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

The result was: obviously and unfortunately no consensus. Cleanup or merge would seem to be good compromise choices. - Yomangani ^talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Dragon Ball special abilities and others

• A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Western culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the East, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge.
  • Comment Uh... what? Knowledge is power? Test your might? What the hell was that? Danny Lilithborne 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Reply I think someone's practicing their abilities at emotional rhetoric. Maybe they plan a future career in politics? -- tjstrf 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks as a precidence, I declare that this attack list is fancruft and should be deleted. To quote one of the users in that discussion: "Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face [note: in this case, it would be "blast someone in the face"]. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks?" This is even worse than the linked page, since several attacks in this show are very similar.

Similarly, having a page for one attack is just plain silly. Thus, the following will be deleted too.

• Kaio Ken
• Kamehameha (Dragon Ball)
• Genki Dama

Hydromasta231 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I am going to add this, don't just vote, add a full and valid oppinion; remember: voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. (By valid I mean give your oppinion on why you support your position.) ( Justyn 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)) reply

• Keep- The Kamehameha is a very important element in Dragon Ball and has enough information to keep it's own article. The attack list doesn't do any harm, and it helps readers understand more about what they're reading by giving a picture and description of each attack. I'd say these articles are pretty important, and this request is pretty rash. I also think it's interesting how your account is only 2 says old, and you have 7 edits (6 of which are creating this page and nominating said pages for deletion).-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep- It's possible that they are fancruft, but that alone doesn't warrant deletion (please read WP:CRUFT). These articles are well written and cited. They should stay. I find Koji's point regarding your account interesting as well. CPitt76 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep- Attack lists are perfectly valid to make articles about, and this is a well made one. For the record, I don't agree with the deletion you linked to either. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, there's no need to delete this attack list page. Why would you want to do that in the first place? Dragonball1986 09:46, 09 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Well, you see, it seems Hydromasta doesn't like attack lists and thinks they don't belong on Wikipedia (apparently, so do many other people, as seen in the articles for deletion linked), and is using the deletion of the One Piece attack list to delete the others. Sigmasonic X 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep- It IS encyclopedic in nature. My only question about it is whather it's supposed to be ALL of them or just techniques used more than once.-- Marhawkman 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's supossed to be all of them. But, as you can see, it's unfinished. Aperently nobody has time to list the ones that are missing, or not enough people can find the kanji/kana.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• To any mods (I believe that's who decides if the topics remain open or not), look at the link supplied in the first post for good arguements against attack lists. Hydromasta231 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Specifically, the arguement between Justyn and A Man in Black brings up several good points. Hydromasta231 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I read it. It's the same boring set of arguments that were posed in the articles for deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters. The designation of "cruft" hinges on it being UNIMPORTANT to the topic in general. This one doesn't fit that because of the nature of the show. The anime has the various special attacks and such things as the way of determining combat. Thus having a list of them is almost as important as having a list of races or characters.-- Marhawkman 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Clearly fancruft. Make a Dragon Ball Wiki (if there isn't one already) and post it there. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan's place for anything related to a certain thing. RobJ1981 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This article doesn't give an greater understanding of the series to laypeople. "It's useful" is not a argument; game guides, weather reports, and bios for unknown people are useful but not befitting of Wikipedia. It "doesn't do any harm" is an even stupider argument; it's the Internet. Of course it doesnt hurt anybody. No deleted article hurt anybody. Please provide some actual arguments, people. 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete, total lack of sources; this is just original research based on the show. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Author's first actions were to nominate this article for deletion, so I don't think this AfD is in good faith and should be closed. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Now hold on. He may be new, and I may not agree with him, but this is no different than what the creator of the linked AfD did, and he seems to be a regular and respected editor. A bit ruder perhaps, but his reasons seem to be intended to improve Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Charlesknight's first edit wasn't a congratulatory backpat followed by several AfD noms. My sarcasm sense is tingling like crazy. Danny Lilithborne 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In general, it seems that most of the ability stuff is better confined to the characters who use it. Centralized information in the character articles is far more useful. Also, over 40 "fair use" images in an article is most certainly pushing it... Wickethewok 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Why is a user coming onto Wikipedia to nominate articles for deletion and spam talk pages with advertisements about this discussion? An experienced user would have been told previously that spamming of talk pages in the manner that the nominator did, is looked down upon by the community in general. Ansell 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• To address your complaint, I have contacted the users for attack lists as well. Hydromasta231 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. I agree with the nominator, and in the One Piece Attacks AfD I agreed that these also qualify for deletion. JIP | Talk 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• comment It exists because this sort of thing was an important aspect of the anime. The One Peice anime doesn't have the same emphasis on what attacks you use, thus it should not be considered a valid precedent.-- Marhawkman 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Welllllll...I'm almost tempted to say keep the Kamehameha article, but no. Merge and redirect Kamehameha to Dragonball Z. Delete List of Dragon Ball special abilities with extreme prejudice, because it's listcruft. And yes, that is a valid reason for deletion. Why? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♠ P M C♠ 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is this page related to your quoted criteria, considering the criteria is a very limited set, and only refers to its status by saying that "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply" (emphasis added). If this page is more than simply a list, the criteria does not apply. Ansell 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • All right. Let me rephrase that. My vote is delete, because there is NO REASON whatsoever that this article needs to exist on its own. The information (such as it is) in this article could easily be trimmed and merged right back into the individual character articles. (How hard is it to mention something like "Vegeta's 'Big Bang attack' creates a large sphere of ki which is then launched at the opponent, leaving a mushroom cloud in its wake" in the main Vegeta article?) So. This article serves no purpose that could not be served elsewhere, thus delete. ♠ P M C♠ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I've seen pages like this before, I don't think this is fancruff at all. I think this is a good attempt at handling attacks that most other major manga and anime attack pages fail to do and it DOES contain useful infomation. Now I'm not a fan of the show (in fact I can't stand it!), normally I would oppose everything to do with DB because I'm somewhat baised, however this page is okay in my books. It may not get read very often (but there are other wikipedia pages that don't get very often too that are far less informatitive) because of what its about... But it is useful. I don't see a problem with this article.

  Plus a lot of this page is just common knowledge amongst the DB, DBZ and DBGT media. If you delete this, this might make the DBA wikipedia pages incomplete somewhat. I agree there is still room for improvments, for instance there are far too many pictures for moves as some of them cannot be summed up in one picture. As someone pointed , many of these moves are simulair.

  And... Even Superman has his own attacks page so to speak. Powers and abilities of Superman, although its more abilities then attack (just listing what he is capable of doing). Perhaps if this was more written towards like how this article is, would you allow it? I say, if this page is delete worthy at least let everyone working on it at least give everyone a chance to rethink it. Angel Emfrbl 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Ah, the flawed and ill-founded "It's just like Powers and abilities of Superman." argument again! Powers and abilities of Superman is a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article of Superman#Powers_and_abilities. To justify similar breakout articles for one particular facet of Dragon Ball characters on the same grounds, you would have to show that they, like Superman had individual articles on the individual characters that were so crowded that one had to break out the special abilities section, summary style, from the main article on the character. Looking at Vegeta#Techniques_and_special_abilities, that's clearly not the case. Indeed, the information on the attacks in the character article is longer than the information on the attacks in List of Dragon Ball special abilities. This is clearly nowhere near being summary style. You're going to have to find another argument. Uncle G 08:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • And for the love of God, STOP USING THE "IT'S USEFUL" ARGUMENT. Game guides are useful. Weather reports are useful. How-to guides are useful. Phone directories are useful. They still do not belong in Wikipedia. BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Even the Kamehameha, while perhaps an important concept in the series, does not need this much detail - the entire article could be boiled down into a single paragraph. Quite simply, this is an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki, and as such it is quite adequate to describe a character's most important abilities in that character's article, and only break them out if (like Superman) those characters and abilities are so culturally relevant that it is important to discuss them in more detail than there's room for in a single article.
  Note that this clearly doesn't apply to these abilities, because even references to Dragonball in other series tend to refer only to very general concepts like "powering up", not to specific attacks.
  As for the people above biting the nominator and assuming bad faith, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Note that it is necessary to create an account before one can nominate an article for deletion these days. It is quite plausible that the nominator is a long-term contributor who has not previously had any reason to create an account. — Haeleth Talk 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I would hardly classify the statements as biting any newcomer. Newcomers do not come straight onto Wikipedia to propose deletions, spam user talk pages, and generally try to make a point. If this were actually a new user, and not just a new username it may be correct to use WP:BITE as a reference. The statement I made did not assume any bad faith, it simply pointed out the behaviour, and its less than accepted way of going about it. Being a long-term contributor, they would know these things. Ansell 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment To delete or not seems to hinge on one thing: Is it encyclopedic? If you're going to do an encyclopedia article about DragonBall Z, then you're going to need to explain the various techniques and skills performed during the course of the show. Whether or not this takes the form of an itemized list is determined entirely by how detailed you make the article. IMO this article IS detailed enough to warrant a seperate list. As for "justification" I'd like to point out that there's only ONE article for all of the Dragonball characters.-- Marhawkman 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No. You don't have to explain the mass amount of "attacks" "He blasts him away with ki energy." "He blinds him with a ki skill." It's rather easy to explain without resorting to pointless names that only confuse the lay reader. Interrobamf 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually I find it to be the opposite. That sort of explanation is suited to a plot summary. However it's not well suited to an encyclopedic article. Besides, the names aren't pointless. Most of them are mentioned in the anime/manga as the name of the technique when it is shown being used.-- Marhawkman 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Hilarious how you refer to an "encyclopedic article", as a list of fictional attacks in a cartoon that's treated as if they were real isn't anywhere close to encyclopedic. I still fail to see how "Goku uses an Kalakamakma on Biggu Heado" is more encyclopedic than "Goku fires a blast of ki energy at Biggu Heado". Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It's an encyclopedic article about Dragonball Z in general. The attacks shown are as much a part of DBZ as the characters are. Leaving them out would result in an incomplete article.-- Marhawkman 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep it as well as the rest: Why the heck is this page being nominated for deletion and on the basis that the One Piece Attacks got deleted? The Dragonball pages are more professional looking than what was deleted plus these moves are more notable than the One Piece ones. Do not delete them because they are integral. They exist because they are part of this types of character. The way a fictional anime and manga character hits someone with a named attack can explain alot of the character. They explain what a character can do and can't do. They explains how far they are willing to go. They explain the character's creativity based on how they deliver the attack. They explain alot of the characters that words alone cannot summarized. You can't explain that in a summary like what the Superman page. The only way to convey that message is to list the attacks in some sort of manner. This is not cruft. In fact as quoted by the admin who deleted the One Piece article "One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term." In other words what is useless to one person is useful for another person. This page is worthless to somebody who doesn't like or even knows the show but it is useful to those who do. The One Piece Attacks deletion was a great lost to alot to the people who edited it. It made alot of people sad and angry. Did anyone think about those people who gave alot of sweat and blood for that page. Did anyone think of the long hours and research they tireless did. If you delete this page and others like them based on what really should be in a proper looking and real encyclopedia rather than a free source of information then you are alienating an entire community from wikipedia. You are alienating them all. You are alienting both editors and clients. I am saying all these because I was spammed by one for my opinion who's first post in Wikipedia was in the One Piece attack AFD discussion namely the guy who brought up these entire discussion. I am going a bit uncivil here and risking being blocked if not banned from Wikipedia but it is well worth it. I rather be blocked than edit in a place that alienates anime fans. CalicoD.Sparrow 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's the Internet. Get a grip. You might want to also refer to the notice below the editing box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Again, BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please do not use capitals, it is thought of as shouting, which can be seen as a personal attack. You can calmly discuss your point in a civil manner, or you can choose not to continue the discussion.
      • Then perhaps people should stop make the same useless argument. Which I don't see happening anytime soon with simple text. Interrobamf 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If the article is not popular, it will not survive. Thats about all there is to it. Two guidelines which spell out your entire predicament, if only in a totally ironic way, when you consider the effects of "common practice" and the fact that Wikipedia:Notability got into play purely based on AfD common practice. Ansell 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do not delete them because they are integral. Yeah, because the universe would explode without a Wikipedia article about the Makankosappo. Danny Lilithborne 11:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge I've considered this for a while and feel that it'd be best to make a single attack list and use it as a sort of reference for the other pages in the Dragonball article.-- Marhawkman 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment The Dragon Ball Character articles are already massive as it is; now you want us to copy all these attacks and ect. into them? The list is a conveinient and informative article. It isn't "fancruft" at all. It's just ifnormation about attacks used in the show. How are we supossed to write the Dragon Ball articles and expect somone who's never seen the show to understand it? I've seen that in every peer review, Rey Brujo mentions that the article needs to be understandable to somone who hasn't seen the show. That's what this article is. I really don't see what part of this article warrants deletion, and every DB article links to it.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is part of why I'm voting merge. With a list of attacks we can leave all the attack discription on the list and simply add relevent links to the character pages.-- Marhawkman 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep I really don't see how these are all that different from the One Piece Attacks page, they have all the same positive and negative aspects. Reading the closing admin's reasoning on that deletion debate, it seems the main reason the One Piece Attacks were deleted was a complete and total lack of cited sources external to the thing itself. This is a valid concern, and one I brought up in my keep "vote" there. This AFD bundles the attack list with 3 pages on individual attacks. The main attack list is a little better sourced than the One Piece one (but not much), but the other 3 have no sources cited at all. Any keep argument I can come up with would be essentially the same as the ones I made there; however I definately do see the vital importance of sources to Wikipedia's credibility. A lot of people would make an exception for fiction, but I'm not convinced that fiction should be an exception to the reliable sources rule. I do believe, however, that a lack of cited sources is a clean-up concern and not a reason for deletion. However, in instances where sources can never reasonably be expected to be found deletion may be an option. The difference between the main list here and the One Piece attacks list is that this one does cite 2 sources, whatever you may think of the quality of those sources. Therefore, by that reasoning it should be kept. The other three articles however, do not cite any sources (though I imagine they would be the same as the main article), and therefore should be merged into the main list and deleted (or sourced appropriately, including a source for the contention that they are more important then the other special abilities and deserve their own article). Hence, the weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and close: No one has actauly given any valid reasons for deletion, as such, this is not an issue, if you din't give a reason you don't have grounds, there is no grounds for deletion here. Let's send a message here:

"Fancruft" is not a reason for deletion, don't nominiate things for deletion because they are "fancruft".

