Article was speedied under A7 (no assertions of notability). On the talk page, the article's creators are vehemently asserting notability. Well, they are vehemently claiming that many people are members and care deeply about their organization. There is no evidence of references in reliable sources as of yet. However, it appears that whoever acted on the speedy acted too rashly, as this probably needs more discussion; the speedy delete is obviously being contested. I currently hold No Opinion pending evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:WEB. Jayron3220:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Claiming something is notable is not the same thing as offering a valid assertion of notability. If I start an article with "This is really, really, really, really notable," that does not mean it can't be speedied. A valid assertion of notability requires a significant reason for the assertion. The only clan articles I have seen that actually contain such a valid assertion are some recent articles on Halo groups who have gotten a million-dollar contract to publicly compete and help promote the game. As that contract has been widely reported in the press, it's a valid assertion of notability. Fan-196721:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy: I'm sure that the members of the clan like their clan. Other than that, the folks above say it well. (Besides, beer drinkers should be cheeful.) Geogre12:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is a difference between asserting notability and complaining about notability. I bet if you got the statistics, you would see that a disproportionate number of articles that start off with "This is a notable X because" have been speedied. -Amarkovblahedits20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, notability and assertion of notability are not synonymous. There has to be written multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to back up the assertion and it isn't found here.--Dakota20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dominic Janes – Speedily closed, better article moved into article space, AFD optional – 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn: I don't know about "speedy closed", whatever that means. Rushing seems to be the major mistake in the case of this article. I'd say that the article should be recreated as there is clearly notability. I'm a little surprised this article was deleted four times, protected, etc. and yet there was apparently no attempt at formal "deletion survey. It's alomost as if a minority of admins tried to suppress this. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Church of Google – Deletion endorsed – 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Article described reoccuring phenomenon, documented both in 2004 and 2006, and exhibited by separate sources (links to relevant articles will be provided on request). Furthermore, article passes notability "search engine test", both on Google and Yahoo search engines. Alice Shade16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; I still don't see any claim of notability in the article. That the Church of Google passes the Google test is not surprising, but not a claim of notability. Tizio17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, test was performed on both Google and Yahoo. While Google results alone about Church of Google would definitely not look persuasive enough, close corellation of Yahoo and Google results gives the ground to state, that claim to "search engine" notability is probably veracious. Alice Shade17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This claim to notability references not the number of hits, which is mostly secondary measurement, at best. Rather, the top searches contain a lot of subject-relevant information, which suggests, that those pages were ones visited most, when performing such search queries. Alice Shade19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Notability. Article was designed as a joint effort, and construction was stretched over the time to allow for different timezones. There are links, which feature subject being referenced by both internet media and press. Moreso, there are two different sources referenced, and two different Churches of Google. Cited passage about church created by Matt MakPherson regards following of 2006. 2004 had another following, based on Orkut society, but with same premises - which suggests, that subject at hand is not a joke/hoax religion, but rather, reoccuring issue. Alice Shade17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point of wiki article, among others, to refute common misconception, that it`s a joke religion. Maybe it was intended as such, but over the last couple of months, there`s little left of joke, if any. It`s as serious, as spin-off from agnisticism can get. Alice Shade18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don`t explicitly insist on restoring the article as a separate item, by the way. According to rules, undernotable topic could be merged into a more general one as subsection, which would be quite enough for this subject for the foreseeable future. Alice Shade19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The thing is that the disagreement between various "originators" is exactly what's wrong with the concept as the target of an encyclopedia article: it's so fluid, so much a protologism, so unsettled in every respect as to be unable to make a legitimate claim to notability. A phrase like "family disunity" will pass the Google test, but that doesn't mean that there is a chapter in the Psychology textbook referring to it. We have competitors claiming to have achieved notability, but these are fragmented shots at the same name, and we can't count them cumulatively. Geogre21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, this is the proof of notability, if you mean competitioners for same title. When something is moved along solely by single inventor and his/her support group, that`s one case. Now, when there are several indepentant groups, who reached the same conclusion - it hints, that idea should be more widespread, then it seems. Alice Shade12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're not talking about an idea, but a thing. In this case, it is not a thing, but several people thinking up the same formulation of concepts. Again, a random phrase like "happy camper" will get huge Google hits, but it won't mean that there is a model of recreational vehicle that instills joy, or even that such is the concept. Therefore, someone coming along and claiming to have created an RV that is the "happy camper" couldn't piggyback that to claim