, unverifiable) article about the subject, who does not appear to have achieved any particular success as a comedian. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 07:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or demonstrate notability Alf photoman 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Subwayguy 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrKiernan 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kishwaukee Bible Church

Delete This church has no notable or verifiable information. It is not historical in any context. It fails every category per WP:CHURCH. --Адам Райли ^Talk 05:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spammy too, since written in the first person. MER-C 07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MER-C. NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per failure to meet WP:CHURCH. Edison 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Agreed, non-notable, but is possibly a part of someone using AfD to make a WP:POINT. Pastordavid 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure what previous editor meant about WP:POINT, could you explain please? Jefferson Anderson 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as pretty comprehensively established below, the D-cup threshold is entirely arbitrary (and porn industry vital statistics are not reliable anyway). Guy (Help!) 11:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts

Missy1234 tried to nominate this article for deletion but didn't format/complete the nom correctly. I make no suggestion as to its dispostion. Note: Previous AfD resulted in No Consensus. Her reason given on the article's talk page:

I have nominated this article for deletion. it is disgusting and i think it should be deleted Missy1234 23:46, 15 December 2006

Valrith 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missy1234 later posted a changed reason for the nomination on the talk page. I have pasted it here.

My changed reason is that it is inappropriate. There should instead be a list of Playboy Playmates. Sorry about the bad format, never nominated something before.Missy1234 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missy with all due respect, being disgusting is not a deletion criteria, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, this seems pretty silly and highly arbitrary, the precident set in "famous people with red (black, ect) hair" seems to apply here, that if you group all possible groupings of people then you could have literally billions of meaniningless lists. Being a playboy playmate might make breast size more cogent, but breast size is not an important factor of a person anymore than haircolor or anything. I couldn't see anyone making a "list of playboy playmates with blue eyes" or that being acceptable as encyclopedic material. Just say no to listcruft. Wintermut3 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, this seems too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. MER-C 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NON ARGUMENT: see my rationales below. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per Wintermut3. However, it has to be said this list is remarkable in that every entry has an existing wikiarticle. Weak keep per BCoates' argument. Akihabara 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a coincidence; WP:PORNBIO states that all Playboy Playmates meet notability. Keep because: The original reason for nomination is invalid; This can't be converted to a category without messing up the organization (though it should probably be chronological than alpha-by-decade); While it may or may not be true that "breast size is not an important factor in a person", it's certainly more relevant to one's career as a porn star than eye or hair color. BCoates 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wintermut3. It is this kind of arbitrary listcruft that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not this weeks issue of Teen Boy Fantasies. MartinDK 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, what encyclopaedia worth its salt would include this article? Delete it. Sam Blacketer 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's similar to another article List of big-bust models and performers. There are objective standards. Also, these women constitute many of Playboy's more notable models. Dismas|^(talk) 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how do you distinguish the notable playmates from the non-notable playmates given that we already established above that playmates are inherently notable. We already keep a list of playmates for that very reason, this is just listcruft derived from that list. MartinDK 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to trivial. A list of all Playmates would be more acceptable. Koweja 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- how is this trivial? playmates are certainly notable and the statistics are verifiable per playboy's all data. Also, breast fetishism is a notable fetish. Why is a list that addresses the topic of breast fetishism in the context of (arguably) the most well-known group of adult models so trivial? Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally, I think a list a Playmates would be preferable in tabular form with measurements. If that were permitted I would not oppose deleting this list. However, The closest that is acceptable is monthly List of people in Playboy by decade. On the talk pages at Playboy Online and associated pages and in my undeletion campaign for such pages I compared these monthly Playmate of the Month and Cyber Girl of the Month winners to athletes who win Player of the Month. I note that it is not currently WP convention to have articles for such monthly winners. Thus, we do not have Player of the Month articles for 3.5 of the 4 major sports (baseball lists half player of the month, but not pitcher of the month). However, baseball has been able to get articles that are equally odd Home_runs#Single_game_or_season_achievements instead. This list is not different than what is convention in an atmosphere where we do not allow the monthly awardees their own articles. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What was wrong with the prior deletion attempt other than that it was unsuccessful. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe disgusting isnt a reason, but it is inappropriate to have a list on here even if wikipedia doesn't have censorship. A list of playboy playmates would be more acceptable, like another user said.Missy1234 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234[reply]