( Justyn 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a valid article with no good reason to delete. Turnstep 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all: not just fancruft; nn, unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep the Dragonball series is known for its special abilities and unique attacks. This is really no different than lightsabers or Hadoken. If you really want sources, there are enough guides on Dragonball that you can find them. And while I'm trying to assume good faith, it is hard not to be aware that there are some concerns with the integrity of this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. The three individual attack articles are not just fancruft, they are also completely unsourced and are unverifiable. The list is full of Original research, there is no reason to see the attacks as anything other than non-notable cruft.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you mean they are unverifiable? If you look in various media about Dragonball (magazines, comics, video games), they describe many of the attacks outright. See for example the various books by Pojo. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

See the well-written comment below by A Man In Black. Anything from "direct observation" counts as original research and isn't usable. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which the list is a prime example of IMO.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So, if I watch a movie or a television show, and I note that a given star was in it, playing a given character, that is original research? Sorry, but no, that is not OR. Now concluding that a given star is making a comeback, or has hit rock-bottom, that would be. However, you don't seem to realize that I am talking about books and other media that are the ones who have done the observation of the Dragonball series, and as such, this content is clealry derived from that, so your first objection does not apply. To your second, well, I don't think it is a prime example of that, as this is all relevant information to the Dragonball series, which is itself a notable anime. If you think it's indiscriminate, please try to convince me without referring blindly to policies. FrozenPurpleCube 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, there are clearly verifiable facts in these articles. However, without a single source in any of the articles and just 2 external links to sites which may not be reliable, nothing is actually verified. I'd strongly suspect that a fair chunk of this is indeed OR and so unverifiable, if there are verifiable facts here - give a source so they can be verified. I feel it is indiscriminate in that it lists every attack, no matter how minor, the Kamehameha is important to Dragonball but can you really say that of the Gekiretsu Kōdan? My view is the stuff which should be said on these attacks would be best served in the other DB articles.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Gekiretsu Kodan doesn't have its own article. If you want to remove it from the collated one, I suggest you take it to that article's talk page. But since it is apparently used in some video games, presumably by name, perhaps someone with access to them, and their manuals can provide useful sources. I can't do it, as I'm not knowledgeable enough of Dragonball or Japanese to do it, I don't own any of the games, even the card game. Can others? Maybe. But an AfD like this one is unlikely to make it happen. Especially not when you mindlessly focus on one minor entry. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ccbyi 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. First and foremost, very little of this is verified or verifiable, particularly the list. All of it is sourced to direct observation of the show itself, and Wikipedia isn't here to provide watchers' guides for longrunning anime series.
  
  Additionally, it's indiscriminate. The word "indiscriminate" gets thrown around a lot, but what it means is that Wikipedia summarizes subjects, instead of listing every single exhaustive detail. It would be perfectly reasonable to mention that attacks are frequently named in the articles on the various DB anime and manga, and it would be perfectly reasonable to name some of the most prominent attacks, even describing them as the signature attacks of certain characters. This is discriminate. Indiscriminate is a list so exhaustive that it lists Gekiretsu Kōdan, an attack that is never once used in either manga or anime.
  
  There are additional, aggravating factors. These articles are laden with fair-use images, illustrating every single attack however minor, even if that attack can amply be described with prose. These articles are often highly speculative, due to the lack of reliable sources. Romanizations are unattributed; I'm fairly sure that a number of these Romanizations are controversial among fans. The lot of these articles are written from an in-universe style, which is inappropriate. Even if these lesser issues were resolved, however, the fact remains that there's no verification and no discrimination, and that's just not the sort of thing that can be included in or allowed in this project.
  
  Incidentally, if anyone is questioning the nom's intent or credentials, then please consider mine instead, as I would have nominated these highly problematic articles had I been aware of them. I am neither a brand new user nor a possible sockpuppet or troll, as has been implied about the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep only Kamehameha if sources can be found (which shouldnt be that dificult). I do not see how sources can be provided for other article here nominated. Shinhan 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all The Kanehameha is really the only notable attack enough. This is a little too crufty for me, and I accept a lot more cruft than I ought to sometimes. Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The verifiability of the article is problematic because of the nature of the subject. Independant agencies aren't gonna write about this. It's going to be either fans or the people who made it. In this case that leaves us with two primary sources. The Anime and the Manga.(the primary sources for ALL of the Dragonball Z pages) But while this, arguably, may not fullfill the letter of the verifiability policy, it IS verifiable by anyone who watches the source material. We do have the various videogames made from the series though. But those are mainly useful for confirming what the anmes of the various things are called.-- Marhawkman 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If we can't verify it, we shouldn't be covering it. There's no need to cover every single story ever told in any anime, manga, or other fictional work; if someone wants to know what happens, whoever-has-licensed-DB-this-week is more than willing to sell them tapes, DVDs, manga volumes, books, or other works. Our goal is to provide plot summary only insofar as it's needed to provide an encyclopedic description of the work or works as artefacts in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • My point is that in this situation it's absurb to consider the subject material of the article to be an unreliable source.-- Marhawkman 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • My point is that it's absurd to be covering Dragon Ball in greater detail than any reliable sources have done. We should be following the lead of other publications, not forging new original research based on direct observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Okay, guys, stop saying it's not notable. Dragon Ball is widley known, and is very popular. If you delete this stuff for not being verifiable you might as well delete every anime related article.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, so the Gekiretsu Kōdan is notable? Can you provide non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources to describe it? Do not mistake "Dragon Ball (and its followup series) are notable" for "Every single trivial factoid related to Dragon Ball is notable." - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • So what's MFG and Daizenshuu EX? First Person views? Oh yeah, that makes allllllllot of sense.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • But there isn't an article on Gekiretsu Kōdan, it is merely a component of a larger article. Since the move is used for an episode title, and is found in several of the video games (where it is presumably named in the manual), I can't see a reason not to have it as part of a larger article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I use Gekiretsu Kodan as an example; nothing in that article is sourced to anything but first-person observation of the works themselves (or fansites of questionable reliability which aren't cited anyway). How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • "How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series?" I just laughed when you wrote that. We've already explained in detail that these are major parts of the show. You've basically just listed the reason it shouldn't be deleted.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, I understand how they're important to the show. I've also explained how "The attacks are important to the show" means we should describe the attacks as a whole with summary prose, instead of making an indiscriminate list of every single attack that appears in the show. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • They're not all alike. How do we describe a hundred different attacks in one? You're making an assumption, and you know what happens when you do that.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Depends on the context. For DB as a whole, we could easily say, "Attacks in Dragon Ball are flashy, fantastic, and often pyrotechnic. Characters throw punches in flurries too fast for the eye to see, hurl massive balls of shining ki energy, and often shake the landscape or even split planets in the course of a battle." If we wanted to describe one character's style, we'd do that. They're not all alike, but they're all examples of a single, largely unified art style, and the vast, vast majority are different forms of ki or energy blasts, and the ones that aren't aren't attacks at all and would probably be described individually (flight, fusion, transformation) or are different ways of hitting people (which can easily be summarized). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
              • You're still not getting it. They're not all the same. Alot of them are completley different from others. There's more or less no way to summarize all of them into one section. And for your poitn about original research; that's exactly the same as deleting an article because it says grass is green with the edit summary " WP:OR".-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
              • =O OMG!! Look: Grass. Read the first sentence!! It violates WP:OR!!-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                • There's a difference between a common-knowledge claim, trivially simple to source but unsourced as it isn't in dispute and excessive citation would clutter the article, and a claim made only on Wikipedia, attested to nobody. "Grass is green" is so widely verified that it isn't necessary to specifically attest it but attesting it would be trivially easy; these lists are of such narrow appeal that attesting their claims is nearly impossible. There is a difference, and if you can't see it I don't know if I can offer you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • There's a picture of the attack right next to it. There's also DVDs showing the attack. That makes it just as much common knowledge as grass is green. Go ahead, remove the green thing from Grass with the edit summary " WP:OR". I bet somone will put it back and say, "OR? There's a picture right there" which is the exact thing that would happen if you removed an attack from the proposed article.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Any textbook will tell you healthy grass is green. No book will tell you that such-and-such attack is used by such-and-such DB character, save for the exception of the fictional work in which that act happens. You've described, in extreme detail, the story of a fictional work in less-compelling style, without any reference to reliable sources. That fails WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. If you want to know the attacks that such-and-such character uses, watch the anime or read the manga. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you want to know grass is green, go outside and look. Does that statement warrant deletion of Grass? Oh, and by the way, according to what you just said, no Anime articles shoudl exsist, because the jist of what you said is that if somone wants to know info about an anime they should just buy it. Well, why not slap an AfD tag on Wikipedia and say if somone wants to know about encyclopedic things, to buy one. =) I'm sure that AfD would close instantly due to your trumendus logic.
    • The whole point of Wikipedia is to aquire the sum of all human knowledge. What you just said goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I'm sure if Jimbo were here he'd say the same thing.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You're persisting in comparing a dissimilar object. Grass is widely covered in reliable sources independent of...um...the grass itself, whereas the individual DB attacks are not. Most anime cruft is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and I daresay Jimbo hasn't issued any edicts protecting anime cruft lately. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • These attacks are widley covered in reliable sources like...um...the Anime itself. You said that yourself about 3 times, saying that it was part of why this article should be deleted. =D Contradicting yourself isn't a very good way to get an article deleted.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • That's a primary source, and subject to interpretation by the viewer. This is going in circles, and is not productive. If you cannot understand that an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable, then nothing I can tell you will satisfy you. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
            • "an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable" Yet another good reason to delete Grass! Boy, you're just full of ideas aren't you? First you wanna remove sourced and obviousley correct ifnromation from Wikipedia, then you wanna delete an article for "not being obvious" when you yourself stated earlier that it's all in the anime. If either of us can't understand the point here, it's you.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
              • I see five sources independent of grass itself in grass. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                • I see about 249 sources for this article. The episodes of the anime. I also see millions of fan sites and official TOEI/FUNimation sites. I also see the pictures. Now, if you still think it's OR, thank you for proving my point that too many people on Wikipedia drag arguments on because they hate to be wrong, and whoever has the most edits wins because administrators' dictionaries don't include "fair".-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Those are not independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • Well then, because all the information on the Dragon Ball pages is taken from official sources, the anime and manga, and things like Pogo, under your logic we should just delete every Dragon Ball page. And hell, under your logic, just about every page on fiction should be deleted as well. ( Justyn 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)) reply
                    • Doesn't matter. They're still sources. And a hell of alot more than enough to rule out OR. Thanks again for proving my point about people hating to be wrong.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Santa Claus' last line at the end of the Robot Chicken parody. SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question ......Uh....Scince when is a joke on Robot Chicken a reason to delete an article? 0_o Is there some new policy I don't know of?-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As I recall, it was "DBZ (bleep)ing sucks or something like that. I'm fairly sure this isn't a serious comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The question then would be why are people making non-serious contributions to this discussion. This is afterall not a vote, and the input is not helping. Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a serious comment. Maybe it's not the last line, but one of the dragonball characters says a whole bunch of half-japanese/half-english junk and santa says "what the fuck did you just say, was that even english?" And that's about my feelings about everything in the article. This much information about a cartoon is ridiculous and only makes sense to people who already know what it is. SchmuckyTheCat 06:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and a link to it has been provided on the One Piece template. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, and that the links would have those squares next to them, but it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm fine with this, but under MIB's logic, we would have to move almost every article relating to fiction to a Wikia as well. And thank you for telling of my acomplishments. ( Justyn 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • As you say, it is going overboard to insist on "independent" sources, whatever the real definition of that is. Reliable sources in the context of this article are going to be on the fan sites, where if something is said that is wrong, someone will pick up on it in a Peer Review fashion, which gives legitimacy to the site overall. Kind of like the peer review system here, except they are much more devoted to single topics on those sites (hence improving in accuracy value). Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Independent sources are sources which aren't the subject itself. It's not an unreasonable standard to ask for some sort of commentary in third-party sources so that we aren't publishing someone's personal interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Dude, scince when is a fucking Anime personal interpretation? Do you even have any legitamite argument anymore or are you making this shit up as you go along?-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see any real problems with this solution. Hydromasta231 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Big problem here. If this article and the Kamehameha pages get deleted, where do the interwiki links go? Back to Dragonball Z? (Half of you are wondering "what interwiki links?") The Kamehameha (Dragon Ball) article is already in 6 other Wikipedias! (To forestall the comments of "notability is different across Wikipedias", no it's not; that's heavy bias.) The attacks page only has two (French and Japanese), but we still need a place to put them. Don't ignore these! ColourBurst 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  They go nowhere. The fact that other Wikipedias have not yet cleaned up unencyclopedic articles doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes. (Now, before you argue that they're unencyclopedic, if they don't have any sources, they're unencyclopedic. If they DO have sources that aren't the subject itself, then we should take those sources and use them in these articles and negate my argument above.) - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Dude, will you stop saying they don't have sources? They DO. They have about 3 million. What the fuck is your problem man? Sources which aren't the subject themselves aren't needed. How is an Anime not notable? Are you fukcing high or something? Saying there aren't sources is just plain biased. You want an independent source, fine, look at the millions of fan sites and merchandise. There's no way in hell for you to back up your argument of it being un-sourced, unless, of course, you expect everyone to just assume you're right scicne your an administrator. Two things I've noticed about this AfD is that it was made in Bad Faith by a possible sock puppet, and nobody really has any solid arguments against the articles. I'm pretty sure that warrants closing, unless you wanna use your godly administrator powers to change the policy on closing an AfD so you won't lose the argument.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Repeating the word "fuck" or any misspelled variation is no substitute for commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Oh, okay, I get it, the 279 episode Anime is just my personal opinion. These articles should definitly be deleted, seeing as how having about 3 million sources isn't enough for any article. Let's see, how many artciles on Wikipedia have less than that? You better get started. Oh, by the way, this is directly from the admin guide for deletion: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Seing as how this whole thing was started in bad faith, your job as an administrator would be to close it, not to repeatedly say that it isn't notable, when it obviousley is. Also: pay attention to what I write. Just because I'm used to using vulgar languege doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  You've mistaken "people interested in the subject" and "structural divisions of the subject" for "reliable sources independent of the subject". You've argued that there are a lot of DB fans and that there are a lot of DB episodes. That's nice, but the fact that DB is important does not necessarily mean that every single detail of DB is sufficient material for its own Wikipedia article. Given the lack of sources other than direct observation, the indiscriminate nature of these articles, the fact that these attacks can reasonablybe summarized in broader articles, and the legion of style problems with these articles, I think there's ample evidence that we don't need such overspecific articles.