notability. Geogre03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Here, we have two separated cases of people creating highly-similar organisations, completely independantly, but with highly similar premises. Two (or two thousand) mentions of words "church" and "google" together, would not, of course, attribute to notability. But close recreation of a secluded following in highly similar form by completely-independant group? That is somewhat more interesting, because it shows a pattern. Moreso, a careful search will crop similar lesser results, which again, constitute not to a random combination of words, but entirely defined concept. On other note, I must note, that "happy camper" is quite incorrect example. "Happy" is adjective, and as such, obviously should not be included along with concept, in Wikipedia. There are no different articles on "stewed beef" and "roasted beef", correct? Now, casting off "happy", we are left with Camper - which, as one can ascertain, there IS an article about. Alice Shade03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that borders with personal attack. I can argue with same reason, that article on Christianity should be banned from Wiki, because I personally think it`s a huge joke. Saying, that subject is not notable enough is one thing, discarding it as something silly is quite another. Alice Shade12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Lack of process—As far as I can tell, there was zero discussion anywhere about this page, which is months, if not years old. Within hours, someone had started a new stub, so the only effect of the deletion appears to have been to lose lots of content. Unless I misunderstand the process, it did not qualify for speedy delete, so please re-instate it. User:Centrx is welcome to tag it or start a conversation about notability, sourcing, etc., on the Talk page, or even list it on AfD—isn't that the proper process? Thanks. —johndburger13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is different about the page now that would prevent it from being deleted again. If the school is non-notable, it's non-notable, no? I agree that the page is improved—is deleting it the typical way top accomplish this? Thanks. —johndburger01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong overturn - Once again, if there's any question, it should be afd, not speedy. A7 speedies are explicitly said at WP:CSD to only be for non-controversial pages dealing with "people, groups, companies and web content" (I'm not sure a school fits into any of these anyway). -Patstuarttalk|edits18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion here History has been restored under the recreated article; any editor that wants to merge the old into the new can do it without admin intervention. GRBerry04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was again a non-concensus (keep if you ignore meritless OR rationale for deletion). No valid reason to delete was given. OR argument is without merit. It was also nominated for deletion one week before the other nomination. The person deleting the article was involved in AfD #1 as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock, Husnock being a co-author of this article along side with me and others. --Catout12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale explained in some detail on the AfD closure. The fact that some people don't like the deletion doesn't undermine its validity, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, although your characterisation of the closure as a drumhead indicates that you probably take the subject far more seriously than you should. Now see if others agree with my summary of the deletion debate. Thanks for pointing out Drumhead court-martial, though, as it needed fixing, and that gave me something more productive to do than arguing about Star Trek articles :-) Guy (Help!) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually pointing to the TNG episode as well as that article. Oh yes, I am taking this as seriously as it is necessary. Frankly, I find your attitude disturbing. --Catout16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Constructively move forward. This whole process has been ugly on all sides. The fundamental premise of the article is very hard to extricate from claims of novel synthesis from published sources, no matter what else is discussed. That, combined with a lack of grievous process violations in AFD2, means the task of DRV is settled, and closure can be endorsed. But, the article's editors make a valid claim that some of this material is not OR. The problem has been a reticence to enforce that bright-line distinction by parties on all sides. Ranks that actually -- by name, not by implication -- appeared in an official but non-canon source should be added to the main Starfleet ranks article (> 32k or not) with a note so indicating that they are in official, but non-canon works (and provide detailed reference for said appearance). Ranks that exist because of questionable costuming or because of wording that strongly implies their existence without expressly and unequivocably affirming that existence stay out of any article. I would humbly suggest that each such rank be addressed in turn at the appropriate talk page to afford sufficient opportunity for review of the sources and inclusion, and to prevent a(nother) repeat of this entire long debacle. Serpent's Choice14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SC, that was precisely the point I was trying to make in the closing summary. We have an article for starfleet ranks, we can add the verifiable ones there those that are rejected there as unverifiable are - well, unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure while also liking the recommendation of Serpent's Choice. Some of the keep opinions misunderstood WP:OR. The most flagrant example was the claim that publication in any source was sufficient to not be original research. That is wrong; it must be a reliable source. To the extent that reliability of the sources was discussed, I think the consensus was that at the very least significant portions of the sourcing was not reliable. Some of the delete opinions were that the entire topic is original research. These concerns were not adequately addressed. [The very topic is "alternate ranks" - where is the reliable source saying that there are "alternate ranks" in Starfleet? (No real military organization would have alternate ranks - either something is a rank or it isn't (plus changes over time).] Without adequate response to that concern, and I can't find a response to that concern which doesn't misunderstand WP:OR, the correct read of the discussion is that the article topic inherently has an original research problem. GRBerry15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starfleet is NOT military (picard states this). WP:OR means I can't make things up. Alternate in the context of the article's coverage is rank insignia published by sources not considered canon such as Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek: The Animated Series and etc. The books are reliable, the TV show (animated series) is reliable enough for us to have articles about them. --Catout16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant overturn. The doubt that this was OR or not should have defaulted to a no-consensus. As discussed at this first DRV, if you have two legitimate arguments, we shouldn't be defaulting to delete. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, what Is aid was, some was OR, some was not OR, some required a creative interpretation of NOR either way, and the premise was such as to encourage OR (by explicitly referencing non-canon, which is almost always a shortcut to the bitbucket in fictional genres) and also a level of detail in excess of what might be generally accepted (Memory Alpha might like articles on ranks that never appeared in canon, but Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha). Someone might well look up a shoulder flash to see what rank a given character has, that is a plausible reader query,. but what reader is going to come here looking for a rank which does not appear in canonical sources? How would they know even to look? Guy (Help!) 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a million plus articles, I sure we have a lot that people theoretically won't come here for. The issue is multiplefold (is that a word?): if there was some OR issues, but not across the board, that can be solved by editing. If you're worried about the level of detail, that can be solved by editing (although I'm not really a sizeist when it comes to article length). Was there really a consensus on the second AfD that this information wasn't encyclopedic? If there was, I'm not seeing it. That's why I can't endorse this, it gives the appearance that you're putting your own limitations into the closing. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you handled it correctly. --badlydrawnjefftalk11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's dead, Jim. Valid close based on <wince> numbers and, more importantly, reasoning. After what seems like a five-year mission through AfD, we get back to where we should have been in the first place. Once the remaining OR has been taken out, we don't have enough for a stand-alone article and anything that can be found in reliable sources can be added to the main article on Star Trek ranks, with the note that it is non-canon, per SC. JChap200718:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not AfD MkII (we already had that). In closing, I reasoned as follows: some of this is definitely OR, some is not, some is arguably OR, the title and underlying premise encourage OR, and even if it were not it represents a level of detail in excess of what would normally be considered appropriate. Star Trek: notable. Episodes of Star Trek: fairly notable. Concepts within the universe you see in episodes of Star Trek: a bit notable. Concepts which are discussed by fans as being implied by what goes on in episodes of Star Trek? Not notable, pretty unambiguously so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So...I'm trying to understand the problem here. There has been a solution proposed that preserved the verifiable content from reliable sources that was inexorable intertwined with OR in the deleted article ... but the deleted article's advocate dismissed it out-of-hand because the merge target is a somewhat large? Serpent's Choice01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, that article is nowhere near the threshhold where mandatory subpagination should be considered. Rename the "Conjectural Ranks" section as "Ranks in non-canon sources" and you can include any appropriately referenced information from Starlog, FASA content, novels, etc. (with the caveat that things like www.st-spike.org probably don't count as sufficiently reliable sources, unless there's more to them than I'm aware of...). Serpent's Choice09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason for that. The actual version of the article was way over 200ks. Article was broken apart to a number of pages auch as Captain (Star Trek) and during the process basically all text was moved off the article to new articles. Forking of alternate ranks article was a part of that. If any material can be merged, they can also be a separate page as well. --Catout09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh: I have avoided any previous discussion on this topic so that I might avoid sounding like I was chiding anyone, but such mass scope deletion decisions handcuff us somewhat. Parts are probably valid, and there should be alternatives to "all in" and "all out." Everyone seems to be motivated by good concerns, and I don't detect anyone being malicious, so I hope no one thinks there are vendettas or anything going on. This may be most properly considered at an RFC than the binary of delete/keep. Geogre21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well cool cat referenced it here, otherwise I'd not have noticed that xhe is trying again to get the image deleted. Humour impaired indeed. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling is prohibited behavior, do not indulge in it or you will regret it. Personal attacks are not welcome either (who are you calling humor impaired?). --Catout10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure was within admin discretion. Information sourced to the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the like can (and should) be added to the main article per Serpent's Choice (and my own "vote" in the AfD for that matter). Even setting aside OR (which I think remains a valid criticism of the article as it stood), the excessive detail (i.e. "cruft") argument remains. Not everything in Star Trek is notable (and certainly not everything in secondary non-canon sources is notable). Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an exhaustive Star Trek one. Eluchil40405:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The admin closing it was not an objective party. He had a predetermined view before closing the debate (as per previous afd that happened this month). The entire article is sourced with sources like the star trek encyclopedia and was still deleted for being original research and for not being verifiable. Numerous votes point out that this is not inline with policy. 