Comment: ANOTHER NON ARGUMENTInappropriate is also not a reason. Notability and veriiability, my dear friend. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go to the Playmate article and you will find links to perfectly fine lists of playmates. Like I said this is just listcruft derived from those lists and articles. What is next? List of male porn actors by penis size? MartinDK 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment this "penis size" argument is kind of weak. if there was some extremely notable magazine that, since the 1950s, had been taking nude photos of males and for most of that time had including statistics including the length of their penis, such a list probably would be notable and verifiable. however, there is no such magazine, so the situation you describe is hardly analogous. on the other hand, if you wanted to create a list of male porn stars known for their large penises (i am sure there are some, though I know little about the subject), then you would be creating a list analogous to List of big-bust models and performers, which seems to enjoy stronger consensus for remaining on wikipedia than the article we are discussing here. So, in a narrow sense, your hypotheticsl list has no relation to the instant case because there is no analogous publication and, in a broader sense, wikipedia consensus seems to support creating a penis list such as you seem to find so absurd. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for breast size of persons in list. Some have no mention of cup size in articles. Edison 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most of these models do have cup size data provided by playboy. If some of them do not (and are thus not verifiable), the solution is to delete those models with unverifiable breast sizes, not to delete the entire list. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Why just D-cup should be notable?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the list is a bit icky (as would a list of male performers with an endowment above a particular length) but that in itself is not reason for deletion. Notability, verifiability and cruftiness are. As others have noted, all Playboy Playmates are inherently notable. Having larger or smaller breasts than some arbitrarily-chosen size (why D? Why not C or DD or F or some other size?) doesn't make them extra-notable. This differes from the List of big-bust models and performers because that list is performers by genre. That in itself may also be problematic; I don't know what consensus is on model by genre. Regardless, the two aren't comparable. Verifiability is an issue. As noted, not all of the articles have sizes listed. Including a model with large breasts without independent verification, based on looking at them or whatever, veers into OR territory. And this is fetishcruft. We've recently gotten rid of the fetishy lists of tall women and women with long hair. This is a more commonplace fetish or interest but it's still cruft. Otto4711 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft does not make me horny. Moreschi 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENTsimply mentioning listcruft does not an argument make. What is your argument (eg something rooted in ntoability / verifiability perhaps?) for deleting this article? 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep --- when dealing with a list of people as long as all playmates, subcategorization is useful. Also, sorry to break it to you, but in the world of adult photos, breast size is a distinguishign characteristic (as evidenced by the long term survival of the more general list of big breast porn stars). Also, there is utility to sorting adult entertainers according to breast size because breast fetishism is a very real part of human sexuality. As for the arbitrariness of "D" cup, plese see the long discussion about this that on the page talk -- this was a consensus that derived from people wanting objective standards (more specific than "big breast"). Any time we use categories on wikipedia that use bright line objective standards there is sure to be a bit of apparent arbitrariness along the edges of those lines. This is precisely why consensus is important, and in this case the consensus is that breasts become notably large at "D". If you disagree with this consensus, challenge the cut off. Interestingstuffadder 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If breast size is such an important characteristic then where are the lists for A-cup, B-cup and C-cup Playmates? Why are only Playmates so lisified by cup size and no other women? As for the supposed consensus that formed around the issue, the "long discussion" was one editor who suggested it and another editor who suggested using the word "large" instead of "big." That hardly speaks to a thought out consensus process. And neither of them even moved the article to the current title anyway. That happened two months after the "discussion." And I acknowledged that big breast fetishism is part of human sexuality. Lots of things that are part of human sexuality that don't merit Wikipedia articles. Arbitrary, non-notable, unverified cruft. Otto4711 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When has the lack of one list justified the deletion of another? No A cup list, so delete the D cup + one seems a bit strange to me Charlam 00 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd better nominate List of big-bust models and performers for deletion as well. Also, I would like to see you explain how this is so different from the ad nauseum listings of athletes by various statistics, etc. It seems clear that if this was about RBI or ERA rather than large breasts there would be little issue here. Censorship comes in many forms...Interestingstuffadder 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boo hoo, my big tittie list is up for deletion, I better cry "censorship" and see if I can get that shit to stick. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for that at all. As I already said if you'd bothered to read it, I see a difference between this list and the list of big bust models and performers because the latter is performer by genre and this isn't. As I also said, the big bust performers list may very well be problematic because of its being performer by genre, I don't know what the consensus is on that. If it concerns you that this is nominated and the other isn't, I'll go nominate it right now. As for whether an RBI or an ERA article would pass Afd, that's completely irrelevant and you know it (or you ought to). Articles stand and fall on their own merits, not whether another article exists or not. Otto4711 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...maybe you should have a look at wikipedia:civility and stop it with the personal attacks. My tone has been civil at every step. I am an experienced user with loads of good faith edits. I have provided justifications for my positions which are of the same ilk as plenty of arguments I have seen on other deletion debates -- there is nothing particularly unusual or blameworthy about them. Hopefully in the future your actions will be more in line with the spirit of collegiality that is so important to a successful wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, condescending comments like "sorry to break it to you" and accusations of censorship are so in the Wikipedia spirit. I don't take kindly to people doing the smiling mamba routine, especially when they retreat behind the skirts of Mother Civility when they're called out on it. Otto4711 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to be condescending with "sorry to break it to you" -- I aplologize if it came off that way. And, yes, I do think that there is some risk of censorship re wikipedia articles related to risque topics. I am sorry, but I simply dont believe this debate would be getting so much attention if it were about artichokes or hitting statistics; I don't quite see what is uncivil about that. And I also don't appreciate the accusation of being engaged in a "smiling mamba" routine. Where is your evidence for this? I simply have an opinion that disagrees with your own. I presented pretty standard-issue wikipedia arguments to support this opinion. Although you chose to focus on my raising the possibility of censorship, which I stand behind, most of my vote dealt with the difficulty of setting objective standards (as any specific cut-off line can seem arbitrary). I also talked about the usefulness of subcategorizing large groups and made reference to the phneomenon of breast fetishism as a justification for this list. Again, while you might not agree with them, can you please tell me how these are not standard-issue, fairly non offensive arguments of the same ilk as one sees all over wikipedia? Again, I apologize if my initial tone may have been a bit snappy, but it bothers me that you insist on attacking and attempting to discredit a "vote" (and I know it is not really that) that contains at least three arguments that a reasonable person would likely call legitimite (even if such a person did not agree with them). Interestingstuffadder 15:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for any perception of my remarks as inappropraite or an attack on the person as oposed to the (perceived) attitude. Rather than clutter up this nom any further, if you want to continue to discuss this we can move it to your or my talk page. Otto4711 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One word: cruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- why is this cruft? please expand. As it stands you have provided no substantive argument for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pathetic listcruft. — coelacan talk — 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENT How is this cruft? see my response to similar votes above. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT Nowhere in wikipedia inclusion guidelines do I see anyting about whether content will cause people to make jokes about wikipedia. Nor do I see anythign about wikipedia serving only what this user considers to be "legitimate" needs. "Cruft" inc coclusory and contains no real argument. This being "puerile" is not a valid basis for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, over-specific listcruft. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines do I see "overly specific" as a basis for deletion. notability and verifiability, my friend. Also, "listcruft" alone is ocnclusory and is no real argument. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"over-specific" is an argument because it makes it a not-particularly useful list (for anything other than hunting down particular editions of a certain magazine). I can imagine someone genuinely wanting to find information on models with large breasts, on on playboy playmates, but not the combination. It's like having a list of fictional detectives from Belgium; Fictional detectives, yes, Fictional Belgians, yes, but the combination is unnecessary, even if some articles fall into both categories. FiggyBee 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Nothing to do with the nomination by User:Missy1234, objectionable content is not justification for deletion. wtfunkymonkey 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- please explain why this is listcruft. As it is, your argument is extremely conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are already list of big bust models and a list of Playboy Playmates. TJ Spyke 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment why is this a rationale for deletion? the big bust models list is actually for porn stars, not playboy-style models, so the playmates wouldnt make it on that list anyway. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TJ, subjective, and uneyclopedic. Yanksox 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT: how is this subjective when most of these playmates have data sheets including their bust size? why dont you just remove the playmates who do not have data sheets but are still included, thus removing the parts of this article that are subjective, rather than advocating deleiton of the entire thing. and "unencyclopedic" is conclusory. how is this unencycolopedic? it is certainly notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much - crz crztalk 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines is "too much" listed as a valid criteria for deletion. What does this even mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly trivial. -- Kicking222 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- how is this overly trivial? this is a subset of the best known grouping of american adult models listed by a characteristic that a lot of folks who are interested in looking at adult models (a huge industry in dollar terms) care about (see also breast fetishism. conclusory argument. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate calling things cruft, so I won't, it is a fairly trivial list that serves no encyclopaedic purpose at all. †he Bread 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: see my arguments above regarding accusations of triviality. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of big-bust models and performers is fine, since big-bust modeling is a genre of its own (like it or not) - but this is merely a list over an arbitrary attribute. (Even if it's apparently not that disgusting, judging from an unusual abundance of votes...) GregorB 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a corresponding List of Playboy models with A-cup or smaller breasts ? (note I said model and not playmate) If this is kept, perhaps it should be split into cup sizes? 132.205.93.88 03:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect List of Playboy Playmates with A-cup or smaller breasts would be an extremely short article. Fan-1967 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&comment how is this an "arbitrary attribute". see breast fetishism. Also, do you seriously deny that a particulary notable characteristic of playmates to people who look at them (a large slice of the population) is their breasts? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, who needs this. Testikayttaja 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- "who needs this" provides absolutely no basis for removing this material. what does this mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that even Playboy themselves note their bustier Playmates with special editions (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) I don't see an issue with Wikipedia categorizing them as such either Charlam 00 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see that D-cups are exceptional or noteworthy among this population. Fan-1967 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- if you look at playmates over the years, a minority have breasts that meet this threshold, as evidenced by statistics compiled from playmate datasheets, which are available here: [20]. And if you really think D cup is too small to be noteworthy, why not propose changing the criteria to DD instead of proposing deletion. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Vital information for every 13-year-old lad who comes to read wikipedia. Otherwise useless trivia. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- oh, so wikipedia is too elitist to provide resources that might be useful to these 13 year olds and the likeminded? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - need help finding big breasts, don't take away this incredibly valuable resource. oops, I meant Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- NON ARGUMENT-- this flippant statement contains no argument based on valid wikipedia criteria. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Disgusting" is no reason for deletion. The criteria for the list are clearly defined: Playboy Playmate, D-cup or larger. According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Wikipedia is not censored. If one finds this subject "disgusting," one should not be searching on "Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts." Dekkappai 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic listcruft. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from Appropriate topics for lists, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletionists love to throw around unsubstantiated, subjective terms like "unmaintanable," and "listcruft" (or, even worse, "disgusting" and "puerile") rather than making a cogent argument as to why the deletion of a certain article would be a benefit to Wikipedia. "Listcruft is a term used by some editors to describe lists which they feel are indiscriminate, or of interest only to a very restricted number of people." The article: List of big-bust models and performers is the 16th most-viewed article in the project [21]. Clearly the subject is neither indiscriminate (the criteria for inclusion on the list are quite clearly spelled out, quite limited, and quite verifiable), and clearly the subject is useful and of interest to a lot of people. Also, clearly, in a subject like this, some people are going to object strongly, and either openly call it "disgusting," or use more acceptable terms like "listcruft," whether they apply or not. Again, because one group of people disapproves of the subject this is no reason for deletion. This is a subject on which it is hard to find an objective, non-commercial, sourced reference. As long as the list is arranged in an informative way (this one is), and is sourced (this one is), this is exactly the kind of subject in which Wikipedia has an advantage over traditional, print encyclopedias. Dekkappai 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page. This article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ and lack of reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable resource for those with interest in the topic. also a well-maintained and frequently updated page. being "disgusting" is purely subjective and is not a valid criteria for deletion. i might find the KKK article distasteful, but i wouldn't want to delete it for just that reason. --Hexvoodoo 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that a list of free porn sites would also be a "valuable resource for those interested in the topic", but that doesn't make it worthy of being on Wikipedia. The difference between the KKK article and this is that the KKK article is not cruft that exists solely for 13 year olds. There are plenty of websites on the internet where you could put a list of big-breasted Playmates. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Also, the original nomination criterion may not be valid but that does not mean the page doesn't warrant deletion. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, some people will find this list useful. Wikipedia should not go around deleting articles because certain users are offended. Vidor 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above poster that many users will find this list useful. Actually, given the popularity of the general busty porn star list, I imagine this will turh out to be one of our more-used lists. Wikipedia has quite a bit of coverage of adult performers. This is perhaps because adult entertainment is (dollar wise) a huge chunk of the entertainment industry, which indicates that there are a lot of consumers out there. Playboy playmates are arguably the best known specific grouping of adult entertainers. If this is an area of widespread interest (it is) and we have a large amount information to be sorted (we do in the long list of playmates), it makes sense to sort it in a manner that is useful to its users ... and since breasts are the first thing most users look at on a playmate (and big breasts are a feature that many consumers fetishize), this does not seem like an irrational categoriization. Captaintruth 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone saying "Keep" on the basis of how useful the list may be: The issue is not how "useful" the information is. The issue is whether the list is notable and whether the list is verifiable through multiple reliable independent sources. Otto4711 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This switch of the reason for deleting the article, after nomination, from "disgusting" to "useless to anyone but 'horny teenagers,'" is not only dishonest, and another intellectually lazy non-reason, it is bigoted. Has anyone asked for proof that this appeals only to "horny teens." Or why it's OK to delete an article because it appeals to "horny teens?" This line of reasoning is a cousin to banning Spanish because it's of no use to us, only to-- eeeewwww-- foreigners. And who needs information on Islam, since it's only of interest to heathens? Arguments of this sort (we don't want to see it, so it's not useful) are despicable and fundamentally against the principles of Intellectual freedom which Wikipedia claims to espouse. "Ah," but the deletionists will counter, "those articles aren't listcruft. Well, neither is this one, by the definition Wikipedia gives. At best, this impulse to ban other users from obtaining information on subjects of which the banner disapproves stems from the sort of misguided prudish elitist do-goodism that kept Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the Oz series out of the reach of children in libraries for decades. These books were too popular. Kids liked them too much, so they had to be be garbage which would rot young minds. At worst-- and this is the argument I am seeing here-- this impulse to ban stems from outright bigotry and intellectual dishonesty. Now we have people proposing deleting the article on grounds of notability. Apparently applying the label of "horny teenagers" to defenders of this list is meant to other bully editors from stating some very obvious facts: 1) Playboy is more than just a very popular, long-running magazine. It has become an institution unto itself. Lists on this subject are useful to those many, and various types of people with interest in Playboy. 2) The Playboy Playmate is central to its popularity. Merely appearing as a Playmate once passes a model of notability requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). 3) And-- avert thine eyes here, o ye faint of heart-- breasts and their size are central to the popularity of the Playmate, so a list on the subject is entirely appropriate. And then we come to another bogus claim beloved of deletionists: unverifiable. Exactly how is this unverifiable? If you mean it is not yet properly sourced, that can be remedied. But saying it is impossible to source it is an absurd claim. To those who think they are elevating Wikipedia by attempting to cleanse it of everything a traditional encyclopedia does not cover, I think history will prove you even more wrong than the librarians who banned Burroughs and Baum. They at least had the justification of limited shelf-space for their book-banning. You do not. Wikipedia's strength is in covering non-traditional subjects exactly like this one, on which it is difficult, if not impossible, to find reliable, unbiased, objective, non-commercial resources. Those who seek to purge Wikipedia of subjects like these are harming Wikipedia, not improving it. Dekkappai 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. This is being driven by people who are morally offended by the existence of the article. And moral offense is not a valid reason to delete the article. And it most certainly is verifiable--the Playboy data sheets that come with this issue are a source of info dating back decades. Vidor 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I'm not that familiar with the subject material, but aren't D-cup or larger kind of routine? I mean, if you created two lists of Playmates, one D or larger, and one C or smaller, wouldn't this list have most of them? Fan-1967 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate is being increasingly full of argumentum ad hominem, particularly on the part of Dekkappai. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a personal attack. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Wikipedia too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In scrolling through the 12 playmates for 1999, I find four listed as D or DD, only two of whom are in this list. It seems the list is selective or incomplete. A category wouldn't be. Fan-1967 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed! Vidor 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you just fix 1999, or did you review all fifty years? A category would be self-maintaining on an ongoing basis. Fan-1967 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I promise to check the list against Wikipedia's individual Playmate articles and update accordingly. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Vidor 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But I still haven't seen any argument to maintain this as a list rather than a category. What does a list (requiring separate maintenance) give us that a category wouldn't? Fan-1967 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that this list is incomplete or could be better referenced in some places is hardly grounds for deletion -- how about we slap on a clean-up tag and let that collaboration that makes wikipedia work so well fix up this article...although you make an interesting point about the advantages of a category. I would support creating a category if this list does not survive the deletion debate. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tits. Herostratus 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENTThis is not a valid rationale for deletion. If it is notable and verifiable, it does not matter if it is about tits. Interestingstuffadder 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments in favor of keeping. Notable and verifiable. Most arguments for deleting this list dont seem to say much substantively. Quepasahombre 05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BCoates and Vidor. qwm 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made enough comments here, and see that this is getting into argument for argument's sake (i.e., labeling users of this list "horny 13-year-olds," and then accusing others of instigating Ad hominem arguments). However, I'd like to point out that the link that Interestingstuffadder provides will be very useful in cleaning up the list and adding more info to it if it should survive. I'm in the middle of a large project at the moment and see no point in taking time to work on this list when it is in danger of deletion. But should the list survive, and if no one else will, I would be willing to take time to do that work. Dekkappai 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a freshman in high school, and as a female, i think that the article i nominated is a sexist page. I think it is very immature for everyone to get into arguments on the articles for deletion page.Missy1234 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234[reply]

Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- being "sexist" is listed nowhere as a valid rationale for deletion on wikipedia. And I fail to see what is immature about defending an article that meets wikipedia standards for inclusion, especially when there is some evidence (see the very comment to which I am responding, made by the nom herself) that the quest to have this article deleted has been motivated to at least some extent by a desire to censor wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP
- Comment Could you be more specific? And possibly discover the joy of signing your posts? MartinDK 12:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete over-specific and unnecessary listcruft. In other words, this list adds nothing useful to the general playmates list and does not describe a notable category. Therefore it should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG & SPEEDY KEEP. Most of the arguments above in favor of delete are, I must say, as strange as strange goes. And, if I may make an excuse to be crass - These delete arguments are disgusting. They are:

This list is a list. What? Are you guys gone completely ... (fill in a synonym for mentally challenged)? A list is supposed to be a list, for God's sake.
This list is trivial. So, from when Playmate breast sizes have gone trivial? People are continously repeating - trivial, trivial, trivial... - without convincingly explainign why it's trivial. Is this one of those Fascist Propaganda techniques that says - repeat something enough times to make it a fact?
Wikipedia is no place for a list like this. Please, check out the essay on what Wikipedia is not before you start adding these comments. I guess, you'll find out faster that Wikipedia is nom place for such ... (fill in another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments.
This is useful only to horny 13 year old kids. Good. So, are you starting a debate on usefulness of the articles? Should we delete articles that are useful mostly to science graduates, or Malaysians, or Orthodox Christians? I hope you guys have run a research to find out that big-breasted Playmates sell more to horny 13 year olf kids or something like that.
This should be merged with Playboy and/or List of big-busted models. OK. But, that's an argument for merge, not delete. Please, learn to argue right before you propose something as drastic as a deletion, especially when there are plenty good argument against it (see above).
This list is unverified/ incomplete. Just slap a {{Cleanup}} or {{unsourced}} notice there. It's easy, and less drastic. Why talk of deletion at this point?
This is sexist. Most right. But, to hold this argument valid we should also be taking long hard look at all other sexist articles and lists and categories, like big-busted models, female pornstars, Playboy Playmates and a lot more. Check the porn portal, fight against all those model articles that carry info on their body measurement, and may be rewrite the Playboy article to read like:

Playboy is a sexist American mgazine, founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, who is identified by feminist acitvists and a number humanist groups as a prime anti-woman influence, and his associates, mostly made up of porn-industry henchmen. It has grown into Playboy Enterprises Inc. and is one of the world's leading system of demeaning women

Anyways, jokes apart (though I enjoyed rewriting the Playboy article) - the ground for deletion should be notability, neautrality and verifiability, not opinions like - "It's useless", "It's disgusting" or may be "God will strike you down for having such filthy things in here". The previous deletion discussion about the list (which was titled - List of big-busted Playboy Playmates) was about these three things, not there moral or use value. Can we just stick to logical arguments, instead of proving our moral superiority? Repeating again like the ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments above: This discussion is disgusting.

Let me just one of those arguments, spread over half a dozen comments here, posted by User:Maelin, will be good exercise to press the point that this is disgusting.

His last comment was:This debate is being increasingly full of argumentum ad hominem, particularly on the part of Dekkappai. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a personal attack. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Wikipedia too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It does not belong on Wikipedia.

Now, please, read this comment in light of his other comments.

His verdict was Delete and his reason was: This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile.

One of his ocmemnts was: We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page. This article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Wikipedia.

Another of his comments was: The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic listcruft. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from Appropriate topics for lists, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.'

He also provided a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks which categorically negated his point(s). Jumping to conclusions is easy, research is not.

I guess, if someone makes a slander at you and says, it was not personal, the wise thing to do id taking it extremely personally. Once again - These nay-sayers are disgusting. Tow more points I must raise:

Some Wikipedians here are discussing a vote. Please, understand that WP is not a democracy as voting goes (this comes from Jimmy Wales himself). We are expressing opinions here, not voting. Otherwise, all of you would have been barred from giving your vote twice or more times.
Some has also raised questions about the integrity of WP as an encyclopedia. I would suggest that they read the essay on why Wikipedia is so great, and take a notice of the term Free Encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia.