  Now, as for being an admin, I'm here expressing my opinion as an editor, rather than closing the AFD debate (which I wouldn't do, as I've participated in the debate and additionally have a strong personal opinion). The fact that I am an administrator is only relevant insofar as it's good evidence that I'm a user in good standing, as opposed to the nominator, who is apparently a brand-new user. I never meant to imply that my arguments carried any extra weight because I'm an administrator, merely that even if this was a bad faith nom made by a new user with a grudge (the worst possible situation) that the nom had a point and such-and-such reasons were why. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  The attacks are probobly the second most important part of the show. The entire series focuses around them, so having articles describing them in detail and they're origin/history is notable, encyclopedic, helpful to the readers, and interesting.

  About the admin thing; I apologize for that. Latly I've somehow developed a sort of prejuduce against administrators, and when I see one making the same point that has already been proven wrong millions of times over and over, or seems to be violating admin guidlines/WP:AGF, or just acting in a questionable matter, I get a little snippy (see, I have self control. I could've said pissed, but I decided to use preppy talk so my opinion would matter =D ).-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  I could assert that the color orange is the most important part of the show, and then write Orange (Dragon Ball) about every appearance of the color orange. No interpretation, of course, just a list of every single orange thing in Dragon Ball. (It'd be a lot; orange is one of Toriyama's favored contrast colors.) The hedge against me doing so is the fact that we rely on (sounding like a broken record here) coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. These lists have the same problem that Orange (Dragon Ball) would, and the argument that the attacks are important would apply, just as reasonably, to the color orange, because it's a claim made by a Wikipedia user with nothing whatsoever other than that Wikipedia user's say-so to support it. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  .....Okay, for the last time, this isn't someone's "say-so". This is a widley known fact about a widley known Anime show. This list is important to describe the attacks to help a reader invision and learn about the attack. Nobody has to invision or learn about Orange, because it's just orange. These are complicated, hard to understand, yet very important (and hard to spell =( ) things that the entire show (and not to mention the entire clump of DB Articles here on Wikipedia) revolve around, summed up into easy to understand explainations and histories of useages.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  If the facts in these articles are widely known, then there shouldn't be any difficulty attributing them to reliable sources independent of the subject itself. If there is difficulty, consider the possibility that they're merely the consensus of a limited minority. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  What more do you want, man? There's official websites, merchandise, a long chain of video games, even birthday plates/hats for litle kids. You want me to take a hobo off the street and ask him if he's heard of DB, and what he says decides if it's notable or not?-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think I said it every other post here, and this can't be the first time I linked WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  According to what you just cited, a secondary source is an opinion/source from somone unfamiliar with the subject. I know for a fact that more than half of the people who voted keep haven't edited this article once, and that the people making the merchandise don't know shit about the series (though I know for a fact the next reply you write will tell me neither of those matter). I hoenestly don't see what reason there is for deletion, as this is one of the most important articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga because all other DB articles link to/revolve around it. It's notable, hs sources, doesn't violate any policies, and this entire thign was started in bad faith.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  We need commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • you're missing the point. This is an ANIME. ALL third party sources are fan sites and thus inappropriate for use a source. ALL THIRD PARTY SOURCES. The only reliable information comes from the original source.-- Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Vectro 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. But if plot summaries are unsuitable, at least they have the inherent virtue of concision. Compare this monstrosity. One sample: It can also be utilized in conjuncture [sic] with attacks; the Shunkan Idō Kamehameha was used by Gokū during his fight with Cell. Gokū charges up for the Kamehameha (up to KA-ME-HA-ME) high up in the air, pretending to be shooting the Kamehameha from there (which would blow the Earth away if he did) and then uses the Shunkan Idō to appear right in front of Cell and blasts him with the final syllable (HA!). It was somewhat tricky and Cell was completely caught off-guard by Goku's attack. This isn't even a plot summary; it's a too-literally blow-by-blow running account. Delete this for its failure even to resemble an encyclopedia article, to the point where of course nothing like it is described in "WP:NOT". Anyway, it's just what Dragon Ball wiki is for; so take it away and plonk it there (if Wikia's "fair use" policies are sufficiently lenient). -- Hoary 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • • It's a needlessly elaborate description, but that's a CLEANUP issue, not a reason for deletion. Honestly I think moving it to Wikia would be a good idea myself.-- Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree entirely with this. The above sample sounds like the kind of detailed screenwriting I had to keep in mind in a battle scene in a movie I'm supposed to act in: the sort of "I hit you on the shield and you hit me on the shield, this goes on three times, then you manage to go around the shield and hit me on the side, at which point I collapse on the ground. I try to lift my shield but you kick it away from me..." Whereas a plot summary would say something like: "A Caledonian warrior and a Viking warrior fought each other. The Viking won, killing the Caledonian. He then proceeded onwards to the Caledonian castle, intent on raiding its treasure..." JIP | Talk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This isn't the sort of area Wikipedia should be getting into. We're targeting a general audience, and whilst it's great to get detail, let's not go too far. Where the information is suitable, merge it. A Man in Black sums up a lot of the issues for me. Maybe an anime targeted wiki should be considered, is there anything on wikia we could consider a transwiki to? Hiding Talk 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Response: Yes, there's a wiki just for this: Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Again with the Wikipdia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile. MultiJoe 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• "As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile." Which we were specifically told to shorten.... Geez, make up your minds already.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all or move to some niche-interest wiki; this suffers from WP:OR and general cruftiness. Stylistically, it also fails WP:WAF (which is not a reason for deletion, I know). Sandstein 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As explained already about a million times, these do not violate WP:OR in any way. It also isn't "fancruft", as explained earlier. Please try to read some of the discussion before voting.-- Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I have done so, and was not persuaded. Please WP:AGF. Sandstein 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The "niche interest wiki" is Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, possibly merge sub-articles into List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Cleanup for excessive plot summary and speculation, but otherwise definite keep. The attacks are distinguishing features of the characters and sometimes reveal relationships between them, they are often puns that are opaque to English readers without explanation. They appear in manga, anime, video and card games, and secondary sources. Developing these techniques is actually the main thrust of DB/Z's plot.

Re: "It's Gokus signature attack," the Kamehameha is actually the signature attack of the "Turtle school" of Martial arts, and used by Muten Roshi, Goku, Kuririn, Gohan, Goten, Cell and various others. Explaining it in the Goku article is silly.

I volunteeer to give this article group some cleanup attention if necessary. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep with cleanup and cutback of fan speculation. This was an dubious multiple nomination - it should have been conducted as four seperate noms. As pop culture/fiction, a measure of discretion is required requiring WP:RS; the show is extremely notable, and we can work, using common sense, from there. I am doubtful that there is much academic peer-reviewed information on Radagast (Middle-earth) or Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series, for example.-- Nydas 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rejoinder: I'm extremely doubtful too. But I would not be persuaded by any argument along the lines of "This article isn't any more awful than others and therefore deserves to stay." -- Hoary 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's one of the articles I put a lot of work into, and I like it alot for reference and stuff. -- Phred Levi 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Its value for "reference and stuff" would be undiminished if it were moved to Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 06:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The preceding comment by Hoary is oh so important. Why oh why would the article have less value to fans if it were on a Dragon Ball wiki? Probably because it's not as well-known as Wikipedia and there's an extra sense of importance that comes with your favorite topic having an article in here. But there's no denying that this article is entirely unreferenced original research and none of the articles' supporters have seriously adressed that concern. Man in Black put it pretty well: it does not make sense to cover this in an encyclopedia when no other third-party source has ever bothered to. It's useful to the show's fans? Sure, so move it all to the useful dragonball wiki and let's get on with writing an encyclopedia here. I urge the closing admin to go beyond counting the votes here. Pascal.Tesson 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Merge (if I can, following rules, otherwise Comment) I'd like to make you note that an encyclopedia should retain, at least, 'common' knowledge (or things commonly assumed to be known). A lot of "Dragon Ball"-related (as well as "<other anime/manga/TV series>"-related) topics are common knowledge for the young and not-so-young generations of many so-colled rich/industrialized/post-industrialization countries, nevertheless are important parts of their folklore-mythology, much much more than, e.g., ancient greek mythology (which is however naturally retained for historical reasons). Because of it, it's expected at least the presence of articles (or pieces of articles) regarding those most famous topics necessary to understand common cultural references (like Son Goku, other main characters, kamehameha and so on), but, as every good encyclopedia is expected to do, it should (and IMHO must) go into them a little more, exactly to tell the reader more about the things that gave birth to this widespread culture-folklore-mythology (simply what an encyclopedia is supposed to do). That said, I don't propose to retain a single article for every DB ability or such, but to list them correctly (e.g. per character) in the right place (like "List of Dragon Ball special abilities" was supposed to be) and use this page as the link for the other DB-related article citing that ability. I'm not writing that that article is perfect and sould retained as is or that all the 'abilities' should be written in it (IMHO only the most notable ones, but this is another discussion), I'm only writing it shouldn't be deleted. In my opinion, the deletion of similar articles is a sort of censorship of the 'olds' (OK, the world population is becoming older and older but there are younger people too) or cultural racism (something like "every single detail of the ancient greek mythology is acceptable for an encyclopedia because it's 'highly' cultural or 'ancient', but everything relating contemporary mythology is to discard as it isn't culture at all"). To sum it up: there are too specific articles to be merged into bigger ones (like ability-specific articles not culturally widespread, but a kamehameha article to me is perfectly just), there are things to change in these big articles and probably there are things to be deleted, but these, fewer, articles should exist [we are not talking about an unknown manga/anime which sold only two copies]. -- 87.7.62.159 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Hydromasta's reason's for deleting this article are horrendous. Unlike other genres of animated series, Dragonball is more or less a parody and a homage to martial arts. Techniques and how they are used are very important througout most of the saga although by late stage Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT the importance of individual techniques where minimized. Still comparing Dragonball to comics like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc is not appropriate. This article list is very informative especially to those new to the series and even those who are experienced fans. Individual articles on certain techniques however should be deleted. Articles such as the Kamehameha and Kaioken should be either deleted or merged into this one. Certain transformations however like Oozaru deserve their own article. -- Maphisto86 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment: Oozaru Is a part of being a Saiyan so it'd work as part of that page. It's not really a technique anyways.-- Marhawkman 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• In case any editors haven't seen this suggestion, I will post it again here: Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and after it is cleaned up enough a link to it will be provided on the wikipedia One Piece page. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, that the links would have those squares next to them, and it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • comment: It was suggested. I don't remember anyone objecting. I personally liked the idea.-- Marhawkman 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