'Cruft' articles are welcome on wikipedia, one mans cruft is anthers knowledge. Why not delete all articles on astronomy for being astronomy cruft. Wikipedia is indeed a general purpose encyclopedia, hence what you call 'cruft' is welcome here. Topics covered do not exclude detailed information on star trek. --Catout10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for using the 'c' word, but its a convient shorthand for cases like this. The key to refuting Cool Cat's point though is really the widely cited guideline Wikipedia:Notability. I know Star Trek is notable (and I'm a big fan), but the subject of this article, a very minor aspect of Star Trek, is not. Hundreds of perfectly verifyable non OR things are deleted for being non-notable everyday; there is no reason that Star Trek articles are exempt. (Note that I still have concerns that the article was an OR synthesis of technically verifyable facts, but I don't see the need to debate that for a thrid time.) Eluchil40415:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admiral ranks of the original series are as notable as TNG. No canon insignia is avalible, but secondary sources did cover it. Alleged warrant officer rank did appear on the show but what it really was was never revealed. I also believe lieutenant commander insignia from ST:Enterprise is also quote notable. These are some of the more obvious examples on how this article is notable. --Catout05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking into it, I think that the claim that this is WP:OR is invalid - if it is taken from a book published by the right people and not pieced together, then it's hardly original research. I don't care about "canon", and neither, IMO, should the encyclopedia - it's all about varying types of fiction (let Memory Alpha and similar who are trying to put together a coherent fictional world care about canon). As to whether WP:V/WP:RS factor into it, we run into a rather grey area when it comes to what that means for topics like this - for fiction, what counts as reliable? The topic is perhaps too ephemeral for us to come up with good guidelines for that (and we should reject canonicity out-of-hand, I think). I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia primarily because it's not notable (in the sense of having a greater importance to society), but think the WP:V/WP:RS arguments are questionable and the WP:OR argument is broken. --Improv06:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the closing rationale, please. This found that some was OR, some was not (and is therefore verifiable, so can go in Starfleet ranks and insignia), and the premise was such as to encourage OR - also that the premise implies a level of detail in excess of what might generally be expected (aka "cruft"). I really did go through the arguments in the AfD reading each and every one. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I am a bit tired of repeating the fact that a few referenced facts does not magiclally prevent an article from being comprised of conjecture and original research. Proto::►16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, while repeating the idea that the material be moved to someone's userspace (I volunteer my own) so that the nuggets of non-OR can be salvaged an integrated into Starfleet ranks and insignia (where we're right now having it out again as to what counts as a reliable source). --EEMeltonIV
Endorse deletion - I actually think the page should be merged, but if this gets formally overtuned, it's going back to AfD, and I'm really tired of seeing this going back and forth. However, I strongly support userfying this page so that we can see which sections can be merged into the main Starfleet ranks page. I also agree 100% with Geogre's "Urgh" comment above - the delete/keep mentality is a real problem. "Article contains OR" is a reason to delete that OR. It is not a reason to delete the whole article. On a different issue, I've seen a disturbing trend of judging an article's worth just by its title. Title and content are two totally separate questions. If an article's got a strongly POV title, but contains NPOV information, then just rename the bloody thing. If a subject simply isn't notable enough to exist on its own, or could promote OR, fine, delete the article - but only after merging any good contents into the article of a "parent topic". Quack 68805:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. If a merge is to be discussed article must be undeleted and the correct {{merge}} is to be observed. A merge wont happen unless history is preserved. As per GFDL I require entier history of my work to be preserved. I believe other editors of the article will agree with this. --Catout20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much rather the article stay deleted (and not have the ease of copy-and-paste to salvage useful nuggets) than to see it restored to the main wikispace. --EEMeltonIV20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR argument is completely broken, WP:V argument also is broken (as far as I care). Therefore the delete was without merit and was done inappropriately. I frankly find your approach disturbing. --Catout21:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MessedRocker's Beliefs - if it is this dubious, and is such an in-universe topic that there are few reliable sources for it, this is not worth our time. Let's just move on, okay? There are some articles that need writing -- the kind that can be written that won't cause pointless flamewars about exactly how original-researchy it is. ★MESSEDROCKER★21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MessedRocker's follow-up comment - From what I've read about this deletion review (over a nice hot bath), there have been arguments that at least a portion of the article constitutes original research. Cool Cat has told me, however, that the information in the article comes from officially sanctioned publications such as Star Trek Encyclopedia. While these ranks may not be canon, they still have some level of officialness. As such, that would make the article a potential notability problem, not a verifiability problem. There may be an original research problem; if the article takes its sources and derives new information, that would be original research. Administrators, please take a look at the deleted history of the article and see if there are any original research-related problems. I would greatly appreciate follow-up comments to this one. ★MESSEDROCKER★22:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was the exact problem with deleting the whole article in the first place.