Good luck to all. Keep fighting, but Keep. I'd propose to all those who'd like to say Delete - please, read whatever Interestingstuffadder and Dekkappai has written here. If you have valid argument against those comments go forward, if you don't, please, take your zealotry somewhere else, and save us the pain. - Aditya Kabir 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has gone on long enough. Could an admin please close this AfD? In light of the raging personal attacks above I frankly don't care about the result anymore. Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right made me realize that it just isn't worth it. Congratulations, you managed to not only prove my point about Wikipedia but to do so in such a thorough and powerful way. Thanks to Interestingstuffadder for asking you on your talk page to come here. A new low point in the history of Wikipedia. MartinDK 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the points made in that well written post were rational arguments based on well established wikipedia rationales. Far from being personal attacks, they pointed out the numerous personal attacks that have been made by editors wanting to delete this article. Thus, I don't see why you are so worked up by them. I also don't see why an admin should close this debate, as it is still attracting new input. Finally, I freely admit to asking a few users who have been active in working on this list and who were active in the previous deletion debate to come here. They have demonstrated a concern for this list in the past and, as such, it seemed like a reasonable courtesy to let them know about this discussion in case they were interested in contributing. I know you are trying to imply that this is some kind of ballot box stuffing, but given the specific users I targeted and the fact that the result has been a well-reasoned argument for keeping the list (as opposed to a conclusory vote providing no rationale such as "trivial", as most of the delete votes have been make it quite apparent that nothing inappropriate took place here. Interestingstuffadder 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see my talk page for a reply and a link to how my initial comment today should have been percieved. I am not saying you stack votes, that would be a serious personal attack. Your friend and I grossly misunderstood each other. MartinDK 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, User:MartinDK has a point which he has already pointed out on his talk page is response to my apologies for hurting the user's feelings. The user was basically poitning at ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) and ... is disgusting parts of my comment. I guess, I'll have to change my writing style to stop me from miscommunicating. Let me explain myself a bit:

The adjective disgusting was taken from the original poster of the deletion proposal. The technique of repeating the same adjective was taken from the the repeating of the trivial argument. And, the idea of directing it against the very discussion was taken from quite a few comments above. I am sorry that it didn't come through that way. But, I'm still happy that the consumate effect of mal-argument did come through, which is happening for most part here.
The other, mentally challenged, bit was written in a lighter vain. I reasoned that if I make offers to fill in the blanks, instead of writing words like idiocy, confused and/or making accusations of dishonesty, it would go down better. Clearly, it didn't work that way everyone.

It seems that MartinDK made the same comment on the integrity of WP in an earlier debate, and some other Wikipedian actually agreed to it, instead of quoting an essay on what makes Wikipedia so great. So there was reason for the user to get angry at a lack of understanding on my part. Thoough I still don't understand why he terms you as my friend, especially when his research should've shown otherwise.

Well, Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right... A new low point in the history of Wikipedia wasn't exactly a thoughtful comment free of personal attacks (which got the user angry by the user's own definition), but it surely can be excused in light of these things.

Just one more point for any more newbie who may join this discussion - please check the policy page Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as well as the article on Ad hominem - before you make accusations of personal attack. Throwing accusations like that casually can obfiscate the debate on hand (like it is doing now). - Aditya Kabir 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to read through all of the new comments interspersed willy-nilly with the older comments with no regard to chronology and my eyeballs exploded. This Afd is now 51 kb long, which is longer than most articles. You would think that this debate was about something that actually matters the way some people are carrying on. Otto4711 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, don't knock the importance of sex or boobs. Without them, none of us would be here. ;) Dekkappai 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Those in favor of delete are complaining about attacks, style and length more than those in favor of keep. Any explanation? - Aditya Kabir 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease quit fighting. This is not a page to tell me that I should nominate other articles. It is only here for everyone to post if they want to keep it or delete it and why. Dont get into pointless fights with people you dont know. It's not worth your time. Ever. Missy1234 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)missy1234[reply]