    • comment I like this idea as well. It is a good understanding. My only hope is that the information and media in this article is kept intact. Moving it might disrupt links as well as media since they are linked to Wikipedia. I don't know if Wikia can use material uploaded to Wikipedia. Maphisto86 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, especially Kamehameha (Dragon Ball). This is a case where "delete x because y" ignores the relative importances and individual merits of X and Y. No One Piece attack has achieved a level of archetypical presence in all fighting manga. The Kamehameha has. They may need cleanup though. -- tjstrf 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Definite Keep BrenDJ 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Eastern culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the West, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Hmmmm, I may have erred in my posting practices earlier. I am new to this, apparently one is to place comments in chronological order downward? Also, it seems that a username is to be listed. I am currently uncertain how to accomplish this but will attempt my best. Patiencee please. GCZ 01:24, 16 October, 2006 (UTC) ... in fact added by User:12.218.119.147
  • Rejoinder: I don't even know what's meant by "universal icon" but doubt that this is one. You say Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced which makes it seem as if this is a dictionary entry, but WP is not a dictionary. You also say And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Stirring stuff indeed! But blatantly untrue, not least because all of this material seems suitable for Dragon Ball wiki. You can put it there. (Indeed, as it's GFDL you can save it and recycle it in any GFDL'd way that you wish.) Oh, right, it's already here in a different Wikia wiki. Meanwhile, any assertion that all information is worthy of preservation in Wikipedia would fly in the face of what's clearly written in " WP:NOT" (pay particular attention to what's written about Plot summaries.) Lastly, you "list a username" simply by logging in under that username, writing your comment, and ending it with four tildes. -- Hoary 06:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Definitely Keep : There is no reason at all to delete a perfectly fine guide to Dragonball Attacks. Its helpful and is needed. You can find information on these attacks and its a good list. There is no reason for deletion. Would you prefer that all the special moves were their own article!? .... added at Revision as of 19:52, 16 October 2006 by User:67.165.10.68
  • Rejoinder: Perhaps you haven't read what's above. If the article is helpful, it's just as helpful at this alternative location. And rather than simply declaring (twice!) that there's no reason for deletion, you might care to give your reasons for dismissing the reasons for deletion that have been clearly expressed above. -- Hoary 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment This article is not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, or plot summary. Most votes for deletion seem to be based on WP:NOT... BUT: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is verifiable information, it doesn't push an agenda, and it's a notable part of an extremely popular and well-known anime & manga. Just because it is/will be on the Dragon Ball Wikia doesn't mean it can't also be here. Just adding links to the wikias (which are not all that well maintained and large portions of them are just out-of-date, partial WP mirrors) would quickly turn Wikipedia into a link directory anyway. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  It's an original synthesis of the plot of the various Dragon Ball anime and manga series. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  OR? That can be excised. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Well, it could be reduced to observations which are simple enough to be common to any reasonable observer, but that doesn't change the fact that every single detail is going to be a plot detail. I hesitate to call this a plot summary because summaries tend to omit trivial details and no trivial detail has been omitted here, but this is indeed nothing more than plot detail cut up and arranged in a new way. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Comment If we wanted, we could add to the article on the Kamehameha and establish its external presence from the series through the citing of direct references and appearances of the move from other notable anime and manga series. It would definitely be possible. You may note the already present mention in that article of Carlos Newton, whose entire fighting style is apparantly styled as a tribute to DBZ. What would you think of that idea? -- tjstrf 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Should we talk about Dragon Ball's subsequent impact on later works, including homages to its attacks? Absolutely. Is a lengthy description of the Kamehameha going to help that? Not even a little. Right now, there are two sentences in the kamehameha that aren't talking about DB, DBZ, or DBGT, and the place to talk about DB or DB*'s effect on other works would be in the article for the DB series or in the article for those other works, not in a out-of-the-way article burdened with excess plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This AfD is 9 days old and 81 kilobytes long. Shouldn't it be closed already? JIP | Talk 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, tjstrf 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment er, relisted? There isn't a consensus somewhere it the preceeding 81 kilobytes, or at very least a clear no consensus? I don't know what 5 more days of AfD will achieve other than more headache for the closing admin.-- Isotope23 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe they're going to try to break the current record, 224 kilobytes in Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency? JIP | Talk 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ha, I knew there was a reason... well, my condolences to whoever has to wade through this mess.-- Isotope23 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment from my observations, relisting an AfD generally does not give it an entire 5 more days of hearings in actual practice. It's more like 2 or 3 at most. -- tjstrf 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment it should probably just be closed as no consensus. Everything from here on out is just tacking on more reading for the closer and it's pretty clear that consensus will not be reached at this point.-- Isotope23 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is an interesting article for the fans of the series. It should deserve to stay because it is informative and useful to the fans --ProfessorWikia
  • True, but this seems to be useful only to fans of the series, Prof. Wikia. Wikipedia is not a gigantic information vaccuum, however, and also should not have to keep every article ever created just because it could be useful to someone somewhere. That being said, I'd also like to point out that under WP:NOT it states "groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted". It seems that as long as each attack is condensed down to its absolute essentials, it should be alright. It was probably suggested somewhere above, but this article should be cleaned up and condensed. Andyuts! 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That would be a "keep and cleanup", correct? -- tjstrf 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question Why on earth is this appearing in the October 17 log like a new discussion when it's been happening since October 10?
  • Reply Because I'm an idiot who misunderstands the use of Template:Relist, most likely. Alternatively, it may simply be that due to the way nothing anywhere actually explains how relisting works or when to use it, I was confused and did so unnecessarily. -- tjstrf 20:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry I didn't see the Relisted note... it's hard to see anything on this monstrosity of an AFD. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Anything useful should be merged up to Dragon Ball. This is far outside the bounds of an encyclopedia. -- Improv 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This doesn't need to be relisted. It's roughly 21 keep/17 delete with no concensus, and none on the horizon. Close it as no consensus so we can get back to improving, please? -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Normally I am against this stuff but its Dragon Ball Z ... Kamehameha! ... my nephew has never even seen the anime, not that I know at least, and runs around screaming kamahameha and acting like he is firing explosive blasts. Oddly enough I found Dragon Ball Z from trying to find out what this phrase meant, being I heard the phrase before I heard of the show, its like the derka belacka craze but worldwide and with lots more people. -- Nuclear Zer0 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - or maybe merge, Dragon Ball Z is notable, but the detials are not -- T- rex 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete indiscriminate, original research, and canonical fancruft. Guy 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by MONGO as spam. MER-C 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Unified Field Equation

Prod'ed by someone else, creator (rather aggressively) disputes the prod. Seems like Original research to me.-- Konst. able 06:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete I would consider redoing this under db-spam. (www.musics.com). If not, then jsut delete. -- Tbeatty 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep as no good reason given for deletion, and clearly a consensus to keep.

Royal Forest

totally unsourced, should be shelved until sourced. An article like this cannot continue to exist on Wikipedia totally unsourced. Too much POV and possible gross inaccuracies Harthacanute3 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep While there are many things that should be carefully watched, I can't find anything in this article screams to me that this is too much POV or grossly inaccurate. It's certainly historically true. I believe what you should have done is look for some clean-up templates instead of nominating for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Wavy G 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep its not perfect but it's a good article -- Sea dog .M.S 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Well written article. a bit POV, butit just needs rewriting not deletion. -- Ageo020 ( Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Well written and informative article. Probably needs a bit of editing, but well worth keeping. Pursey 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep A hell of a lot of Wikipedia is unsourced. There are more offensive, libelous pages out there than this one. -- Zeality 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. Fix the inaccuracies, add citations. --- RockMFR 03:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This article isn't controversial so there can't really be a POV. The page can also be improved. Worth keeping. || 150.203.177.218 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, two years ago this could have been a Featured Article. Tag the problem areas, and don't use AFD for good articles that need work. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per above. Cnwb 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and cleanup, it needs sourcing and copyediting to be more encyclopedic, but there's nothing so funamentally flawed that it needs to be deleted altogether. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While sourced articles are preferable, there is no stipulation that unsourced articles should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is a source cited. Only one, but it's still a source. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above -- Librarianofages 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep' - POV and unsourced information are not good reasons for deletion. -- Ineffable3000 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep and close this out per WP:SNOW, this just needs some simple improvements here and there. RFerreira 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Why is this article not being deleted for lack of sources when a similar article Anglo-Saxon hunting IS being deleted right now for the rationale of lack of sources? Harthacanute3 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As (I think) the principal contributor to this article some time ago, I admit that the sourcing is not as clear as it could be. Most of the material on forest law (the bulk of the article) was taken from the first chapter of John Manwood's treatise and from Blackstone's Commentaries, both of which are linked in the text; there are also external links to several royal charters in the "History" section. The principal problem, as it stands, is that Manwood (whom Blackstone relied on), though a Tudor justice of the forest, lived at a time when forest law had to some degree fallen into desuetude. His listing of the beasts of the forest is not entirely accurate, as already noted (see also the amply-cited Warren (free)), and I am now given to understand that his classification of the court of swainmote is also problematic. Unfortunately, I will have to go to some difficulty to read GJ Turner's Select Pleas of the Forest, an important corrective to Manwood, and will not be able to revise it immediately. But overall, I think you'll find that the bulk of this article can be verified in the sources I've named, even if they haven't yet been arranged into inline citations and so forth. I hope this clears up some mysteries. And speaking of which, might I ask the nominator (who appears to have had some experience of Wikipedia before registering his name) why he marked the addition of the AfD notice as a "minor edit" and omitted a summary, and why his contributions so resemble those of the short-lived User:Fecal Matters? Or what the POV is in the article? Choess 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to delete here, and there is really no need to let this go any longer. -- Core des at 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mission: Impossible IV (2009 film)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The content is unsourced/rumors. — ERcheck ( talk) 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No IMDB profile for a future release. Article created by Loontheschoon who has a history of making destructive edits [1] -- Ageo020 ( Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MER-C 01:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Ageo020. CovenantD 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per above. Keeping this article is... Mission Imp... ok, I'll stop. :) Pursey 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above; Hawke has not been announced, plus WP ain't no crystal ball. -- Mhking 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. WP:NOT Crystal ball. Axem Titanium 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOT. Way too early for this. Prolog 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per norm -- 150.203.177.218 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, come back when you have a press release. Alba 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unverified gossip and guesswork. Details about future Mission: Impossible films seem to change with the weather anyway. This article will self-destruct in 5 days. -- Canley 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete WP:NOT Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No way is that worth keeping.-- Sea dog .M.S 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete per nom and everybody else. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per nom TheRanger 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOT. *drew 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nominated. AuburnPilot 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete - not on movies.com -- Ineffable3000 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. UberCryxic 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ugly Girl

nn song Will ^{( Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm pretty inclusionist when it comes to songs, but this is a parody song whose artist isn't even known! That's about as unnotable as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Man, this thing brings back memories - everyone was singing it in my fifth grade class. There was a flash animation and everything. You're so ugly, you disgust me, boohoo! boohoo! Anyways, remaining on track, if we don't have any more information than that we don't know who the author is, it sholdn't be on wikipedia (despite its 22,500 hits). Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as failing the verifiability requirements of WP:V and insufficiently notable per AfD precedent summarized at WP:AFDP#Music. -- Satori Son 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I think wikipedia should actully have more song articles, but by notable people.-- Sea dog .M.S 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, can't even judge attempt to satisfy notability criteria standard until verification or the name of the artist.-- danntm ^T _C 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable song. -- Ineffable3000 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sales orientation

No references, seems to be a C/P job KaoB e ar ^(talk) 13:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sources, almost smells like WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question What's C/P? I thought that stood for child pornography. Anomo 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I read it as "copy and paste". Uncle G 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:OR Avi 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cluster Missiles

Delete. A small paragraph article about a special weapon from a star wars game. Merge is sort of out of the option, because of the name of the article and the fact that the article would probably only mention it briefly in a gameplay section. — Deckill e r 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- teh tennisman ^{Speak your piece!} _{People person! FREE STUFF CLICK HERE} 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable Star Wars fancruft. -- Tarret 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 02:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -Per Mer-C.-- Sea dog .M.S 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I can see how it is relevant to the games, but it doesn't deserve an article of it's own, probably should be included in an article covering all the weaponry (even if that should exist). James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Star Wars Expanded Universe. -- Ineffable3000 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That merge would make absolutely no sense, since this is a minor special attack from a video game, whereas the EU article provides a broad overview of the multimedia and whatnot...— Deckill e r 11:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons. Not worth its own article, but since we have an appropriate list, we might as well merge it. BryanG ^(talk) 01:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • IMO, that would encourage gameguide-cruft, which really doesn't have a significance outisde of the game itself. — Deckill e r 11:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Coma gas