- Statement: The rank Dogsbody appears in the tech manual, "Stuff".
- Verifiability: Anyone with access to the manual can confirm that this statement of fact is correct, and that the rank appears in the book. Therefore, it passes WP:V.
- Original Research: The rank is from a studio-endorsed source. It is not looted from a fan site, and it is not made up by a Wikipedia editor. Therefore, it passes WP:OR.
However, several people disagree with this line of reasoning. If the rank doesn't appear on screen, then you can say so, and say it's a non-canon rank. But I'm still waiting to hear how the above statement, in and of itself, is unverifiable, or constitutes original research. Quack 68801:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had no objection to Islamic scholars presenting their Quranic reasons against terrorism to make the article balanced as opposed to its outright deletion. This is just a food for thought, and I won't insist more or get angry for the deletion of the article.--Patchouli03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - afd process seems fine; no new substantive evidence presented. Do you have a complaint about the way the afd was closed, or do you have new supporting evidence of some kind? Otherwise, there's not much here at DRV for you. Bwithh06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - the closer, unfortunately, did not present any reasons for deletion - Most of the other arguments seem to be an obfuscated version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a bad article name (which is not a reason for deletion - it can be renamed), or that the article content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia (but that's not valid, because it's hard to piece together: I'll bet all information in the George W. Bush or monotheism article is somewhere else too). Among the many arguments for delete, there was only one who presented a valid reason: WP:OR (though I can't verify even that without seeing the article, and this too may have been an obfuscation). Finally, there is a reason to keep: this article is extremely notable, as worldwide there is a very large Islamic movement that advocates violence, and most of it quotes the Quran. -Patstuarttalk|edits18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have substantial content on Islam, the Koran and political violence in in e.g. Jihad, Criticism of the Qur'an, Militant Islam, and Islamic military jurisprudence. The major problem with the deleted article (which was the crux of the afd nominator's argument) is that the almost the entire article(googlecached version here) was based on the letters of one guy, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who attempted to run over people with a car (but managed to seriously hurt noone and almost immediately turned himself in to the police) at his university in North Carolina. This one, obscure guy - who apparently wasn't even a member of a militant Islamist group - is not a reliable or authoritative source for content for an article generalizing about how extremist Muslims interpret the Koran. Bwithh22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I think it is flapdoodle that Muslim nations make studying the Quran MANDATORY for all in public & private schools, tell the students that the contents thereof is definitely the word of God, and then when people obey, call the followers terrorist. I believe the article should be restore and developed to help non-Muslims see the entire picture.--Patchouli02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huge problem the Google cached version looks entirely different from what the article looked like when it was deleted on 20 December. I had added quite a bit of stuff to it.--Patchouli06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
This topic is already well-covered with more balance in Islamic military jurisprudence. Also, one translation version of one verse without context is not really particularly persuasive as an illustrative point. There are clearly multiple translations from the Arabic as well as multiple verses which qualify each other besides commenting on different aspects - as can be seen from the link above you provided. And fundamentalist readings of texts are always still intepretations/exegesis, so at least some commentary on discursive context is needed too. Bwithh13:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, being based entirely on a primary source and collating support for a particular point of view, inherently violates the non-negotiable WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. A particular favourite comment of mine in the AfD is "The word terror itself appears in Quran numerous times" - the Quran is written in Arabic and the word "terror" appears zero times. Translators may have used it, but only because they arbitrarily decided not to use "fear" or "horror" instead, and trying to make a connection between a 7th century Arabic book and the modern English term "terrorism" is ludicrous. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the debate was closed too soon. The rational that the simple majority of people listed was that it is a song on an album that was not released as a single, and therefore not notable. However, the song was prominently featured in the movie musical Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny. The scene where the song is performed has leaked on viral video sites, and has emerged as an unofficial music video for the band, one of the few high points for a film that was a box office failure. Milchama02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I set a redirect to The Pick of Destiny and restored the edit history behind it. I have no idea why this stuff gets listed at AfD, why editors !vote delete, and why admins close this as delete. Songs that are not notable by themselves routinely get redirected to the album