Comment: The hell with it. I don't care any more. Have your big tits list. What's one more porn resource on the internet, after all? It's obvious that most "keep" votes on this page are not driven by a desire to make WP a better encyclopedia, but rather by a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs. I'm yet to see any lists of Playmates of the other breast sizes, no doubt because those determined to keep and contribute to this list find Playmates with smaller busts not nearly as interesting. I'm also yet to see a good reason why we need this particular list when we already have over a dozen Playboy related lists, but it seems that even with the noble Boobpedia resource, as promoted by several of the "keep" voters, there just aren't enough tits lists on the net. Clearly this debate will go nowhere, because the vocal minority will continue to destroy the consensus of everyone else. So have your damn list. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs".----Yup. God bless the Internet. Vidor 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that this list is somewhat distasteful and I personally find it offensive and sexist. However, this does not mean that it should be deleted. Playboy playmates are inherently notable, and there is a precedent for subsorting adult entertainers by bust size. Also, the size of playmates' breasts is verifiable. For these, and the various other reasons provided above (I see no need to rehash other editors' comments within my own, but I am taking them into account in expressing my opinion), this article should be kept. Mister Nice Guy 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So we can change your "delete" to "keep," Maelin? By the way, I think your idea of creating lists on the Playmates with smaller busts is an excellent one too. My own area of specialization is more in the Asian category than the US/Playboy, but hopefully another editor will heed your advice. Regards. Dekkappai 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, something that would be easier with categories. Fan-1967 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very useful resource for those interested in both Playboy and large-busted models. --David Hain 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Playboy Playmates. If this is an important categorization criteria, I suggest dividing this page into sections, or noting this information next to the relavent entries. The principal reason for merge is to help individuals find the information they're looking for; the title of this article is something someone would be unlikely to enter. Tarinth 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quoted bust sizes are notoriously unreliable. I have no problem with the list as such but it has to go as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: playboy provides this data for its own playmates. how is this not a sufficiently reliable source? sure, some playmates on the list do not have complete data sheets that include bust size -- the solution is to remove those unsourced playmates, not to remove the entire list. thus, this argument is really an argument for cleaning the argument up, not for deleting it. Interestingstuffadder 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CLS, this is something that should be categorized (at best) and not listed. There are no annotations, no non-article list items, all items are alphabetically sortable, list topic is redundant with some categories already available, poor precedent for alternate lists of similar topics (i.e., "do we justify lists for Playmates with C-cups, Hustler girls with every cup size, Bigguns with little'uns, etc?"), and finally, the list is founded on the WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation that "big breasts" must be D-cup or larger and that the resulting list is Playmates with "big breasts". ju66l3r 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position changed to delete. It seems I got carried away by the non-argument of most nay-sayers. But, it seems the list has not established verifiability, notability or neutrality all that firmly. The D up threshold is pretty arbitrary, and the information sources pretty outdated. And, over and above all that, someone really needs to establish why a list of big-busted Playmates is notable, and that with appropriate references, not just gut-feel or heresay. P.S. It's about tits - argument is still unacceptable. P.P.S. Sorry about my last comment, it was not posted with a good intention. - Aditya Kabir 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Park Baptist Church

DeleteNon notable, non verifiable information per WP:CHURCH. There is no information that this church has a historical significance, either. --Адам Райли ^Talk 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of or sources for notability and per failure to meet WP:CHURCH.Edison 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Pastordavid 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge link into Fresno, California. Delete the rest. Just H 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jay(Reply) 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedens Lutheran Church

Delete not notable, not verifiable per WP:CHURCH. --Адам Райли ^Talk 06:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 150 years is pretty old for a church in Wisconsin, and if members searched the newspaper clip files at the local historical society, or the historical files at the denomination's archives, they might just find enough material to write an interesting article and to show notability. But for now, this is just a stub with no claim of notability. Edison 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly delete A church celebrating 150 years of existence should be notable, but the editors of this article failed to show any. WVhybrid 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A church of that age, in wisconsin, is notable. I agree that the article is a stub, but the originators (or anyone else) need an opportunity to improve. Seems to be part of a WP:POINT about churches. Pastordavid 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WP:CHURCH has no agreed policy. --Doc^g 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, will reconsider if article is improved. Dr Zak 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you guys are only deleting it because it's a stub, then it's not really your place to be trying to delete the article. Granted, I vote delete since it's not-notable, NOT becuase it's a stub. --Wizardman 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Presbyterian Church

Delete Per WP:CHURCH, not notable or verifiable. Wikipedia is not a directory listing. Адам Райли ^Talk 06:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a very average church. Nothing to meet WP:CHURCH. Edison 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this article appears to not meet notablility standards, the nomination appears to be a part of a WP:Point about churches. Pastordavid 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of churches. Jefferson Anderson 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward Park Baptist Church}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedens Lutheran Church}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Presbyterian Church}}