Delete. To be honest, I'm not even sure where to merge this one; besides, there is not even much information to merge in the first place. I think deletion would be our best bet here, in lieu of redirect or merge or both. — Deckill e r 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Maybe you can merge it into the Starwars article? -- Nissi Kim 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Star Wars is such a large and encompassing universe, so the major option would be merging it into the weapons list (however, it is so minor, and I don't even get any significant google hits, that I feel it might be best to just ignore it completely). Plus, it seems to be slang numerous other terms (relating to comets and manufacturing), so a redirect is out of the question. Finally, a disambiguation of such a trivial term may be frowned upon. — Deckill e r 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It isn't significant enough for a merge. -- 150.203.177.218 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Insignificant 'weapon'. Sr13 07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, It would be nuts if Wikipedia had a seperate article on every single weapon used on starwars.-_ Sea dog .M.S 11:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Merge with Star Wars. It is interesting information and should be noted. -- Ineffable3000 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above comments. RFerreira 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. -- Core des at 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mandy Chiang

Notability unable to be determined. Gives only a sentence about what she does and half a dozen links to outside sites. -- Nissi Kim 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete The article has been up for nearly 10 months. I think a span of 10 months merits enough time for "organic" expansion. -- Nissi Kim 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - IMDB profile. MER-C 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:notable Valoem ^talk 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete, The article itself is too small and does not seem notable, Weak Keep if someone would show some facts.-- Sea dog .M.S 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Interesting one, this. She's apparently a celebrity-turned-singer - but nothing explains what made her a celebrity before her singing career (a bit suspicious, that), and 2CDs only is not very impressive, nor is what seems to be a bit-part role in a minor film? On balance, delete. This isn't set in stone - if someone can prove notability to me, I'll think again, but as of now I'm not impressed. Delete Moreschi 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Her acting includes parts in some well-known HK films [2] such as New Police Story. She's also been identified as a celebrity by Microsoft [3] and Oxfam [4], and "popular" by Citigroup [5] - though I'd assume most coverage of her isn't written in English. Mereda 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - The Chinese Wiki article goes into much more depth, so a translation is probably necessary to fully justify the article. Caknuck 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per possible growth -- T- rex 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Allow for organic expansion -- Librarianofages 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - No evidence of non-notability. Incompleteness is not a valid reason for deletion. The Chinese page has a lot of information and appears to be notable -- Ineffable3000 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the above comments, this is a disappointing nomination for deletion. RFerreira 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep — There is enough here to show she has done stuff to be notable, but I agree that the page really needs to be expanded. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep she rocks out better than Mandy Moore. 152.163.100.74 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above, we are not operating on a deadline, just fix what needs fixing. Yamaguchi先生 03:55, 22 October 2006 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing to transwiki. -- Core des at 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ambush at Derra IV

Delete. I hate to seem like a deletionist (I'm quite proud of Wikipedia's pop culture sections and the ones I've helped, it's just that many of them need cleanup, compression/merges, and an out of universe perspective)...but I don't know what to do with this article. It's been staring me in the eye for a while, because it is a plot summary of a minor part of a novella called Side Trip, which doesn't even have its own article. Mention of it could be made in relevent articles (such as Thrawn and the Baron), but after that, redirect is probably not a solid hope (nor is disambig). — Deckill e r 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Welcome to the Dark Side, Deckiller. Actually, based on the article, I don't think this battle would be notable enough if the Star Wars universe and its wars were real. I mean... Empire attacks Rebel convoy. Rebels outgunned. That would happen quite a lot, I would guess Bwithh 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Plus, I think the novella's title, "Side Trip", basically dooms this article :) — Deckill e r 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki Assuming that the ever-popular Wookiepedia doesn't have it already, if it does, go ahead and delete. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki to Wookieepedia and delete, natch. Alba 04:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't Belong Here Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I am starting to hate articles like this -- Sea dog .M.S 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Wookieepedia's version is more extensive already, I doubt there's anything to transwiki. BryanG ^(talk) 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Bill Frist medical school experiments controversy

An entire article written from one newspaper source. An excellent example of why article forks like this should not be allowed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep This article was created because the issue was overwhelming the main Frist article. I served as an informal mediator during its creation, and the article, at least at that time, was a satisfactory compromise between about five editors with strong views. Daughter articles are a very standard way of keeping relatively minor, but still notable, issues from swamping a main article. This technique has been used extensively, to generally good effect, in many articles. Arbcom itself suggested such a remedy for the John Kerry article, which resulted in several new article covering details of notable controversies (which then allowed the main article to keep focused). Clinton alone has got a good half-dozen such. As to the stated complaint .... this stuff was widely covered. Broaden the sourcing if you like, but it's plenty notable and easily sourced. Also note that the main source was Dr. Frist's own book. Derex 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Not to sound flippant, but it is irrelevant why the article was created. This "controversy" is based off of a bunch of weblogs and one article in the Boston Globe. No other major source picked it up, or even bothered to look deeper into it. The nature of this manufactured non-event is apparent with the void of reporting on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it's not irrelevant. The question is not whether this material should be included in Wikipedia or not. The question is where. It should be presented in a manner that is most convenient for the reader. Usually, that place is in a subarticle if a controversy takes more than a paragraph to describe. Frankly, leaving it in the main article violates the undue weight provision of NPOV. Omitting it entirely is censorship of an issue that is widely known -- google it and see. Thus, a subarticle to allow a neutral presentation, at greater length, for the interested reader. Derex 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not be used as such. Run a Nexis search on it, and see how many other newspapers picked this up. Answer: very few. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It was carried by United Press International, one of the largest wire services, under the name "Frist asked to atone for killing cats". Conveniently, someone lopped off that reference which was in one of the earliest versions. Here's a link to an archive service. [6] 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A handfull of newspaper articles from four years ago does not an encyclopedia article make. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ceteris paribus, the age of a topic or its references is wholly independant of verifiability or appropriateness for the encyclopedia. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep As per Derex. Pursey 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep As per Derex. -- Hemlock Martinis 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per Derex. -- 150.203.177.218 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I could only find two relevant articles on google news, and they both only contain small references to the experiments to illustrate larger points. Also, Frist's own book isn't exactly a third-party source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Google news only covers news articles posted within a couple weeks. This event and story is from quite a long time ago; it's not news. Derex 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge the approrpiately weighted part of this article with Bill Frist. By my estimate that's about two sentences of material. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep-Sourced information properly moved from the Bill Frist article as per longstanding precedent. Whether the sources are from four years ago is truly irrelevent. This is not Wikinews. — Nate Scheffey 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Dhartung; it deserves a mention, but, seriously, attempting an entire article on this is just overkill. GassyGuy 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep under the precedent set by ArbCom re: John Kerry, the longstanding system of upgrading sections to articles as necessary, and also in order to respect the process of the original talk page's discussion in which subpage genesis was at least marginally prefered as the means of dealing with this material. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, needs some clean up-- Sea dog .M.S 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Three major newspapers, a lesser newspaper, a press service, and his own book are pretty good sources. Hardly "one article" as claimed. The key fact is that he improperly used shelter cats for medical experiments, not that he did experiments outside the norm. Some would applaud him for advancing medical research. Others condemn any experimentation on anmals wherever they were obtained. Seems enough well documented controversy for a subarticle, perhaps too complex for the main article. Certainly too complex an issue for "two sentences" in the main article. Edison 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It seems like a reasonable place for the information. And the information is encyclopedia, IMHO, similar to many other subarticles for other people. Rbraunwa 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article is wiki material -- Librarianofages 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article is a notable event about a very public figure. JGardner 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per commentary above, notable article, notable figure, public controversy with obvious interest to reader. Smeelgova 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC). reply
• Keep, notable event and has appeared in major newspapers. Article needs to be cleaned up. -- Ter e nce Ong _{( T | C)} 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Essential info for those researching Frist. NBGPWS 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Good info that just needs a little clean up. -- DixiePixie 11:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Use of daughter articles to streamline politicians' bios should be encouraged. JamesMLane  t  c 10:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep this is a spinoff... if it wasnt an independent article than it would just be cluttering up the primary.   ALKIVAR ™ 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the above, no valid reason for deletion here. Silensor 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per comments written above, it is a valid subarticle. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 22 October 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

Not notable, fails WP:WEB. Also see Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series. Khatru2 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Shiroi Hane 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Dont' delete It's a very popular series and deserves a Wikipedia article. Nintendo Maximus 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to say DELETE unless someone can show that this passes WP:WEB. As for being "a very popular series," if it fails WP:WEB it isn't popular enough. N Shar 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete What is this doing on Wikipedia-- Sea dog .M.S 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Even if it did pass WP:WEB (which it appears not to), it still fails WP:NOT by virtue of consisting almost entirely of episode summaries. — Haeleth Talk 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete absent multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series.-- Isotope23 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this show is hilarious, and I even quote it on my userpage, but there's no way it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Danny Lilithborne 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete something posted on YouTube is non-notable. -- Ineffable3000 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as mentioned before it doesn't pass WP:WEB. The target is a copyvio too. I think we have a policy against generally not linking to those in WP:EL. -- Kunzite 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Don't Delete Please explain how "Something posted on Youtube is non-notable", when there are articles on Wikipedia about people and their videos that have become notable as a result of being on Youtube. There is plenty of notable YouTube content. In addition, many episodes of Yu-gi-oh! The Abridged Series have gotten well over 100,000 views. Considering how fast it got there, it's only a matter of time before it is reported elsewhere. -- Paltheos 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment these other articles about people reference significant coverage of the person or videos in external media sources, thus establishing that they are notable for their YouTube contributions (see Lonelygirl15... MSNBC, CNN, Mtv, NYT all have written about her). I see no evidence of any significant external coverage of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series. WP:NOT a crystal ball, so until this is reported elsewhere, there is no justification for having an article about it on Wikipedia.-- Isotope23 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Do Not Delete this show is getting big hits, and gets more every week. Shadow Skye 05:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

BaboViolent 2

Software does not currently meet requirements for WP:SOFTWARE MidgleyDJ 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete only 89 google hits, most of which are forums. -- Ineffable3000 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I am being bold and disregarding simple "votes" that gave no reason to keep the article, and mere existence does not grant notability to something. AfD is not a vote. If the keep "votes" had given legitimate reasons for keeping aside from "all schools are inherently notable", I would close as no consensus. -- Core des at 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Altona Green Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 02:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\ ^talk 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Huh??? Edison 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability-- 150.203.177.218 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No assertion of notability.-- Hús ö nd 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MightyAtom 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:SCHOOL. Catchpole 06:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Probably a fine school, but no claim of notability. It could just as well be mentioned in an article about the town or the school district. Not all schools (or all high schools ) need their own articles unless they have verified notability. Edison 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merch, what makes this school notable? TJ Spyke 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details. TheRanger 19:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Altona Meadows per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH ( talk) 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - it belongs to a district and is therefore notable according to WP:SCHOOLS. Ineffable3000 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What are you talking about? Being part of a school district is NOT one of the criteria of WP:SCHOOL. TJ Spyke 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fulfills none of the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS. "Belonging to a district" both does not show notability and is not mentioned at WP:SCHOOLS.— Cuivi é nen 00:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -- Vsion 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment apparently, the school is the reigning national tennis champion. [7] -- Vsion 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• The source you cite says that a student at the school is a highly ranked player for 12 year olds but not that the school has a highly ranked team. TheRanger 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I probably have misread the championship thing. Let me find if there is any school ranking on this. -- Vsion 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence given that it meets even close to the WP:SCHOOL guideline: it is 15 years old, it does not have an exceptional enrollment or an exceptional program, it has not been the subject of any third-party work. Now the one claim made of notability is that one 12-year old student is a pretty apt tennis player (and no one would suggest that she is notable per WP:BIO). Moreover the article explaining this fact mentions that "Gorgescu trains privately at Westgate indoor sports centre in Altona three times a week under Michael Tucci." so there is essentially no link to the school whatsoever. Also, I'm not sure where Ineffable3000 read that being part of a school district is sufficient with respect to that guideline but, if I may, I would suggest that he re-read this before posting that same absurdity in every school AfD out there. As for the "notable and verifiable" well let me try to say this again: AfD is not a vote and these arguments are meaningless since they don't reflect precedents, current practice or consensus. Pascal.Tesson 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. An EBBSCO Australia and New Zealand media database came up with one reference on this school: a letter to the editor by a student at the school. Google News Archives comes up with nothing at all. Given that there doesn't seem to be many third party sources available, I favour deletion although it is worth mentioning in the article on Altona and the relevant school district if we have one. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep- pointless nomination. The clear community consensus at schoolwatch is that EVERY schools is notable. -- ForbiddenWord 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment consensus at schoolwatch has no real bearing on consensus at wikipedia as a whole. This isn't a reason to keep.-- Isotope23 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I didn't even know it was theoretically possible to fail WP:SCHOOLS, but this one manages to do it. -- Kicking222 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Silensor 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and as usual see User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Kicking. This as about as non-notable and unverifiable as it gets. JoshuaZ 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable school. Looks like there's a sentence there that could be useful in National Primary School Tennis Championship. Oh, what do you know? The only thing resembling an attempt at asserting notability here is that they have a student that won a championship for which we don't even have an article. — ptk✰ fgs 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per WP:SCHOOLS. -- Myles Long 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable. Montco 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and allow for organic growth, no object to merging in the interim. Bahn Mi 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all enduring public institutions. -- Centauri 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all schools.   ALKIVAR ™ 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to school district (I think merge is per wiki:schools?) Jcuk 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, just as notable as any other school. bbx 20:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge do not keep. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Rebecca 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted. TheRanger 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to the appropriate locality according to proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 03:40, 22 October 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice ^talk 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