they're on. ~ trialsanderrors03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: This is both a single on an album and a musical piece in a movie. The song's contextual relevance is significant enough that those who merely hear the song or see the video would be interested to hear it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellissound (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse redirection per trialsanderrosr. Ellissound's concerns can be met by having that information included in the article for the album. The inability of a particular song to qualify for its own article does not imply that the album article should not include content unique to that song, where referenced, applicable and appropriate. Serpent's Choice05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally called "linnaean lawn" when it was proposed for deletion. It was then moved to "fixity of the species", a more commonly used name but was still not notable enough for undeletion. Finally it was moved to fixity of species (14,500 ghits. 648 google book hits) and more was added to the article. The previous reasons for deletion are no longer present. See previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#fixity_of_the_species. NOTE the change in name, as well as new information on the article. Pbarnes18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an idea, rather than taking 5 seconds to read this topic and then replying your position, you actually go to the article look through it and make a valid decision of whether it should be deleted. Previous reasons for deletion:
Non-notable - "fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is reference in every biology text book I have ever read.
Non-encyclopedic - Contains adequate definition and quite a bit of history. It's no where near perfect but it's a start.
Contains Uncited Information - I listed a number of references that are both verifiable and reliable.
Or you could assume that I read the article. It's an aspect of creationism, as the sources make clear. A redirect would be unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, a redirect and deletion are not the same thing. If you want it merged into creationism, use the merge template...not a deletion template. Second, read this. Fixity of species is well known enough to have an article on it's own and what would be the point of making creationism more broad? Pbarnes20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different article with a different title. Grounds for previous deletion..."non-notable". Grounds for current deletion of "fixity of species"...I have no clue!!! 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits...what more do you want!!!Pbarnes19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - it has nothing to do with the number of google hits - the topic is basically a dictionary definition. Sure, it gets google hits, but there's nothing to write an article about (notwithstanding Pbarnes efforts to write an article about the history of evolution under that title). Changing the title of the article doesn't change the underlying reason for deletion. Guettarda20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority belief of pre-darwinian scientist cut down to "the topic is basically a dictionary definition"...I love it!!! Should flat earth and geocentrism be moved to witionary also? It's not like major topics like taxonomy are based on this notion of "fixity of species" or anything. Pbarnes20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion This is in my area of interest, but I must have missed it in AfD because of the short time there. I really cannot understand the rationale for making this invisible?
Comment - Please review the current article and type your opinion on whether you agree with the deletion or not. Try to keep your previous opinions of past versions of this article out of this review. The page is for the scientific assumption known as "fixity of the species" (15,100 ghits[2] - 648 google books[3]) and not a religious dogma which is called creationism. Thank you. Pbarnes04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion OK: taking the article at present, it is devoid of meaningful content. Darwin's changing religious position is very fully discussed in the article on him; the opinions of other biologists is also discussed there, and elsewhere --both parts in much more detail than here. The article is not biased, merely worthless. DGG04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Platt – Deletion endorsed – 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
First, I apologize for not knowing how to request this properly. I am not a Wikipedian. The article on the activist/comedian Steve Platt was not completed yet already showed its significance. A peer of Steve Platt tagged it for speedy deletion (which I felt was in itself an act of vandalism, but again, I do not know) and subsequently the article was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia administration to un-delete the article if they so choose.
Comment I have no access to the deleted article, but the history on the Talk page seems to show it was out there for well over two months, so I'm a little curious as to how the article was "not completed". Also, as was already said on the article Talk page, labeling the deletion tagging as vandalism violates WP:AGF. Fan-196719:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no notability even implied, the article has been around since September 20, it could have been fixed in the more than two months of its existence yet was not. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk)19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Unverified, failed to show notability despite being here for three months, plenty of time to verify and establish notability.--Dakota06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