AegeanLinux

Does not appear to be a notable subject, and there doesn't seem to be any references to back up the material. — this is messedrocker (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. -- Tarret 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - yet another non-notable Linux distro. MER-C 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not even on distrowatch yet. The current article is also quite POV. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Egregiously POV, not notable. Xdenizen 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Deletion I am a co-developer of AegeanLinux, but may I just say this, it is purely ridicules that you would want to delete the AegeanLinux article from Wikipedia. If you delete this one article here, you are going to have to delete many other articles that are Linux related. I, personally, along with Tim Groeneveld (another dev of AegeanLinux). You should maybe join #aegeanlinux on irc.freenode.net and see how much enthusiasm the AegeanLinux team has. And what you say about things being notable, all I will say is come and look at this this and this—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdeman ( talk • contribs) 01:37, October 22, 2006 (UTC)
• Why?Why do you want to delete this article? It's a real distro, all the info is factual. I can't see any proper reason to remove it. Lunarctic 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  Comment All content on wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, We have a Wikipedia:Notaility (software) which many people (see above) believe the subject of this article does not meet. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Non-notable Linux distribution, with no information from reliable sources available. The article is currently little more than a POV vanity page. Recommend deletion. -- Slowking Man 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mango juice ^talk 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ballam Park Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\ ^talk 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets notability criteria Valoem ^talk 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability-- 150.203.177.218 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The "50 years old" criteria should not apply in this case. --- RockMFR 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. I don't think solely being 60 years old is enough for inclusion. 107 Google hits doesn't assert notability either. Prolog 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above.-- Hús ö nd 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Neutral Fails to assert notability, but does meet the proposed guidelines. Pursey 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Deleteper above. Catchpole 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Has been around 60 years, but no other claim to notability. It could just as well be mentioned in an article about the town or the school district. Not all schools (or all high schools ) need their own articles unless they have verified notability. Edison 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details. TheRanger 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I don't see that he needs to reply, what he is saying seems to be self-apparent -- Librarianofages 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• "Self-apparent"?? As in the US Decl. of Independence? ("We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that all schools are notable.") You have to present an actual argument as to why this or any school is notable, other than argument by assertion. Pan Dan 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I notice you dont argue with people who just put Delete NN. If people who vote keep have to present an actual argument, dont people who vote delete? Jcuk 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

First, it's funny you should say that, because about an hour before you posted that I posted this. Second, notability has to be shown. Those voting "keep" have to actually come up with some non-trivial sources that have taken note of the school. Those voting "delete" have no such burden, although in a perfect world we would all look for sources before voting. Pan Dan 23:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH ( talk) 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It is part of a school district and therefore meets the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS. -- Ineffable3000 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into an article about the local community or the respective school district per WP:SCHOOLS unless significantly expanded upon. RFerreira 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Btw, WP:SCHOOLS proposal has stalled, isn't it? -- Vsion 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the relevant community or school district or both. I can't find any references to this in either the Google News Archive or EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database. Capitalistroadster 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect with community and district articles, once identified. I don't see that there's enough here to justify retention, or that there is more material to adequately expand it, but Deletion is destruction. Alansohn 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP and do not merge or redirect, there is a clear consensus in the community at schoolwatch that all schools are notable and deserve their own article. -- ForbiddenWord 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge if there's an article for its school district, delete otherwise. As usual, non-notable. -- Kicking222 16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Unlike the US, I don't think Australia has "school districts"... ( JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)) reply

• Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Can be merged per Capitalistroadster, but that does not require an AFD discussion. Silensor 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and see rebuttal essay at User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Silensor. -- Myles Long 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a non-notable primary school. JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Plenty of schools use these colors and occupy structurally sound buildings. — ptk✰ fgs 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable school. Montco 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and allow for organic growth, notable to the communities served. Bahn Mi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all schools.   ALKIVAR ™ 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As a Lexis-Nexis search shows only trivial local coverage of the "community events" sort, the school's notability is not established and there is no chance of expanding the article with verifiable material. Pan Dan 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep please school is notabel and meets proposed guideline too Yuckfoo 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge (which may be the preferred option according to wiki:schools)
• Keep all schools. -- Czj 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all schools, they are useful content in our encyclopedia. bbx 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete as empty. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Rebecca 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted. TheRanger 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think she is voting based on one of the reasons stated above. Anyway, why does it matter? You don't have to give a reason. ( JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)) reply

Since Afd isn't a vote, a vote without a reason is pointless. Pan Dan 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - as per Vsion. ( JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I'm fairly certain this guy is notable enough, but the article really doesn't make his contributions clear. No prejudice against recreation, but if the article is recreated, it should be clear on his importance. Mango juice ^talk 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Frederick Carr

I am nominating this article for deletion under the "Non-notable" section of Wikipedia's guidelines. While I personally know Fred Carr (and attend the University of Oklahoma for that matter), I do not feel that he has contributed to Meteorology in a way that would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article on him. TNLTRPB 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Frederick Carr is notable; he invented the carr. Just kidding...Delete. Wavy G 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep professors are notable. Valoem ^talk 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete professors are not notable. See WP:PROF. Herostratus 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Seems to be more notable than the average college professor, which is typically treated as the minimum notability requirement. --- RockMFR 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't feel that the article gives a reason that meets WP:PROF. -- 150.203.177.218 03:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Although you may have counted my nomination of this article as a vote for "delete," I'm going ahead and placing my vote here for formality. BTW, the WP:PROF page notes that it is -not- a policy at this time, only a proposal. TNLTRPB 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete as the article fails to assert notability beyond head of the School of Meteorology, which just barely meets the standard. I'm comfortable with university presdients getting an automatic notability pass, but individual schools within a university, not so much. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not quite notable enough for me, I'm afraid. If he ran this American Meterological Society, then fine, but just being a fellow isn't good enough. Moreschi 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep A research professor is easier to find notability for. Other than his dissertation, no research, no books, no invited papers, no research awards are reported. Google sucks for such research, because there are too many other men with similar names. It says he edits journals and is a Fellow of the national body of his specialty. Carr is more interested in teaching per his facuty page. The article doesn't cite winning teaching awards. Maybe some quotes from famous people in the field whom he mentored could be included to verify notability as a teacher, or publications, invited talks, and editorships could be documented. Points for being the department head. Edison 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Try Google Scholar instead of Google Web. Uncle G 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep per above -- Librarianofages 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

What "above" are you refering to? I mean Edison's "keep" opinion is a very very weak one (and I almost suspect he meant "weak delete") and Valeom's opinion is not at all representative of current stantdards applied around here. That leaves RockMFR which isn't particularly well-documented. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete - Fails the criteria of WP:PROF -- Ineffable3000 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The Google search for his name + meteorology gets 68 unique hits which is waaaay low for anyone who might qualify as a truly above average professor. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The Google Scholar search for his name + meteorology gets only 28 hits [8], also solidly below the "average professor" threshold, and I see no evidence from independent sources of him meeting any of the tests at WP:PROF. GRBerry 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Restated Keep Sorry I didnt have time to add comment. Professors are notable SEE WP:PROF "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability".: http://www.caps.ou.edu/CAPS/carr.html

Pascal.Tesson I'm afraid you are wrong I did have my reason for keeping. Do not randomly insult people it is trolling. Valoem ^talk 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I pointed out that your opinion does not reflect consensus. I'm not sure how you could misconstrue this as a random insult. And I insist: consensus on Wikipedia is that not all professors are notable enough to deserve an article. I take it from what you just wrote that you agree Carr does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. The extra link you just gave is his description on the Oklahoma University website. For all we know he wrote this himself. That hardly counts as a reliable source. Pascal.Tesson 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. JPD ( talk) 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Bankstown Grammar School

<Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment "This was listed in error, at the time I thought that this was a grade school and it is in fact a high school. Based on this fact I now think that the article should be kept. I would like to withdraw my nomination. TheRanger 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Super Speedy Happy Time Keep If you click the link to the actual school, you'll find that it is a High School. A Grammar, or Private High School at that. Rather Exclusive. Article needs expanding, but certainly not deleting. Pursey 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No assertion of importance of subject. Catchpole 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. More notable than many High Schools and they are generally kept. -- Bduke 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• DeleteNo particular assertion of notability other than being a high school, and I do not agree athat every high school is notable. In what ways has this school excelled, as described by newspaper articles or recognition by bodies which evaluate schools in the area? The article does not mention adequately its Christian emphasis and pastoral care for the students as described at the website. Edison 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The article should probably be marked for cleanup, but not deletion. Pursey 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Verifiable and notable. Nomination appears to be a mistake.

Merchbow 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I agree that the nomination appears to be in error, keep with cleanup. However I do not know how to withdraw the nomination.. TheRanger 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep no reason to delete, per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS; note that the later is not a deletion criteria. — RJH ( talk) 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Fits a more liberal interpretation of WP:SCHOOLS. It is interesting information and there are tons of pages on Grammar Schools like this one on Wikipedia. -- Ineffable3000 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -- Vsion 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are some sources for this including Google News Archive [9] showing it was under threat from an expansion of Bankstown Airport. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Again, for one, this is not a high school, it's a primary school (and is a fairly new primary school). It would not meet the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL, and even if you disregard that, no reasons for keeping were given (again, something existing, or the fact that Schoolwatch exists are not reasons for keeping, and in the case of the latter, stare decisis does not exist here). AfD is not a vote. Furthermore, the article reads like an ad. -- Core des at 03:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Beaumont Hills Public School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails to assert notability. Also full of irrelevant trivia. MER-C 02:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability-- 150.203.177.218 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No assertion of notability.-- Hús ö nd 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails to assert notability. Pursey 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Catchpole 06:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable. Merge somewhere if you want to. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What makes it notable? TJ Spyke 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details. TheRanger 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Again, I don't see that he needs to reply, everything that he has said seems to be self evident -- Librarianofages 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Merchbow, All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Since when was it wikipedia policy that all schools are notable? 150.203.177.218 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Since the development of coordinated spamming of VfD's. Read any comment by ForbiddenWord on a school AFD; they all say "keep, because we'll spam it with keeps regardless". It's honestly the most appalling thing ever to happen to notability on this encyclopedia. People spend far more time, over the course of their lives, at work than they do at a school, and yet we don't have articles for every place of employment (which, in any reasonable interpretation, are often more notable in their communities than schools are said to be). The ability of the schoolwatch crowd to bully every non-notable school into the encyclopedia is truly depressing, but it doesn't seem like there's anything left to do about it. — ptk✰ fgs 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS. The later is not a deletion criteria. — RJH ( talk) 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge into the local community page or respective district per WP:SCHOOLS. RFerreira 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -- Vsion 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, almost all schools are notable (see link above). This one with 550 students is no exeption. bbx 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete when a school is so special that the best one can find to say about it is "Playground Awards are for behaving well at lunch or recess." you know that you're in trouble. But, yet again, school inclusionist fail to provide anything beyond their statement of principle that "every school is notable". This school is 5 years old. By the article's own admission it is "not exccedingly popular", it has a modest enrollment, it has received pretty much no reliable third-party coverage whatsoever [10], it most clearly does not meet the current WP:SCHOOL or any previous version of that guideline. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and clean up. There are some sources for this school notably a story in the Sun Herald about the high rate of burglaries from 2001. Google News Archive shows something as well see [11]. The stuff about the playground awards can go though. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• I followed your "news link" and got three things related to the school two were comunity clanader (which are not notable) type notices a notice of ceremony for the ground breaking in 2000 and a up coming movie night in like 2006. Also a brief notuce that Children have been evacuated because of concerns about an odour in the classrooms in 20003. Now I would not call these notable at all. TheRanger 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• KEEP, pointless nomination. Everyone at schoolwatch agrees all schools are notable and should be allowed organic expansion and growth. -- ForbiddenWord 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and expand for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools. Silensor 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and see reply essay at User:JoshuaZ/Schools. 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as being not notable, not even meeting the proposed highly inclusionist standards at WP:SCHOOLS. Furthermore, there is no substantial material that would even help in regard to simple WP:V concerns. JoshuaZ 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nothing here resembling an assertion of notability. — ptk✰ fgs 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete wouldn't qualify for SP:SCHOOLS. -- Marriedtofilm 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable regardless of schoolwatch. Montco 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all enduring public institutions. -- Centauri 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Should Wikipedia have an article for every DMV office? Every post office? Pan Dan 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Silensor/Schools.   ALKIVAR ™ 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JoshuaZ; non-notable and no chance of expansion with verifiable material. This position is confirmed by Pascal.Tesson, TheRanger's response to Capitalistroadster, and a Lexis-Nexis search by me which shows only trivial local coverage of the "community events" sort. Pan Dan 22:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep please per capitalist roadster and bbx there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge do not keep. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Rebecca 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted. TheRanger 14:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge into the appropriate locality according to the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 22 October 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unlike the schools above, this school does appear to meet the proposed guidelines, and there appears to be at least a rough keep consensus if the simple votes are disregarded. -- Core des at 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Beecroft Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Abstain This is tough. I want to vote delete, but under the proposed(as in not official ploicy yet) WP:SCHOOL guidelines, this would qualify to be kept by being more than 50 years old. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I missed that fact about it being more than 50 years old. TheRanger 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• (via ec) Nooooooo! I went there! Don't delete it! Actually, I can't think of a good enough reason to keep it, although there's always a chance some part of it was actually heritage listed or something. Weak delete until I become famous enough to be listed as a famous former student ;) (Edit: Checking out the proposed guideline, I'll shift my vote to neutral. Also, it needs to be considered that there are actually more Ghits for "beecroft primary school" referring to a school in Leeds, UK.) Confusing Manifestation 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets notability WP:SCHOOL Valoem ^talk 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep over 50 years old, but other than that, there is nothing else particularly notable about the school.-- 150.203.177.218 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete WP:SCHOOL is not a policy yet. I, for one, believe that the 50-year-old proposed criterium should apply only to high schools/universities. Otherwise we may end up with articles about 50-year-old kindergartens.-- Hús ö nd 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't the place to discuss the criteria. It's the place to apply the criteria. Your rationale doesn't even mention the subject of this article. To apply WP:SCHOOL, look for multiple non-trivial published works about the school. If you find them, the primary criterion is satisfied. If you don't find them, then apply the secondary criteria. Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Policy is only proposed at this point, and meets proposed policy guidelines anyhow. Pursey 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SCHOOL. A 51 year old primary school is not any more notable than a 49 year old one. Catchpole 06:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Only claim to notabiliity is having existed 109 years. There should be some press clippings about all the great things the school has done and some of the contributions made to society by its alumni, some academic awards and sports championships, some recognition for its excellence in the press and by whatever body evaluates schools in the area. Otherwise merge it into an article about the town or school district. Edison 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Keeping it because it is more than 100 years old is a bit ridiculous, age only gets important when you are something like "the oldest in the state" or so. Apart from that, there seems to be nothing notable about this school (if students have to wear a uniform or not is not really the kind of information I'm especially looking for...) Fram 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You said the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaumont Hills Public School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altona Green Primary School. You have not said on any of them though what makes them notable. TJ Spyke 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the town article per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep (same reasons, i know)-- Vsion 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is better known as Beecroft Public School see [12]. There are some sources available for this. Allan Seale who was a well-known gardening presenter on the ABC apparently went to this school. Capitalistroadster 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Age and history confer notability. Article would greatly benefit from expansion. Alansohn 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep- pointless nomination. Everyone at schoolwatch agrees all schools are notable, and Schoolwatch can turn out enough people to influence any AFD. -- ForbiddenWord 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think you may have opened a can of worms with your comment here, and I don't think that it will benefit schoolwatch... Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch. Fram 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Doesn't this Schoolwatch inherently promote canvass? I believe that such page is prone to disrupt Wikipedia's natural consensus building process.-- Hús ö nd 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think that Schoolwatch exists to disrupt process. All its purpose is, is to provide a single page that comprehensively lists AFDs so editors can go out and stop them from being deleted. -- ForbiddenWord 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Erm, no that is not exactly true either. I personally use it to help improve articles that need improvement. I hope you do realize that anyone can view that page, and that it is watched by several "deletionists" as well. In the end, this is a discussion and not a vote. Silensor 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
            • The comments by ForBiddenWord are directly opposed to wikipedia policy which states "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." TheRanger 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
              • I'll not comment on the actual reason Schoolwatch exists, but the way Forbiddenword presents it, is actually the perfect way to disrupt process. See Wikipedia:Spam, the section about canvassing. If one of the reasons Schoolwatch exists is to "turn out enough people to influence any AfD", then it should be abolished for being a POV votestacking mechanism. If this is not the purpose, then it should be made clear to Forbiddenword that his impression of it (and possibly of his perceived consensus as well) is quite wrong. Fram 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
                • There were, a long while ago, concerted efforts to votestack in the very manner that ForbiddenWord describes. They were disruptive, and caused much division and rancour with no actual improvement to the encyclopaedia. Any editor attempting to restart that should be aware that there are a lot of editors around here who went through it the first time around, and are highly unlikely to favourably regard any attempts to bring back the rancour and factionalism. Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, the subject actually does meet WP:SCHOOLS contrary to the nomination. Silensor 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Silensor. This does meet WP:SCHOOLS. -- Myles Long 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, the only thing here resembling an assertion of notability is that uniforms are required. Non-notable, unverifiable school stub. — ptk✰ fgs 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and allow for organic growth, meets relevant guidelines. Bahn Mi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Which relevant guidelines? Remember, WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed guideline which, according to the talk page, will have a hard time getting a consensus, and will thus probably never become a real guideline Fram 07:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep all enduring public institutions. -- Centauri 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: depending on the country and your definition of enduring, publican institution, this may include every library, kindergarten, postal office, police station, toll booth (wrong word probably, I mean a manned border crossing station between countries), ... Is that really your proposal? If so, why? Fram 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a proposal, and a toll booth is not a discrete institution - although libraries, kindergartens and police stations are. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia aims to document the sum total of all knowledge. -- Centauri 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Within certain limits, perhaps the main one being that there has to be enough independent, non-trivial, verifiable coverage, which is seriously lacking for many of these institutions. We currently have guidelines excluding lots of knowledge from this encyclopedia, and there is no reason (except consensus or lack thereof, but not some basic policy) that schools or kindergartens should get an automatic free pass. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or many other things, even though directories, game guides, ... contain knowledge. It is up to us to decide what information is important enough to be included, and while our standards are quite different from paper encyclopedias, they are not non-existant. Your idea of what should be included is equally valid as anyone elses, but I hope that it won't get consensus. Anyway, nothing in this article is verified (as per WP:V), and I wonder if apart from the basic existence, much can be verified (the uniform? doubtful...) Fram 05:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per silensor.   ALKIVAR ™ 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep please established in 1897 it looks verifiable and notable to me too Yuckfoo 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, all schools. bbx 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets what I believe should be a WP:SCHOOL guideline of over 100 years old. Vegaswikian 23:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Rebecca 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted. TheRanger 14:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Silensor, this school does meet the proposed guidelines, the nominator is incorrect. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 October 2006

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

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

The result was redirected. This page was originally a redirect before a spammer came along and has been reverted. Please check the page history before nominating. MER-C 05:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

JMG

Non-notable company advertisment Mozzie 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Robert Trundle

The subject of this article has requested its removal on the grounds that its existance may tend to compromise his privacy. This in itself is not sufficient grounds for deletion, although per the spirit of WP:BLP one might give him the benefit of the doubt provided that he is on the borderline of notability anyway. You make the call. This is an adminstrative nomination. Herostratus 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Neutral as nominator.
• Question well, he does seem to have some books published, but they might be self-published or something, I don't know. Any idea who produced the books? As for privacy concerns, if there's anything that wouldn't available in the biography section of his works, I can't see it from a first pass. FrozenPurpleCube 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete if the subject wants it to be. I looked on amazon.com, his books do not appear to be self published, although they are not too popular. He appears to be weakly notable. I don't think wikipedia would be worse off without this article.
• Weak delete. I understand the subject's privacy concerns, and I don't think Wikipedia has to index every author in the world. On the other hand, if you publish books, you have to understand that this exposes your private information somewhat. In the absence of the subject's request I would vote keep for this article. N Shar 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep the subject would appear to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria of being well known, important, and honoured in their field. (Whether UFOlogy is an academic field may be contestable, but I digress.) He also appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) in general by having non-trivial mentions by real newspapers such as The Cincinnati Post [13]. -- tjstrf 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Awkward keep. The Fate Magazine and Cincinnati Post references are clearly independant coverage of his writings, whether those are self-published or not. He probably doesn't meet WP:PROF but those two articles ought to earn him the minimum level of notability needed for a keep under WP:BIO as an author. The remaining problem is the WP:BLP concern that led to this administrative nomination. Nothing in the article seems to fall within its demense, however. The ufology material is potentially controversial, but it is strongly sourced. The remaining material is not controversial, nor is it "details of [his] personal li[fe]." Furthermore, the caveats of WP:BLP's section on the "Presumption in favor of privacy" for "Non-public figures" seem to be met. To wit, the article's content clearly exercises restraint, disincludes material from primary sources not covered in verifiable secondary sources, and is not "sensationalistic" or "titilating." WP:BLP is designed to shield people against misinformation and attacks, but I do not believe it is meant as a blanket means to hide otherwise-notable material from the wider world, at least not as the policy currently is worded (cf. Talk: Angela Beesley). Serpent's Choice 08:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable. Just because you write a book doesn't mean you get a WP entry, and the Cincinnati Post seems to be a local newspaper that and doesn't really guarantee notability. "Top 100 Ufologists" speaks for itself, really - bull. Moreschi 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep He has written several books. I added the publisher names from Amazon. They sound like "scholarly publishers," but I am not familiar with them. One book is around the 500,000th most popular on Amazon. I would be inclined to give some of the books a read based on the Amazon reviews. I do not see anything remotely defamatory in the article other than noting that the books he has written are about their subjects! So far as we know, no one forced him to write about UFO's, and it is not as if we snatched his private journal out of his desk and made an article out of it, or we sleuthed out the actual name of someone who published under a pen name. Publishing books pretty well removes any claim to personal privacy about having published the books. The books are listed in the catalog of his college, so it is not as if he will get into trouble at work for having written about whaty he wrote about. What is the issue? Edison 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here, especially since it's questionable whether he passes WP:N in the first place. -- Aaron 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here" this is a blatantly false statement of policy, the wishes of the subject are not an applicable argument in favour of deletion. (nor in favour of keeping, obviously). -- tjstrf 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I posted the above in full awareness of what policy says; that's why I didn't say anything even remotely close to "Policy says we should delete it." It's my opinion, and one I happen to hold strongly: A living person that doesn't want an article here should be allowed to request its removal. Take it or leave it. (The fact that it's not policy is also why I included the argument about him probably not meeting WP:N, so the closing admin will accept my vote on that basis rather than my opinion about requests from living persons.) -- Aaron 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: The AfD of a particular article, for better or worse, is not the appropriate place to debate whether policy (and consensus) should move in the direction of this opinion. We cannot appeal to opinion, but only to facts, verification, and policy. An "opt out" policy might (without comment on its merits here) be worth discussing on the BLP talk page or even as a central community issue. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: as I originally added the {{ db-author}} speedy template to it. -- JHunterJ 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep According to WorldCat, Camus' Answer is carried in 144 libraries while Medieval Modal Logic & Science is carried in 128 libraries. That's reasonably impressive. And I don't understand Moreschi's suggestion that the "Top 100 Ufologists" claim is "bull" - the Fate article is available online, so you can see for yourself. Yes, ufology is arguably a pseudoscience, but plenty of people are interested in it, so being named as one of the top 100 Ufologists isn't too shabby. Zagalejo 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Claims in fringe communities often are not able to meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Fate, on the other hand, has been in continuous publication since the 1940s, and certainly has earned a position of repute by this time. Their awards and commondations are substantive in the appropriate field. Although giving undue weight to fringe communities or conflating their ideas with established thought does disservice to the encyclopedia's goals, in an article about a fringe science writer, there can be no better verification of impact than the recognition and admiration -- in print, from an established source -- of that same community. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, appears to be worthy, and his opinion isn't really all that important regarding inclusion. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. His philosophical work would make him notable regardless of the UFO stuff. JamesMLane  t  c 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Fails wp:prof notability. His philosophical work is not substantive. He did not publish with any noted presses in philosophy. His citation count is 3 or less (and given that philosophers tend to cite themselves...) The ufo stuff is interesting... However, I don't see the content there. -- Buridan 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I believe strongly that people who are not major public figures should have their wishes respected if they want to opt-out. In specific here, UFOlogy is a topic that draws ridicule and mockery, which raises the risks of the article being vandalized. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep enough valid arguments for keeping this have been expressed above.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable. The privacy concerns are invalid: there's nothing in this article that reveals anything that infinges on his privacy, and Wikipedia is organised so that such details would be unlikely to remain. There are claims to notability, but if he's being a pain about this, then best get rid of him. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Spiders in Israel palestine

• Mammals in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Mosquitoes in Israel palestine
• Nematoda in Israel and Palestine
• Biodiversity in Israel Palestine/Snails
• Chordata in Israel and Palestine
• Mosquitoes in Israel palestine
• Biodiversity in Israel Palestine/dragonflies and dasmeflies
• Beetles in Israel and Palestine
• Moths in Israel and Palestine
• Ticks in Israel palestine
• Protista in Israel and Palestine
• Cnidaria in Israel and Palestine
• Porifera in Israel and Palestine
• Arthropoda in Israel and Palestine
• Mollusca in Israel and Palestine
• Birds in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Reptiles in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Amphibians in Israel Palestine
• Scorpions in Israel Palestine
• Butterflies in Israel and Palestine
• Annelida in Israel and Palestine

I was in the middle of fulfilling several move requests regarding these articles, but I have been wondering why these articles exist. None of these articles seem to indicate why separate articles are needed regarding the presence of these species in the region. As of right now, they're simple lists of species, so at the very least, these articles should probably be merged into one (perhaps Biodiversity in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip). -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• CommentI don't know what to make of this, the articles just appear to be lists of fauna found in the region. If they were merged the article would be huge. || 150.203.177.218 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but move and merge to List of mammals in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, List of reptiles..., List of invertebrates..., and List of birds... to make these lists consistent with the others in "Category:Lists of animals" -- the lists themselves are potentially useful. Shimeru 06:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - none of these pages is likely ever to be maintained to any reasonable standard of accuracy. Michael K. Edwards 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - while assigning species to regions is certainly normal, it is odd to assign it to countries. does that mean those species do not appear in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt .... besides: the information where a species occurs is already contained on the wiki pages of the various species Yellowbelliedmarmot 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Are birds and spiders in Israel/Palestine so different from the ones in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan? Surprisingly, no Loons were reported. Merge to fewer and more comprehensive lists. Make sure that climate/geography is the boundary determinant and not political lines on a map. As for maintenance problems, once the list is created, how often will species evolve, become extinct, or move into and out of the subject geographic area? Edison 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep all (possibly rename to whatever the convention is to talk about Israel + the occupied territories) Certainly they will be different than those in Egypt (with the very specific ecosystem of the nile), Jordan (which is more desertic) and probably the northern part of Lebanon. So I'm not sure what's the fuss about. Such lists can be very useful for school children who want to know about the very specific part of the world in which they live in and I see no reason why these could not be maintained as accurate. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge at the very minimum. It was pointed out on the move discussion that the only analogous pages are Biodiversity of New Caledonia and Biodiversity of New Zealand, and neither of them is anywhere near the length of this series. I've notified the creator to see if we might not get some of his feedback. Tewfik ^Talk 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Michael K. Edwards and Yellowbelliedmarmot, Merge per Edison and Tewfik if Delete fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete per Michael and Yellowbelliedmarmot. --  tasc  ^words _deeds 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete per nom, merge at best, provided sound scientifical reasoning is given. -- tickle me 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot. Isarig 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot, otherwise merge. 6SJ7 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or maximally merge into a general Middle East entomology article that is actually maintainable. Very few species are bothered by political encumberances and will happily climb the West Bank Barrier even if that were to lead to international conflict. JFW |  T@lk 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge at the very minimum per Tewfik and Jayjg. Amoruso 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep those things is worthy in an encyclopedia Nielswik _(talk) 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment well how do you respond to the problems listed? Tewfik ^Talk 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment What problems? All I see is a string of "delete per"s. The only actual arguments raised were Michael K. Edwards' assertion that such lists aren't maintainable (answered by Pascal.Tesson) and Yellowbelliedmarmot's contention that listing such things by country is "odd," if that can be called an argument. There's precedent, though, for what it's worth: List of Azerbaijani mammals, List of mammals in Brazil, List of Estonian mammals, List of Texas butterflies, List of dragonfly species recorded in Ireland. Perhaps that simply means all of those should be deleted, too, but I don't see that a good argument for doing so has been raised. The articles as they stand are poor, but for what reason is the information contained in those articles not encyclopedic? They're verifiable and sourced (via the parent article Biodiversity in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip), so that's not the issue. Is the argument that flora and fauna are not encyclopedic? Shimeru 08:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There is no "POV" issue as we've already agreed to rename this to a more accurate/neutral form - however when looking at the extent of this series (~25 entries I think; see {{ Biodiversity in Israel Palestine}}), it seems that the coverage here is grossly out of proportion to anywhere else, and that that may be unencyclopaedic. Tewfik ^Talk 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Is the fact that we're lacking other articles really a rationale for deletion? Or for creating those articles? The sheer number here does seem excessive, but merging would address that. What is it about the information itself that makes it not worthy of inclusion? Admittedly I have no expertise in the field, but an easily-accessible set of lists of species found in a given area seems like it might be useful to me -- especially if the alternative is to look up each individual species' article to determine whether it is in fact found in the region in question. It's true we have much more information in this vein for Israel etc. and Britain than elsewhere, but I don't see why that's a problem requiring deletion. I'd think this sort of thing is what the "not paper" guideline is for. Shimeru 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not sure what we're arguing about, since I advocated merging into the standard format for these lists. I commented on a vote that ignored the context of the discussion in an attempt to illicit a more nuanced formulation of the user's position. Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, I'm trying to obtain more information from those who voted delete. Your question just seemed like a good place to start from. Unfortunately, most of those who favor deletion don't have their own rationale, and those who do apparently don't feel like expanding upon it. We'll see whether Thameen's new comment has better results. Shimeru 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot. -- Avi 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all the above. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete seems like the creation of either a prank or a crank... Man that was so clever.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I did create these lists and they are the result of a lot of research on the net and in books. I did not mean to make them as articles, I just wanted lists to support the main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine. Those who want to see these lists deleted raised the following points:

• • Do we need to have lists of species in separate geographical areas: The geographical area of Israel Palestine is a very unique one from an ecological point of view. The main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine describes this area. This geographical area may not have many species unique to it, but its combination of species is unique and this is what the main article and the lists are about. The lists in question of deletion are part of that main article.

• • Do we need to have lists of species in certain countries: These lists are not about a certain country but about a geographical region that includes Israel and Palestine. So the issue is not countries but a geographical region that has a certain combination of species.

• • That the information where a species occurs is already contained on the wiki pages of the various species: The wiki page of each species answers the question where does this species live. These lists answer a different kind of question What species do live in a certain region. These are two important questions. These lists are here to answer the later question regarding the geographical area of Israel Palestine.

• • That the coverage here is grossly out of proportion to anywhere else: I do not see how can this be a problem, It is a good thing.

• • That these are not complete article: I only wanted to create lists that support the mean article. I did not mean to create articles. These lists are long so it is not suitable to merge them in the article, this will make it very long and crowded. I always wanted to know how can we create lists in wikipedia without the need for these lists to meet article standards. Can any one help me with this?

• • My opinion is that these lists are very informative for any one seeking to understand the ecology of this area. They are a great reference for any one looking for a certain species in the area. It will be a great loss if we delete them. I hope more experienced wikipedians may help us put these lists in a more friendly form while keeping them as extensions of the main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine-- Thameen 09:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Palaeodicots

Original research from User:Brya; the group as imagined in the article does not exist in AGPii or in any other literature [O uses on the ISI web of science]; the only web hits are from wikipedia and mirrors. -- Peta 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This appears to be an informal term used by a single group of researchers. Perhaps the information belongs on the page belonging to the formal term. (However, the page doesn't link to that formal term)-- 150.203.177.218 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - Francis Tyers · 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep (but perhaps move to original and more common spelling "paleodicots"). This is a concept that was introduced with some of the molecular phylogenies addressing the earliest branches of the angiosperms, when it became apparent that "dicots" were a paraphyletic group. The problem with the article as originally written is that it implied that this word and concept were used by APG II when it was not. I've tried to clean up the most egregious problems, and added one of the pre-APG references that did use the term, but the article needs a lot more cleanup. MrDarwin 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've done a major edit to the article (and moved to Paleodicots to reflect the more common and apparently original spelling); please check it out and see if that helped. MrDarwin 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep The term is widely used and well-understood by those interested in angiosperm phylogenetics. The group itself warrants an article.-- Curtis Clark 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as per Mr. Darwin and Curtis Clark. JoJan 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. -- Stemonitis 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now, as it is, the references quoted don't define the term at all, and it's not defined anywhere else but on Wikipedia. Modern secondary sources to the large 1993 Chase articles use "paleoherb" not "paleodicot." KP Botany 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Paleoherb and paleodicot are not synonyms.-- Curtis Clark 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. -- Berton 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - keep voters seem to be ignoring the fact that this term is not in wide use, nor is an actual definition agreed on by anyone. It is, at this stage, a taxonomic neologism. -- Peta 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not so much a neologism, as fallen out of use (AFAICT) since the late 1990s, when I first heard the term.-- Curtis Clark 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A word used to describe a poorly defined group, that has been used in a total of 4 publications (google scholar search) is not an encyclopedic topic. It just creates confusion.-- Peta 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The word is not poorly defined, it simply represents a non-monophyletic group (as do many group names in plant systematics): those dicots that are not eudicot. That fact does not make it "poof" out of existence. Sure it's a neologism, but plant systematics is full of neologisms, as anybody active in the field in the last 20 years well knows. Wikipedia is full of articles about obscure and rarely-used terms and concepts. If they were all deleted, there wouldn't be much left! I would argue that Wikipedia is at its very best when it provides explanations for the obscure and hard-to-track-down subjects. Here are my tests: does the term actually exist? Has it been used in the literature? Is anybody ever likely to want to know about it? And finally, is the information presented factually? MrDarwin 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. IMHO palaeodicot is a useful term, denoting those angiosperms which are neither monocots nor eudicots. While it may have had less usage as yet than palaeoherb, I expect it to be more persistent - it denotes a grade/paraphyletic group whereas the palaeoherbs are polyphyletic. Lavateraguy 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is the sort of term that some poor grad student might run across, wonder what the heck it means, and later feel fortunate that someone was kind enough to write a wikipedia article on it. -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the reasons cited. - MPF 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Wikipedia is in the business of explaining existing concepts... not determining which classifications are 'right'. This term gets used and requires more than just a dictionary definition to explain so it is reasonable for inclusion here... as it would be in any encyclopedia of taxonomical terms. Knowledge is good. -- CBD 12:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Core des at 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Great Glass Elevator

Also Crocodile Tears and Great Glass Elevator (band) (see below)

Full text: Great Glass Elevator is a fuzzy fighter space rock band from America who are signed to Atlantic Records. (although not according to the Atlantic Records roster) Beyond that, little else is known. This article needs to be either completed and sourced or deleted (along with the download-only single "Crocodile Tears"). ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Also Great Glass Elevator (band).

• Delete all three and redirect main article back to Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator per WP:V, WP:MUSIC and WP not a crystal ball. Last.fm confirms the band exists and even has a few listeners, but the record deal seems unconfirmed. Even if it's true, two years and two self-released EP's doesn't quite cut it. Prolog 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks. AfD tag added. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - non-verifiable, otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all unless someone provides a verifiable source showing that they're signed to Atlantic. NawlinWiki 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Redirect per Prolog. Danny Lilithborne 16:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all Per nom. "Fuzzy fighter space rock"? Caknuck 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all lets wait for them to release an actual album. And be able to provide more article content, with a recognized genre.-- danntm ^T _C 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Krakatoa Katie 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ObjectStore

Article about a programming api. No evidence of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep 1. The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Book: Databasteknink (Padron-McCartht, Rich) ISBN 91-44-04449-6 chapter 16 Book: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design for Database Applications ISBN 0-13-123829-9 Chapter 15 and 16. (There are more, how many are considered multiple non-trivial published works?) 2. it's not an api it's a ODBMS (An object database management system)-- Marsve 09:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, let's see

• #1 is in german which I can't read

So what? It contains these (English) references:

Soloviev, V.: An overview of three commercial object-oriented database management systems: ONTOS, ObjectStore, and O. ACM SIGMOD Record, Band 21, Nr. 1, S. 93-104, 1992.

Ahmed, S.; Wong, A.; Sriram, D.; Logcher, R.: Object-oriented database management systems for engineering: A comparison. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Band 5, Nr. 3, S. 27-43, 1992.

• #2 & #3 both point to the same issue of CACM which is inaccessible to non-members (Volume 34 , Issue 10 (October 1991)) and appears to have been written by the originators of ObjectStore

This paper was written by the originators but was accepted by the CACM, doesn't that make it a valid paper. The CACM was never free, not in its original paper form either. Does that make its papers less valid?

• #4 & #5 are reports that Starwood hotels is using the software
• #6 is not an article about the software, but notes from Cisco documentation of a Cisco product that uses ObjectStore
• #7 & #13 appear to be just press releases from the software's authors
• #8 is very short and only indirectly about ObjectStore; it's subject is actually another piece of software which uses ObjectStore
• #9 is in german, but appears to be just product documentation
• #10 & #14 are again just product documentation
• #11 is a perl extension that uses ObjectStore
• #12 is just a comparison of various databases, not an article about ObjectStore
• ISBN 91-44-04449-6 could not be found at either amazon or the library of congress
• ISBN 0-13-123829-9 appears to be about databases in general, not about ObjectStore

So, while there seems to be plenty to indicate the software is in use, I only see 1 of these that might satisfy the guideline (eg. qualify as an article about the subject that is non-trivial). Valrith 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Another reference is the book "Object Databases in Practice" by Akmal B. Chaudhri, Mary Loomis, Hewlett-Packard Professional Books which includes a section on each of 5 object databases, including a chapter on ObjectStore.

Hibernate has a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia entry, and is not considered a Java API for persisting data. ObjectStore is a full ODBMS with backup, recovery, archiving etc.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply